Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 6 | Pages 623 - 630
1 Jun 2024
Perry DC Dritsaki M Achten J Appelbe D Knight R Widnall J Roland D Messahel S Costa ML Mason J

Aims. The aim of this trial was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a soft bandage and immediate discharge, compared with rigid immobilization, in children aged four to 15 years with a torus fracture of the distal radius. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, as well as a broader societal point of view. Health resources and quality of life (the youth version of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y)) data were collected, as part of the Forearm Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) multicentre randomized controlled trial over a six-week period, using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Costs and health gains (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) were estimated for the two trial treatment groups. Regression was used to estimate the probability of the new treatment being cost-effective at a range of ‘willingness-to-pay’ thresholds, which reflect a range of costs per QALY at which governments are typically prepared to reimburse for treatment. Results. The offer of a soft bandage significantly reduced cost per patient (saving £12.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£5.30 to £19.80)) while QALYs were similar (QALY difference between groups: 0.0013 (95% CI -0.0004 to 0.003)). The high probability (95%) that offering a bandage is a cost-effective option was consistent when examining the data in a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. In addition to the known clinical equivalence, this study found that the offer of a bandage reduced cost compared with rigid immobilization among children with a torus fracture of the distal radius. While the cost saving was small for each patient, the high frequency of these injuries indicates a significant saving across the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):623–630


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1428 - 1434
1 Oct 2015
Clement ND Vats A Duckworth AD Gaston MS Murray AW

Controversy remains whether the contralateral hip should be fixed in patients presenting with unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). This retrospective study compares the outcomes and cost of those patients who had prophylactic fixation with those who did not.

Between January 2000 and December 2010 a total of 50 patients underwent unilateral fixation and 36 had prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip. There were 54 males and 32 females with a mean age of 12.3 years (9 to 16). The rate of a subsequent slip without prophylactic fixation was 46%. The risk of complications was greater, the generic health measures (Short Form-12 physical (p < 0.001) and mental (p = 0.004) summary scores) were worse. Radiographic cam lesions in patients presenting with unilateral SCFE were only seen in patients who did not have prophylactic fixation. Furthermore, prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip was found to be a cost-effective procedure, with a cost per quality adjusted life year gained of £1431 at the time of last follow-up.

Prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip is a cost-effective operation that limits the morbidity from the complications of a further slip, and the diminished functional outcome associated with unilateral fixation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1428–34.