This study compares the cost-effectiveness of
treating dorsally displaced distal radial fractures with a volar
locking plate and percutaneous fixation. It was performed from the
perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) using data from
a single-centre randomised controlled trial. In total 130 patients
(18 to 73 years of age) with a dorsally displaced distal radial
fracture were randomised to treatment with either a volar locking
plate (n = 66) or percutaneous fixation (n = 64). The methodology
was according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance
for technology appraisals. . There were no significant differences in quality of life scores
between groups at any time point in the study. Both groups returned
to baseline one year post-operatively. NHS costs for the plate group were significantly higher (p <
0.001, 95% confidence interval 497 to 930). For an additional £713,
fixation with a volar locking plate offered 0.0178 additional quality-adjusted
life years in the year after surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness
ratio (ICER) for plate fixation relative to percutaneous fixation
at list price was £40 068. When adjusting the prices of the implants
for a 20% hospital discount, the ICER was £31 898. Patients who
underwent plate fixation did not return to work earlier. We found no evidence to support the cost-effectiveness, from
the perspective of the NHS, of fixation using a volar locking plate
over percutaneous fixation for the operative treatment of a dorsally
displaced radial fracture. Cite this article:
We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed
by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom,
with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate
informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice.
After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%)
had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita),
Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question
the need for so many different products, especially with limited
published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that
there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised
trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the
use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice. Cite this article:
Patients with transfemoral amputation (TFA) often
experience problems related to the use of socket-suspended prostheses.
The clinical development of osseointegrated percutaneous prostheses
for patients with a TFA started in 1990, based on the long-term
successful results of osseointegrated dental implants. Between1999 and 2007, 51 patients with 55 TFAs were consecutively
enrolled in a prospective, single-centre non-randomised study and
followed for two years. The indication for amputation was trauma
in 33 patients (65%) and tumour in 12 (24%). A two-stage surgical
procedure was used to introduce a percutaneous implant to which
an external amputation prosthesis was attached. The assessment of
outcome included the use of two self-report questionnaires, the
Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA)
and the Short-Form (SF)-36. The cumulative survival at two years’ follow-up was 92%. The
Q-TFA showed improved prosthetic use, mobility, global situation
and fewer problems (all p <
0.001). The physical function SF-36
scores were also improved (p <
0.001). Superficial infection
was the most frequent complication, occurring 41 times in 28 patients
(rate of infection 54.9%). Most were treated effectively with oral
antibiotics. The implant was removed in four patients because of loosening
(three aseptic, one infection). Osseointegrated percutaneous implants constitute a novel form
of treatment for patients with TFA. The high cumulative survival
rate at two years (92%) combined with enhanced prosthetic use and
mobility, fewer problems and improved quality of life, supports
the ‘revolutionary change’ that patients with TFA have reported
following treatment with osseointegrated percutaneous prostheses. Cite this article:
