Farber Scott J, Snyder-Warwick Alison K, Skolnick Gary B, Woo Albert S, Patel Kamlesh B
From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Ann Plast Surg. 2016 Sep;77(3):305-7. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000592.
Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) can be performed using various techniques. Two common approaches used are arch bars and bone screws. Arch bars are the gold standard and inexpensive, but often require increased procedure time. Bone screws with wire fixation is a popular alternative, but more expensive than arch bars. The differences in costs of care, complications, and operative times between these 2 techniques are analyzed.
A chart review was conducted on patients treated over the last 12 years at our institution. Forty-four patients with CPT code 21453 (closed reduction of mandible fracture with interdental fixation) with an isolated mandible fracture were used in our data collection. The operating room (OR) costs, procedure duration, and complications for these patients were analyzed.
Operative times were significantly shorter for patients treated with bone screws (P < 0.002). The costs for one trip to the OR for either method of fixation did not show any significant differences (P < 0.840). More patients with arch bar fixation (62%) required a second trip to the OR for removal in comparison to those with screw fixation (31%) (P < 0.068). This additional trip to the OR added significant cost. There were no differences in patient complications between these 2 fixation techniques.
The MMF with bone screws represents an attractive alternative to fixation with arch bars in appropriate scenarios. Screw fixation offers reduced costs, fewer trips to the OR, and decreased operative duration without a difference in complications. Cost savings were noted most significantly in a decreased need for secondary procedures in patients who were treated with MMF screws. Screw fixation offers potential for reducing the costs of care in treating patients with minimally displaced or favorable mandible fractures.
可采用多种技术进行颌间固定(MMF)。两种常用方法是牙弓夹板和骨螺钉。牙弓夹板是金标准且价格低廉,但通常需要延长手术时间。带钢丝固定的骨螺钉是一种流行的替代方法,但比牙弓夹板更昂贵。分析了这两种技术在护理成本、并发症和手术时间方面的差异。
对本机构过去12年治疗的患者进行病历回顾。我们的数据收集使用了44例CPT编码为21453(下颌骨骨折闭合复位伴牙间固定)且为孤立性下颌骨骨折的患者。分析了这些患者的手术室(OR)成本、手术持续时间和并发症。
使用骨螺钉治疗的患者手术时间明显更短(P < 0.002)。两种固定方法单次手术室费用无显著差异(P < 0.840)。与螺钉固定患者(31%)相比,更多牙弓夹板固定患者(62%)需要再次前往手术室进行拆除(P < 0.068)。这次额外的手术室之行增加了显著成本。这两种固定技术在患者并发症方面没有差异。
在适当情况下,使用骨螺钉进行颌间固定是牙弓夹板固定的一种有吸引力的替代方法。螺钉固定成本更低,减少了前往手术室的次数,缩短了手术持续时间,且并发症无差异。在接受颌间固定螺钉治疗的患者中,二次手术需求减少最显著地节省了成本。螺钉固定在治疗轻度移位或有利的下颌骨骨折患者时具有降低护理成本的潜力。