Peterson Kyle S, Lee Michael S, Buddecke Donald E
Des Moines University, College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, Des Moines, IA, USA.
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 May-Jun;49(3):242-7. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2010.02.019.
Compared with traditional open arthrodesis, arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis has been associated with similar rates of fusion, decreased time to union, decreased pain, shorter hospital stay, earlier mobilization, reliable clinical results, and fewer complications. The aim of this case-control study was to analyze cost differences between outpatient arthroscopic and inpatient open ankle arthrodesis. To this end, the authors analyzed 20 ankle arthrodesis procedures: 10 performed by one surgeon on an inpatient basis using an open approach, and 10 performed by another surgeon on an outpatient basis arthroscopically. Patient age, body mass index, tourniquet time, length of stay, complications, days to clinical union, and insurance type, as well as charges and reimbursements for the surgeons and the hospital or surgery center were abstracted from the records. Statistically significant differences were observed between the outpatient arthroscopic and inpatient open arthrodesis groups for total site charges ($3898 +/- 0.00 versus $32,683 +/- $12,762, respectively, P < .0001), reimbursement to the surgeon ($1567 +/- $320 versus $1107 +/- $278, respectively, P = .003), and reimbursement to the hospital or ambulatory surgery center ($1110 +/- $287 versus $8432 +/- $2626, respectively); the ratio of hospital/surgery center charges to hospital/surgery center reimbursements was 28.48% for the inpatient arthroscopic group and 25.80% for the inpatient open arthrodesis group. Outpatient arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis, compared with inpatient open ankle arthrodesis, appears to be less expensive for third party payers, and surgeons are paid more, whereas hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers get paid a greater proportion of the charges that they bill.
与传统开放性关节融合术相比,关节镜下踝关节融合术的融合率相似,愈合时间缩短,疼痛减轻,住院时间缩短,活动更早,临床效果可靠,并发症更少。本病例对照研究的目的是分析门诊关节镜下与住院开放性踝关节融合术之间的成本差异。为此,作者分析了20例踝关节融合手术:10例由一位外科医生采用开放入路在住院患者中进行手术操作,另10例由另一位外科医生在门诊患者中通过关节镜进行手术操作,并从记录中提取患者年龄、体重指数、止血带使用时间、住院时间、并发症、临床愈合天数、保险类型,以及外科医生和医院或手术中心的收费和报销情况。门诊关节镜组和住院开放关节融合组在总手术部位收费方面观察到具有统计学意义的差异(分别为3898美元±0.00与32683美元± 美元12762,P < .000);向外科医生的报销(分别为1657美元± 美元320与1107美元±278美元,P = .003),以及向医院或门诊手术中心的报销(分别为110美元± 美元276与美元8475± 美元2626);住院关节镜组的医院/手术中心收费与医院/手术中心报销的比率为28.48%,住院开放性关节融合组为25.80%。与住院开放性踝关节融合术相比,门诊关节镜下踝关节融合术对第三方支付方而言似乎成本更低,外科医生获得的报酬更高,而医院和门诊手术中心获得的收费报销比例更大。