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. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a commonly performed surgical procedure for the treatment of hip arthritis. Approximately 50,000 THAs are performed annually in Canada. The costs incurred to the healthcare system are tremendous, amounting to anywhere between 4.3 and 7.3 billion dollars each year. Despite the substantial financial burden of THA to the Canadian healthcare system, few studies have provided accurate cost estimations of this procedure. Purpose. To determine the impact of surgical approach on costs of THA from a hospital perspective, and provide an updated cost estimation of THA within a publically funded healthcare system. Methods. We recruited patients undergoing a THA through an anterior, posterior, or lateral approach for study participation. A single surgeon was designated to perform every case using the surgical approach of their expertise. Each patient received standardized implants: a collared, hydroxyapatite-coated, cementless femoral stem (Corail TM stem, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., Warsaw, IN), a cementless acetabular cup (Pinnacle Sector II TM acetabular cup, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., Warsaw, IN), a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner (AltrX TM polyethylene liner, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., Warsaw, IN), and a cobalt chrome femoral head (Articul/eze TMcobalt chrome, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., Warsaw, IN). We prospectively recorded costs of operating room time, length of stay in hospital, and medical and surgical interventions using a micro-costing method. Group comparisons were performed using Pearson's Chi-square and one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), with post-hoc testing when necessary. All costs were reported in 2013 Canadian dollars. Results. One-hundred and eighteen patients (40 anterior, 38 posterior, and 40 lateral) completed the study. All three groups were similar with regards to age (p=0.79), sex (p=0.97), and body mass index (p=0.54). Mean operating room time was significantly shorter for the lateral (49.0 minutes, 95%CI 46.5 – 51.5) versus anterior (69.3 minutes, 95%CI 66.0 – 72.6, p<0.001) and posterior approach (61.6 minutes, 95%CI 57.5 – 65.5, p<0.001). Mean length of stay was shorter for the anterior (33.9 hours, 95%CI 29.6 – 38.2) compared to the posterior (65.8 hours, 95%CI 56.8 – 74.8, p<0.001) and lateral approach (64.2 hours, 95%CI 56.7 – 71.7, p<0.001). The operating room costs were significantly higher for the anterior versus posterior (p=0.008) and lateral approach (p<0.001, figure 1). The total inpatient costs were significantly for the anterior versus posterior and lateral approach (p<0.001 for both pair-wise comparisons, figure 2). Total costs were significantly less for the anterior ($7300.22, 95%CI 7064.49 – 7535.95) versus posterior ($8287.46, 95%CI 7906.41 – 8668.51, p<0.001) and lateral approach ($7853.10, 95%CI 7577.29 – 8128.91, p=0.031). Discussion / Conclusion. Total costs for THA were significantly less when performed using an anterior approach. A reduction in hospital length of stay contributed significantly to an overall reduction in costs from a hospital perspective. Future analyses will determine the cost-effectiveness of the anterior approach from both a hospital and societal perspective