The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of human recombinant osteogenic protein 1 (rhBMP-7) for the treatment of fracture non-unions and to estimate the health economics aspect of its administration.

Twenty-four patients (18 males, mean age 39.1 (range 18-79)) with 25 fracture non-unions were treated with rhBMP-7 in our institution (mean follow-up 15.4 months (range 6-29)). Successful completion of treatment was defined as the achievement of both clinical and radiological union. The cost of each treatment episode was estimated including hospital stay, theatre time, orthopaedic implants, drug administration, investigations, clinic attendances, and physiotherapy treatments. The total cost of all episodes up to the point of receiving BMP-7 and similarly following treatment with BMP-7 were estimated and analysed.

Of the 25 cases, 21 were atrophic (3 associated with bone loss) and 4 were infected non-unions. The mean number of operations performed prior to rhBMP-7 application was 3.4, including autologous bone graft in 9 cases and bone marrow injection in one case. In 21 out of the 25 cases (84%), both clinical and radiological union occurred. Mean hospital stay before and after receiving rhBMP-7 was 26.84 days per fracture and 7.8 days per fracture respectively. Total cost of treatments prior to BMP-7 was £346,117 [£13,844.68 per fracture]. Costs incurred following BMP-7 administration were estimated as £183,460 [£7,338.4 per fracture].

rhBMP-7 was used as a bone stimulating agent with or without conventional bone grafting with a success rate of 84% in this series of patients with persistent fracture non-unions. The average cost of its application was £7,338 [53.0% of the total costs of previous unsuccessful treatment of non –unions, p<0.05). Treating non-union is costly, but the financial burden could be reduced by early rhBMP-7 administration when a complicated or persistent non-union is present or anticipated. Therefore, this study supports the view that rhBMP-7 is a safe and power adjunct to be considered in the surgeon's armamentarium for the management of such difficult cases.

The effect of head injury on systemic physiology, including bone healing is still a topic of vivid discussion. We aimed to investigate whether in patients with long bone fractures the presence of head injury is associated with excessive callus formation. Data on patients with head injury and femoral diaphyseal fracture admitted to our trauma unit between 1997- 2002 were collected and analysed. Patients with factors that could influence bone healing such as smoking, NSAIDs and hormonal disorders were excluded. The severity of head injury was quantified using GCS, AIS and CT scan reports. Patients matched for age, sex and ISS with femoral shaft fractures and no head injury formed the control group of the study. All the fractures were stabilised with reamed femoral nail. The quantification of fracture healing response was estimated by taking the radiological ratio of the largest diameter of callus formed into two planes and the adjacent normal diameter of femoral canal. The minimum follow-up of the patients was 12 months.

In total 42 patients were studied, 17 with head injury and femoral fracture and 25 with an isolated femoral fracture, (control group). Both groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, ISS. The difference between the mean callus to diaphyseal ratio was statistically significant for both the AP and Lateral projections (AP – mean difference 0.462, 95% CI 0.312 to 0.602, p<0.0001, LAT – mean difference 0.289, 95% CI 0.142 to 0.436, p<0.001) with the head injured patients having more florid callus compared to the control group.

This study supports the view that head injury leads to exuberant callus formation in patients with long bone fractures. The mechanisms of this response could be both central and local. Research is ongoing to elucidate the pathways involved in this biological phenomenon.

Guidelines on the care of the seriously injured have led to widespread changes in clinical practice. The ‘hub and spoke’ model of trauma care means increasing numbers of patients with complex problems are concentrated into regional centres. Though providing the highest standards of treatment, this has cost implications for the receiving unit, particularly given the Department of Health's move towards a ‘Payment by Results’ model of health provision. We undertook an economic evaluation of complex limb reconstruction within our tertiary referral unit.

Patients referred to the complex trauma service were identified. Patients were assigned to either a ‘complicated’ or ‘straightforward’ group by two consultant surgeons, based on the nature of their treatment. 5 cases from each group were randomly selected for further analysis. Data pertaining to the direct healthcare costs for these patients was analysed. Costs per investigation/intervention were obtained relating to hospital stay, outpatient care, operative interventions and investigations. Overall 26 patients were referred to our complex trauma service from other units over 6 months.

A mean of £8,375 (6,163) per patient was recouped using current Service Level Agreements. This amounts to a £26,587 deficit per patient, or £1,394,905 per year assuming current referral rates.

Those planning a service treating complex trauma must allow for the considerable costs involved and make provisions to recoup this from the referring Primary Care Trust.