Dataset Information

Cross-cultural variation in preference for replantation or revision amputation: Societal and surgeon views.

ABSTRACT: Treatment decisions after an injury like finger amputation are made based on injury and patient factors. However, decisions can also be influenced by provider and patient preferences. We compared hand surgeon and societal preferences and attitudes regarding finger amputation treatment in Japan and the US. We performed a cross-sectional survey with subjects derived from large tertiary care academic institutions in the US and Japan. We secured 100% participation of American hand surgeon members of the Finger Replantation and Amputation Multicenter Study and presenting hand surgeons at the 32nd Annual meeting of the Central Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand. Societal preferences were gathered from volunteers at the 2 universities in the US and Japan. There were no significant differences in estimations of function, sensation, or appearance after replantation; American and Japanese societal participants preferred replantation compared to surgeons, although this was more pronounced in Japan. The Japanese society displayed more negative attitudes toward finger amputees than did Japanese surgeons. American respondents anticipated more public stigmatisation of amputees than did American surgeons. Societal preference for replantation was not caused by inflated expectations of outcomes after replantation. Japanese societal preference was likely driven by negative views of finger amputees. American society noted no decrease in physical health after amputation, but did note a quality of life decrease attributed to public stigmatisation. Japanese society and surgeons had a stronger preference for replantation than American society and surgeons, possibly attributed to cultural differences.

SUBMITTER: Maroukis BL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4837039 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cross-cultural variation in preference for replantation or revision amputation: Societal and surgeon views.

Maroukis Brianna L BL Shauver Melissa J MJ Nishizuka Takanobu T Hirata Hitoshi H Chung Kevin C KC

Injury 20160302 4

Treatment decisions after an injury like finger amputation are made based on injury and patient factors. However, decisions can also be influenced by provider and patient preferences. We compared hand surgeon and societal preferences and attitudes regarding finger amputation treatment in Japan and the US. We performed a cross-sectional survey with subjects derived from large tertiary care academic institutions in the US and Japan. We secured 100% participation of American hand surgeon members of ...[more]

PMID: 26961436

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

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:ImportanceRisk-adjusted variation in surgeon outcomes has been traditionally explained by surgeon volume and hospital infrastructure, yet it is unclear how a surgeon's operative proficiency directly contributes to their patients' outcomes.ObjectiveTo assess the variation of surgeons' operative proficiency and investigate its association with surgical outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis case series was a retrospective analysis of all digit replantations and revascularizations at a single US university medical center between January 2000 and August 2020. Surgeons were assigned a proficiency score based on the expected procedure difficulty and outcomes from a sample of their cases. Surgeon proficiency scores were then used to determine associations with outcomes from subsequent cases. The expected difficulty of each case was calculated using a novel scoring system that applied pooled relative risks from a meta-analysis of risk factors for replantation and revascularization failure.ExposuresDigit replantation and revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresDigit survival at 1-month follow up (case success) and number of complications.ResultsA total of 145 patients and 226 digits were treated by 11 surgeons with training in hand or microsurgery (mean [SD] age, 41.9 [15.2] years; 204 [90%] men); there were 116 replantations and 110 revascularizations. Surgeon proficiency scores ranged from 1.3 to 5.7, with a mean (SD) of 3.4 (1.4). Case success rates among surgeons varied from 20.0% to 90.5%, with a mean (SD) of 64.9%. Higher proficiency scores were associated with fewer case failures: each point increase was associated with 40% decreased odds of failure (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94). Every 3-point increase in proficiency score was associated with 1 less complication (effect estimate, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.02). Surgeon proficiency score had a greater association with case failure than surgeon volume (16.7% vs 12.0%). The final model's association with case failure had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.93.Conclusions and relevanceOperative proficiency varied widely among practicing surgeons and accounted for 17% of estimative ability for success of digit replantation and revascularization. Greater surgeon proficiency was associated with better outcomes, indicating that the value of surgical care may be optimized by improving surgeon proficiency.

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Surgeon survey. OBJECTIVE:To examine factors influencing surgeons' definition of instability in grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and assess treatment preferences for both stable and unstable DS. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:DS treatment options are broadly classified as decompression with or without fusion. In surgical decision-making, "instability" is frequently considered as a key factor. However, no consensus on the definition of instability exists. METHODS:A survey was conducted to ascertain the minimum amounts of static translation, dynamic translation, and angulation change that surgeons considered significant for determining instability. The importance of other clinical and radiographic features were also assessed, and respondents' standard treatment for stable and unstable DS. RESULTS:Out of 226 respondents, 99% deemed dynamic translation moderately to extremely influential for determining instability, whereas only 55% found static translation as important. The most prevalent cut-off values for dynamic (57%) and static translation (32%) were at least 2-4?mm and for angulation change at least 10-15 degrees (43%). Facet angulation was considered moderately to extremely important to determine instability by 69% of the surgeons, disk height by 67%, patient age by 64%, severity of stenosis by 55%, severity of back pain by 50%, patient-reported function by 49%, pelvic incidence by 47%, and severity of neurogenic claudication by 42%.Decompression with fusion was the preferred treatment method for unstable DS in 99% of the respondents. For stable DS, 40% would still perform fusion, whereas 60% preferred treatment with decompression-alone. Those who preferred fusion for stable DS reported significantly lower thresholds for static (P<0.001) and dynamic translation (P=0.004) for their determination of instability. CONCLUSIONS:Clear consensus regarding the definition of instability does not exist. Dynamic translation is the most agreed-upon parameter of influence. Treatment preferences vary for stable DS, but for unstable cases there is broad consensus to perform fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level II.

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

Cross-cultural variation in preference for replantation or revision amputation: Societal and surgeon views.

Publications

Cross-cultural variation in preference for replantation or revision amputation: Societal and surgeon views.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets