Dataset Information

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries across a spectrum of injury scenarios.The study was conducted from the societal perspective. Decision tree models were created for the reference case (two-finger amputation injury) and seven additional injury scenarios for comparison. Inputs included cost, quality of life, and probability of each health state. A Web-based time trade-off survey was created to determine quality-adjusted life-years for health states; 685 nationally representative adult community members were invited to participate in the survey. Overall cost and quality-adjusted life-years for revision amputation and replantation were calculated for each decision tree. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated if a treatment was more costly but more effective.The authors had a 64 percent response rate (n = 437). Replantation treatment had greater costs and quality-adjusted life-years compared with revision amputation in all injury scenarios. Replantation of single-digit injuries had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($136,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Replantation of three- and four-digit amputation injuries had relatively low cost-to-benefit ratios ($27,100 and $23,800 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Replantation for distal thumb amputation had a relatively low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($26,300 per quality-adjusted life-year) compared with replantation of nonthumb distal amputations ($60,200 per quality-adjusted life-year).The relative cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with replantation treatment varied greatly among the injury scenarios. Situations in which indications for replantation are debated had higher cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This study highlights variability in value for replantation among different injury scenarios.

SUBMITTER: Sears ED

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4154255 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries.

Sears Erika Davis ED Shin Ryan R Prosser Lisa A LA Chung Kevin C KC

Plastic and reconstructive surgery 20140401 4

<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries across a spectrum of injury scenarios.<h4>Methods</h4>The study was conducted from the societal perspective. Decision tree models were created for the reference case (two-finger amputation injury) and seven additional injury scenarios for comparison. Inputs included cost, quality of life, and probability of each health state. ...[more]

PMID: 24352209

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTraumatic digit amputation is the most common type of amputation injury, but the cost-effectiveness of its treatments is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of finger replantation compared with revision amputation.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was conducted using data from the Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (FRANCHISE), a retrospective, multicenter cohort study at 19 centers in the United States and Asia that enrolled participants from August 1, 2016, to April 12, 2018. Model variables were based on the FRANCHISE database, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and published literature. A total of 257 participants with unilateral traumatic finger amputations treated with revision amputation or replantation distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint and at least 1 year of follow-up after treatment were included in the analysis.ExposuresRevision amputation or replantation of traumatic finger amputations.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs (in US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY was used to assess cost-effectiveness.ResultsOf the 257 study participants (mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.9] years; 221 [86.0%] male), 178 underwent finger replantation and 79 underwent revision amputation. In a base case of a 46.7-year-old patient, replantation was associated with QALY gains of 0.30 (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.72 to 1.38) for single-finger (not thumb), 0.39 (95% CrI, -1.00 to 1.90) for thumb, 1.69 (95% CrI, -0.13 to 3.76) for multifinger excluding thumb, and 1.27 (95% CrI, -2.21 to 5.04) for multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Corresponding ICERs for replantation compared with revision amputation were $99 157 per QALY for single-finger (not thumb), $66 278 per QALY for thumb, $18 388 per QALY for multifinger excluding thumb, and $21 528 per QALY for multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Sensitivity analysis revealed that age at time of injury, life expectancy, postinjury utility, wages, and time off work for recovery had the strongest associations with cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed the following chances of replantation being cost-effective: 47% in single-finger (not thumb), 52% in thumb, 78% in multifinger excluding thumb, and 64% in multifinger including thumb injury patterns.Conclusions and relevanceWith proper patient selection, replantation of all finger amputation patterns, whether single-finger or multifinger injuries, may be cost-effective compared with revision amputation. Multifinger replantations had a higher probability of being cost-effective than single-finger replantations. Cost-effectiveness may depend on injury pattern and patient factors and thus appears to be important for consideration when patients and surgeons are deciding whether to replant or amputate.

Project description:Fingertip amputation injuries are common in all ages. Conservatively treated fingertips can regenerate skin and soft tissues to form a functionally and cosmetically excellent new fingertip. Little is known about this ability that, in humans, is confined to the fingertips. Even less is known about the role of the bacteria that regularly colonize these wounds without negative impact on regeneration and healing.As an alternative to surgery, self-adhesive film dressings are commonly used to establish a wet chamber around the injury. These dressings leak malodorous wound fluid eventually until the wound is dry. Having that into consideration, we have therefore developed a silicone finger cap that forms a mechanically protected, wet chamber around the injury for optimal regeneration conditions. It contains a puncturable reservoir for excess wound fluid, which can be thus routinely analyzed for diagnostic and research purposes.This study protocol explains the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the semiocclusive treatment of fingertip amputations in both children and adults comparing traditional film dressings with the novel silicone finger cap. Being the first RCT using 2 medical devices not yet certified for this indication, it will gather valuable information for the understanding of fingertip regeneration and the design of future definitive studies.By employing an innovative pseudo-cross-over-design with a dichotomous primary endpoint based on patients preference, this pilot study will gain statistically significant data with a very limited sample size. Our RCT will investigate acceptance, safety, effectiveness, and efficacy of this novel medical device while gathering information on the clinical course and outcome of conservatively treated fingertip injuries. A total of 22 patients older than 2 years will be randomly assigned to start the conservative treatment with either the traditional film-dressing or the novel finger cap. The treatment will be changed to the other alternative for another 2 weeks before the patient or the guardian is confronted with the decision of which method they would prefer for the rest of the treatment (if required).Ethical approval (EK 148042015) of the study protocol has been obtained from Institutional Review Board at the TU Dresden. The trial is registered at the European Database on Medical Devices (EUDAMED-No.: CIV-15-03-013246) and at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03089060).

Project description:PurposeTraumatic digit amputations have an adverse impact on patients' daily living. Despite experts advocating for digit replantation, studies have shown a continued decrease in rate of replantation. We performed a national-level investigation to examine the recent trend of practice for digital replantation.MethodsWe used the National Inpatient Sample database under the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project to select adult patients with traumatic digit amputation from 2001 to 2014. We calculated the rate of attempted and rate of successful digit replantation per year, subcategorizing for digit type (thumb or finger) and for hospital type (rural, urban nonteaching, or urban teaching). We also analyzed the pattern of distribution of case volume to each hospital type per year. We used 2 multivariable logistic regression models to investigate patient demographic and hospital characteristics associated with the odds of replantation attempt and success.ResultsAmong the 14,872 adult patients with a single digit amputation from 2001 to 2014, only 1,670 (11.2%) underwent replantation. The rate of replantation attempt trended down over the years for both thumb and finger injuries at all hospital types, despite increasing proportions of cases being sent to urban teaching hospitals where they were more than twice as likely to undergo replantation. The rate of successful replantation stayed stable for the thumb at 82.9% and increased for fingers from 76.1% to 82.4% over the years. Patients were more likely to undergo replantation if they had private insurance or a higher level of income. Neither hospital case volume nor hospital type was predictive of successful replantation.ConclusionsAlthough more single-digit amputations were treated by urban teaching hospitals with higher likelihood to replant, the downward trend in rate of attempt regardless of hospital type demonstrates that concentration of case volume is not the solution to reverse the declining trend.Clinical relevanceFinancial aspects of digit replantation need to be considered from both the patients' and the surgeons' perspectives to improve delivery of care for digit replantation.

Project description:ImportanceGiven that 40% of hand function is achieved with the thumb, replantation of traumatic thumb injuries is associated with substantial quality-of-life benefits. However, fewer replantations are being performed annually in the US, which has been associated with less surgical expertise and increased risk of future replantation failures. Thus, understanding how interfacility transfers and hospital characteristics are associated with outcomes warrants further investigation.ObjectiveTo assess the association of interfacility transfer, patient characteristics, and hospital factors with thumb replantation attempts and success.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data from the US National Trauma Data Bank from 2009 to 2016 for adult patients with isolated traumatic thumb amputation injury who underwent revision amputation or replantation. Data analysis was performed from May 4, 2020, to July 20, 2020.ExposuresInterfacility transfer, defined as transfer of a patient from 1 hospital to another to obtain care for traumatic thumb amputation.Main outcomes and measuresReplantation attempt and replantation success, defined as having undergone a replantation without a subsequent revision amputation during the same hospitalization. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to assess the associations of interfacility transfer, patient characteristics, and hospital factors with replantation outcomes.ResultsOf 3670 patients included in this analysis, 3307 (90.1%) were male and 2713 (73.9%) were White; the mean (SD) age was 45.8 (16.5) years. A total of 1881 patients (51.2%) were transferred to another hospital; most of these patients were male (1720 [91.4%]) and White (1420 [75.5%]). After controlling for patient and hospital characteristics, uninsured patients were less likely to have thumb replantation attempted (odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.78) or a successful replantation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84). Interfacility transfer was associated with increased odds of replantation attempt (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.59), with 13% of the variation at the hospital level. Interfacility transfer was also associated with increased replantation success (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47), with 14% of variation at the hospital level.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, interfacility transfer and particularly hospital-level variation were associated with increased thumb replantation attempts and successes. These findings suggest a need for creating policies that incentivize hospitals with replantation expertise to provide treatment for traumatic thumb amputations, including promotion of centralization of replantation care.

Dataset Information

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries.

Publications

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets