Dataset Information

Finger Replantation Optimization Study (FRONT): Update on National Trends.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Traumatic 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. METHODS:We 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. RESULTS:Among 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. CONCLUSIONS:Although 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 RELEVANCE:Financial aspects of digit replantation need to be considered from both the patients' and the surgeons' perspectives to improve delivery of care for digit replantation.

SUBMITTER: Cho HE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6176738 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Finger Replantation Optimization Study (FRONT): Update on National Trends.

Cho Hoyune E HE Zhong Lin L Kotsis Sandra V SV Chung Kevin C KC

The Journal of hand surgery 20181001 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>Traumatic 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.<h4>Methods</h4>We used the National Inpatient Sample database under the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project to select adult patients with traumatic digit amputation from 2001 t ...[more]

PMID: 30286850

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:Background and objectiveDigital replantation for traumatic amputation has become the standard of care with advances in microsurgical techniques and technology. While digital replantation has progressed significantly, there are still gaps in knowledge in many aspects. Some of the controversial topics in digital replantation include the indications and contraindications, anesthesia, number of vessel anastomoses, mechanism of injury, role of vein graft, distal fingertip replantation, and postoperative management. This article is a narrative review that discusses these controversies and current issues pertaining to digital replantation.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar were searched using keywords relating to "digit replantation", "amputation", and "digital replant" with the following terms: "indications", "contraindications", "anaesthesia", "survival", "vessels", "mechanism of injury", "vein graft", "outcome", and "thrombophylaxis". Relevant articles pertaining to digital replantation and deemed by the authors as current or controversial were included.Key content and findingsThe reported survival rates of digital replantation are high. With the advancement of microsurgical techniques and technology, the boundaries of digital replantation continue to be pushed. Various methods have been described recently to improve the success rates of difficult replants, such as strategies for venous outflow and vein grafting. However, there are still aspects of digital replantation that remain unanswered, such as the number of veins to anastomose and the thromboprophylaxis regime.ConclusionsThe review delves into controversial aspects of digital replantation, including contraindications, anesthesia, and postoperative management. Indications and contraindications will continue to evolve alongside advancements in microsurgical techniques and anesthesia. It highlights key factors influencing survival rates, such as the number of repaired vessels and the mechanism of injury. Finally, the review consolidates strategies for managing challenging digital replantations.

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:Objective: This study aimed to identify the transcriptome profiles from periodontal tissues of replanted teeth and evaluate the functional differences of transcriptomes between immediate replantation and delayed replantation in a rat teeth avulsion animal model. Background: In dental avulsion, the prognosis of replanted teeth is hardly favorable in delayed replantation. After tooth replantation, complex inflammatory responses occur to return homeostasis in periodontal tissue. Various types of cytokines are produced in inflammatory microenvironment and these cytokines determine the periodontal tissue responses. Methods: Maxillary first molars of Sprague–Dawley rats were extracted and exposed to dry environment, then replanted. The animals were divided into two groups according to extra–oral time: immediate replantation group (dry for 5 min) and delayed replantation (dry for 60 min). Either 3 or 7 days after replantation, the animals were sacrificed. The palatal gingival tissues were harvested for mRNA–sequencing. Hallmark gene set enrichment analysis were performed to predict the function of transcriptomes. Normalized enrichment score (NES) was generated to determine the functional differences between the groups. Results: Hallmark gene sets enriched in delayed replantation at 3 days were oxidative phosphorylation (NES=2.82, q < 0.001) and TNF–α signaling via NF–κB pathway (NES= 1.52, q=0.034). At 7 days, TNF–α signaling via NF–κB pathway (NES=–1.82, q=0.002), angiogenesis (NES=–1.66, q =0.01), and TGF–β signaling pathway (NES=–1.46, q=0.051) were negatively highlighted in delayed replantation compared to immediate replantation. Conclusions: Transcriptome profiles were significantly different between immediate replantation and delayed replantation. The responses of periodontal tissues were associated with TNF–α signaling via NF–κB pathway. However, the enrichment score of this pathway were changed with time–dependent manner between immediate replantation and delayed replantation.

Dataset Information

Finger Replantation Optimization Study (FRONT): Update on National Trends.

Publications

Finger Replantation Optimization Study (FRONT): Update on National Trends.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets