Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of a Biodegradable Compared to a Titanium Fixation System in Maxillofacial Surgery: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Biodegradable fixation systems could reduce/delete the problems associated with titanium plate removal. This means less surgical discomfort, and a reduction in costs.

Aim

The aim of the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness between a biodegradable and a titanium system in Maxillofacial surgery.

Materials and methods

This multicenter RCT was performed in the Netherlands from December 2006 to July 2009. Included were 230 patients who underwent a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO), a Le Fort-I osteotomy, or a bi-maxillary osteotomy and those treated for fractures of the mandible, maxilla, or zygoma. The patients were randomly assigned to a titanium group (KLS Martin) or to a biodegradable group (Inion CPS). Costs were assessed from a societal perspective. Health outcomes in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were bone healing (8 weeks) and plate removal (2 years).

Results

In 25 out of the 117 patients who were randomized to the biodegradable group, the maxillofacial surgeon made the decision to switch to the titanium system intra-operatively. This resulted in an Intention-To-Treat (ITT-)analysis and a Treatment-Received (TR-) analysis. Both analyses indicated that operations performed with titanium plates and screws had better health outcomes. In the TR-analysis the costs were lower in the biodegradable group, in the ITT-analysis costs were lower in the titanium group.

Conclusion and discussion

The difference in costs between the ITT and the TR analyses can be explained by the intra-operative switches: In the TR-analysis the switches were analysed in the titanium group. In the ITT-analysis they were analysed in the biodegradable group. Considering the cost-effectiveness the titanium system is preferable to the biodegradable system in the regular treatment spectrum of mandibular, Le Fort-I, and zygomatic fractures, and BSSO's, Le Fort-I osteotomies and bimaxillary osteotomies.

Trial registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN 44212338.

SUBMITTER: van Bakelen NB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4507946 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To guide the selection of osteosynthesis systems, this study compared the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems. SonicPins Rx and xG were subjected to pull-out tests. Additionally, 15 biodegradable (Inion CPS 2.0 and 2.5 mm; LactoSorb 2.0 mm; Macropore 2.0 mm; Polymax 2.0 mm; BioSorb FX 2.0 mm; ResorbX 2.1 mm; Osteotrans-MX 2.0 mm with plate thicknesses 1.0 and 1.4 mm; SonicWeld Rxplate/Rxpins, xGplate/Rxpins and xGplate/xGpins 2.1 mm without and with tapping the burr hole) and six titanium (CrossDrive (2006), CrossDrive (2018), MaxDrive; all 1.5 and 2.0 mm) straight, four-hole osteosynthesis systems were evaluated. All systems were subjected to tensile, bending and torsion tests. Pull-out loads of the SonicPins were comparable (P = 0.423). Titanium systems' tensile loads were higher than biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive systems' tensile and torsional stiffness were lower, accompanied with higher ductility, than corresponding CrossDrive (2006) systems (P < 0.001). Bending stiffness of 1.5 mm titanium systems was comparable to, and of the 2.0 mm systems higher than, all biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). Regarding biodegradable systems, Inion CPS 2.5 mm had highest tensile load and torsional stiffness, SonicWeld 2.1 mm highest tensile stiffness, and BioSorbFX 2.0 mm highest bending stiffness (P < 0.001). On the basis of the results of this study, the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 1.5 mm titanium systems are recommended for midface fractures (e.g., zygomatic or maxillary fractures) and osteotomies (e.g., Le Fort I osteotomy), and the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 2.0 mm titanium systems for mandibular fractures and osteotomies when a titanium osteosynthesis system is used. When there is an indication for a biodegradable osteosynthesis system, the SonicWeld 2.1 mm or BioSorbFX 2.0 mm are recommended for midface fractures and osteotomies, and the Inion CPS 2.5 mm biodegradable system for mandibular osteotomies and non-load bearing mandibular fractures, especially when high torsional forces are expected (e.g., mandibular symphysis fractures).

Project description:The use of titanium during maxillofacial fixation is limited due to its palpability, mutagenic effects and interference with imaging, which lead to the requirement for subsequent removal. The use of a biologically absorbable fixation material will potentially eliminate these limitations. In this meta-analysis, we analyzed the complications of absorbable fixation in maxillofacial surgery.We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for trials published through December 2012. Data extracted from literature were analyzed with Review manager 5.0.24.Relevant data was extracted from 20 studies (1673 participants) and revealed that patients in the absorbable group had significantly more complications than those in the titanium group (RR = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.02-1.42; P = 0.03) in all enrolled maxillofacial surgeries. For bimaxillary operation subgroup, the absorbable fixation group did not have a significant increase in complications when compared with the titanium group (RR = 1.89; 95% CI: 0.85-4.22; P = 0.12). There was no significant difference observed between the absorbable and titanium groups receiving a bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) (RR = 1.45; 95% CI: 0.84-2.48; P = 0.18) and Le Fort I osteotomy (RR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.34-1.23; P = 0.18). The combined results of the five trials revealed that the absorbable group had a significantly lower rate of complications compared to the titanium group (RR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52-0.97; P = 0.03) in fracture fixation.This meta-analysis shows that absorbable fixation systems used for fixation in maxillofacial surgery do not have adequate safety profiles. Subgroup indicated the safety of absorbable fixation systems was superior during fracture fixation. The absorbable fixation systems tend to have a similar favorable safety profile as titanium fixation during Le Fort I, bimaxillary operation and BSSRO.

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:Background Chest wall disease is a common disease in thoracic surgery. For most chest wall lesions, surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment. Reconstruction is indicated for a wide range of chest wall defects. Currently, various reconstruction materials are used in clinic, including 3D printing materials and various types of metal materials. At present, most of the studies using titanium sternum-rib fixation system for reconstruction are case reports. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the experience to discuss our essential surgical techniques for treating various types of chest wall reconstruction with a titanium sternum-rib fixation system over the last 5 years. Case Description A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with chest wall tumors treated with a titanium sternum-rib fixation system in our center from 2016 to 2020. Chest wall reconstruction techniques, experiences, postoperative complications, and quality of life including chest discomfort, chronic pain, average time to return to normal life, chest wall deformity after resection for various types of chest wall tumors were analyzed. In this study, a total of 57 patients were successfully operated without chest wall deformity and return to daily life early. With an average of 2.3 ribs removed, including 10 procedures involving sternotomy and reconstruction and 3 procedures involving sternoclavicular joint resection and reconstruction. The follow-up time of the whole group ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Postoperative chest discomfort occurred in 6 patients during follow-up; 2 patients had chronic pain. The average time to return to normal life was 1.4 months. One patient developed a deformed depression of the chest wall, and 2 patients developed wound infections. There was no perioperative death. Conclusions In our clinical experience, the titanium sternum-rib fixation system is safe, effective, and feasible. The technique is straightforward. The early and middle postoperative curative effect is satisfactory and can be used clinically.

Project description:IntroductionPreoperative functional capacity is an important predictor of postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation aims to optimise patients' functional capacity before surgery to improve postoperative outcomes. As prolonged hospital stay and postoperative complications present an avoidable use of healthcare resources, prehabilitation might also save costs.The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation programmes for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care. The results will be useful to inform decisions about the implementation of prehabilitation programmes and the design of future economic evaluations of prehabilitation programmes.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for full or partial economic evaluations of preoperative prehabilitation programmes conducted in any population compared with usual preoperative care. Studies will be included regardless of the type, design and perspective of the economic evaluation, and their publication year, language or status. Initial searches were performed between 30 April and 4 May 2020.Study selection, data extraction and assessment of the included studies' risk of bias and methodological quality will initially be performed by two independent reviewers and, if agreement was sufficiently high, by one reviewer. We will extract data regarding the included studies' basic characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results.A narrative synthesis will be performed. The primary endpoint will be cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses. We will discuss heterogeneity between the studies and assess the risk of publication bias. The certainty of the evidence will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as the systematic review will not involve human participants. We plan to present our findings at scientific conferences, pass them on to relevant stakeholder organisations and publish them in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42020182813.