Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Finger Replantation Compared With Revision Amputation.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Traumatic digit amputation is the most common type of amputation injury, but the cost-effectiveness of its treatments is unknown.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of finger replantation compared with revision amputation.

Design, setting, and participants

This 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.

Exposures

Revision amputation or replantation of traumatic finger amputations.

Main outcomes and measures

Main 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.

Results

Of 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 relevance

With 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.

SUBMITTER: Yoon AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6902751 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Finger Replantation Compared With Revision Amputation.

Yoon Alfred P AP Mahajani Tanvi T Hutton David W DW Chung Kevin C KC

JAMA network open 20191202 12

<h4>Importance</h4>Traumatic digit amputation is the most common type of amputation injury, but the cost-effectiveness of its treatments is unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the cost-effectiveness of finger replantation compared with revision amputation.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This economic evaluation was conducted using data from the Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (FRANCHISE), a retrospective, multicente ...[more]

PMID: 31790567

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: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.

Project description:ObjectivesFresh-frozen allograft is the gold-standard bone graft material used during revision hip arthroplasty. However, new technology has been developed to manufacture decellularised bone with potentially better graft incorporation. As these grafts cost more to manufacture, the aim of this cost-effectiveness study was to estimate whether the potential health benefit of decellularised bone allograft outweighs their increased cost.Study designA Markov model was constructed to estimate the costs and the quality-adjusted life years of impaction bone grafting during a revision hip arthroplasty.SettingThis study took the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK.ParticipantsThe Markov model includes patients undergoing a revision hip arthroplasty in the UK.InterventionImpaction bone grafting during a revision hip arthroplasty using either decellularised bone allograft or fresh-frozen allograft.MeasuresOutcome measures included: total costs and quality-adjusted life years of both interventions over the lifetime of the model; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for both graft types, using base case parameters, univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic analysis.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case model was found to be £270 059 per quality-adjusted life year. Univariate sensitivity analysis found that changing the discount rate, the decellularised bone graft cost, age of the patient cohort and the revision rate all had a significant effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ConclusionsAs there are no clinical studies of impaction bone grafting using a decellularised bone allograft, there is a high level of uncertainty around the costs of producing a decellularised bone allograft and the potential health benefits. However, if a decellularised bone graft was manufactured for £2887 and lowered the re-revision rate to less than 64 cases per year per 10 000 revision patients, then it would most likely be cost-effective compared with fresh-frozen allograft.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures.DesignPragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.SettingHigh volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018.Participants140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision).InterventionsA computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure.Main outcome measuresThe primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups.ResultsThe mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4).ConclusionsAt 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Finger Replantation Compared With Revision Amputation.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Finger Replantation Compared With Revision Amputation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets