Introduction. Motorised intramedullary lengthening nails are considered more expensive than external fixators for limb lengthening. This research aims to compare the cost of femoral lengthening in children using the PRECICE magnetic lengthening nail with external fixation. Materials and Methods. Patients: Retrospective analysis of 50 children who underwent femoral lengthening. One group included patients who were treated with PRECICE lengthening nails, the other group included patients who had lengthening with external fixation. Each group included 25 patients aged between 11–17 years. The patients in both groups were matched for age. Cost analysis was performed following micro-costing and analysis of the used resources during the different phases of the treatments. Results. : Each group's mean patient age was 14.7 years. Lengthening nails were associated with longer operative times compared to external fixators, both for implantation and removal surgery (P-value 0.007 and <0.0001 respectively). Length of stay following the implantation surgery, frequency of radiographs, frequency of outpatient department appointments were all more favourable with lengthening nails. The overall cost of lengthening nails was £1393 more than external fixators, although this difference was not statistically significant (P-value 0.088). Conclusions. The cost of femoral lengthening with lengthening nails was not significantly higher than the external fixators’ cost. Further research to review the effectiveness of the devices and the quality of life during the lengthening process is crucial for robust health economic evaluation

Introduction. The purpose of this research is to compare the quality of life in children during gradual deformity correction using external fixators with intramedullary lengthening nails. Materials and Methods. Prospective analysis of children during lower limb lengthening. Group A included children who had external fixation, patients in group B had lengthening nails. Patients in each group were followed up during their limb reconstruction. CHU-9D and EQ-5DY instruments were used to measure quality of life at fixed intervals. The first assessment was during the distraction phase (1 month postop.), the second was during the early consolidation phase (3 months postop.) and the final one was late consolidation phase (6–9 months depends on the frame time). Results. Group B patients reported significantly better utility compared to Group A. This was observed during all the stages of the treatment. Group B children were less worried (P 0.004), less sad (P 0.0001), less pain (p <0.0001), less tired (P 0.0002), better school work (P0.0041), better sleep (p 0.016), more able to do sports activities (p 0.004) and, they were more independent (p <0.0001) compared to group B. QALYS was better for the nails group compared to external fixation group 0.44 compared to 0.36 for external fixators. Conclusions. Lengthening nails had the potential to improve the quality of life and utility compared to external fixation. This will help further economic evaluation to measure ICER to further explore the cost effectiveness of these devices

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the MIS Anterolateral Approach to that of the MIS Posterolateral and MIS Direct Lateral Approach. Method. A prospective randomized control trial was designed and conducted to compare the MIS Anterolateral Approach to that of the MIS Posterolateral and MIS Direct Lateral Approach. Contemporary methods for economic evaluation were used to ascertain direct and indirect costs (in Canadian dollars) along with clinical effectiveness outcomes (SF6D and Pat5D utility measures). University and hospital ethics was obtained and patients were recruited and consented to participate in the RCT resulting in the assignment of 130 patients MIS hip arthroplasty procedures. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidity, quality of life, and utility were obtained for all patients. In-hospital costing data was obtained including operating room and patient room costs as well as medication, rehab and complications. Post-discharge costs were calculated from direct and indirect costs of medication, rehab, medical costs and complications until one year post-operatively. Clinical effectiveness measures were administered at intervals until one year post-operatively. Results. Patient groupings were similar pre-operatively with regards to demographic variables and quality of life measures (WOMAC, SF36, Pat5D). Post-operatively comparison of costs and complications were not different across the different surgical approaches (p>.05). Cost-effectiveness analyses (cost/QALY) were not statistically different (p>.05) when comparing the three MIS hip arthroplasty procedures. Conclusion. Primary total hip arthroplasty is a cost-effective surgical procedure and compares favorably with other health interventions. Our study is among the first to compare the cost-effectiveness of different MIS surgical approaches using contemporary methods of cost-effectiveness analyses. Our data suggests that the MIS Anterolateral approach is not superior to the MIS Posterolateral or MIS Direct Lateral approach with regards to cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Our economic evaluation was sensitive to early post-op complications including dislocation and re-operation. Surgeons should select an MIS approach based on criteria including technical preference, reliable implant placement, patient safety and complication minimization

Study design. Economic evaluation alongside a prospective, randomised, controlled trial from a two-year National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Objective. To determine the cost-effectiveness of Titanium Cages (TC) compared to Femoral Ring Allografts (FRA) in circumferential lumbar spinal fusion. Summary of background data. A randomised controlled trial has shown the use of TC to be clinically inferior to the established practice of using FRA in circumferential lumbar fusion. Health economic evaluation is needed to justify the continued use of TC, given that this treatment is less effective and, all things being equal, is assumed more costly than FRA. Methods. Eighty-three patients were randomly allocated to receive either the TC or FRA between 1998 and 2002. NHS costs related to the surgery and revision surgery needed during the trial period were monitored and adjusted to the base year (2005/6 pounds sterling). The Short Form-6D (SF-6D) was administered pre-operatively and at 6, 12 and 24 months in order to elicit patient utility and subsequently Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for the trial period. Return to paid employment was also monitored. Bootstrapped mean differences in discounted costs and benefits were generated in order to explore cost-effectiveness. Results. A significant cost difference of £1,942 (95% CI £849 to £3,145) in favour of FRA was found. Mean QALYs per patient over the 24 month trial period were 0.0522 (SD 0.0326) in the TC group and 0.1914 (SD 0.0398) in the FRA group, producing a significant difference of -0.1392 (95% CI 0.2349 to 0.0436). With regard to employment, incremental productivity costs were estimated at £185,171 in favour of FRA. Conclusion. From an NHS perspective, this data show that TC is not cost-effective in circumferential lumbar fusion. The use of FRA was both cheaper and generated greater QALY gains. FRA patients also reported a greater return to work rate

Aims

Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach.

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

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile and level of interest in the use, acceptability, safety, and effectiveness of virtual outpatient consultations and telemedicine. These models of care are not new but a number of challenges have so far hindered widespread take-up and endorsement of these ways of working. With the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, remote and virtual working and consultation have become the default. This paper explores our experience of and learning from virtual and remote consultation and questions how this experience can be retained and developed for the future.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):301–304.

Aims

This study presents patient-reported quality of life (QoL) over the first year following surgical debridement of long bone osteomyelitis. It assesses the bone involvement, antimicrobial options, coverage of soft tissues, and host status (BACH) classification as a prognostic tool and its ability to stratify cases into ‘uncomplicated’ or ‘complex’.

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.