Shauver Melissa J, Clapham Philip J, Chung Kevin C
Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5340, USA.
J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Dec;36(12):1912-8.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.09.039.
There is a lack of scientific data regarding which treatment provides the best outcome for distal radius fractures (DRFs) in the elderly. Currently, casting is used to treat the majority of these fractures, although open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been used increasingly in recent years. Given the recent emphasis on the wise use of medical resources, we conducted a cost-utility analysis to assess which of 4 common DRF treatments (casting, wire fixation, external fixation, or ORIF) optimizes the cost-to-patient preference ratio.
We created a decision tree to model the process of choosing a DRF treatment and experiencing a final outcome. Fifty adults aged 65 and older were surveyed in a time trade-off, one-on-one interview to obtain utilities for DRF treatments and possible complications. We gathered Medicare reimbursement rates and calculated the incremental cost-utility ratio for each treatment.
Participants rated DRF treatment relatively high, assigning utility values close to perfect health to all treatments. The ORIF was the most preferred treatment (utility, 0.96), followed by casting (utility, 0.94), wire fixation (utility, 0.94), and external fixation (utility, 0.93). The ORIF was the most expensive treatment (reimbursement, $3,516), whereas casting was the least expensive (reimbursement, $564). The incremental cost-utility ratio for ORIF, when compared to casting, was $15,330 per quality-adjusted life years, which is less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year, thereby indicating that, from the societal perspective, ORIF is considered a worthwhile alternative to casting.
There is a slight preference for the faster return to minimally restricted activity provided by ORIF. Overall, patients show little preference for one DRF treatment over another. Because Medicare patients pay similar out-of-pocket costs regardless of procedure, they are not particularly concerned with procedure costs. Considering the similar long-term outcomes, this study adds to the uncertainty surrounding the choice of DRF treatment in the elderly, further indicating the need for a high-powered, randomized trial.
关于何种治疗方法能为老年桡骨远端骨折(DRF)带来最佳治疗效果,目前缺乏科学数据。当前,大多数此类骨折采用石膏固定治疗,尽管近年来切开复位内固定术(ORIF)的应用越来越多。鉴于近期对合理使用医疗资源的重视,我们进行了一项成本效用分析,以评估四种常见的DRF治疗方法(石膏固定、钢丝固定、外固定或ORIF)中哪种能优化成本与患者偏好比率。
我们创建了一个决策树来模拟选择DRF治疗方法并获得最终结果的过程。对50名65岁及以上的成年人进行了时间权衡一对一访谈,以获取DRF治疗方法及可能并发症的效用值。我们收集了医疗保险报销率,并计算了每种治疗方法的增量成本效用比。
参与者对DRF治疗的评价相对较高,赋予所有治疗方法接近完全健康的效用值。ORIF是最受青睐的治疗方法(效用值为0.96),其次是石膏固定(效用值为0.94)、钢丝固定(效用值为0.94)和外固定(效用值为0.93)。ORIF是最昂贵的治疗方法(报销费用为3516美元),而石膏固定是最便宜的(报销费用为564美元)。与石膏固定相比,ORIF的增量成本效用比为每质量调整生命年15330美元,低于每质量调整生命年50000美元,因此从社会角度来看,ORIF被认为是石膏固定的一个值得选择的替代方法。
患者对ORIF能更快恢复到活动受限最小状态略有偏好。总体而言,患者对一种DRF治疗方法相对于另一种并没有明显偏好。由于医疗保险患者无论接受何种手术自付费用都相近,他们并不特别关注手术费用。考虑到长期结果相似,本研究增加了老年患者DRF治疗选择的不确定性,进一步表明需要进行一项大规模的随机试验。