BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating displaced, intra-articular distal radial fractures with volar locking plate fixation compared with augmented external fixation.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a randomized, clinical trial comparing 2 surgical interventions for intra-articular distal radial fractures. One hundred and sixty-six patients were allocated to either volar locking plate fixation (84 patients) or external fixation (82 patients) and were followed for 2 years. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and was used to calculate patients' quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Resource use was identified prospectively at the patient level at all follow-up intervals. Costs were estimated with use of both a health-care perspective and a societal perspective. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and uncertainty was assessed with use of bootstrapping methods.

RESULTS

The average QALY value was equivalent between the groups (1.70463 for the volar locking plate group and 1.70726 for the external fixation group, yielding a nonsignificant difference of -0.00263 QALY). Health-care costs were equal between the groups, with a nonsignificant difference of &OV0556;52 (p = 0.8) in favor of external fixation. However, the external fixation group had a higher loss of productivity due to absence from work (5.5 weeks in the volar locking plate group compared with 9.2 weeks for the external fixation group; p = 0.02). Consequently, the societal costs were higher for the external fixation group compared with the volar locking plate group (&OV0556;18,037 compared with &OV0556;12,567, representing a difference of &OV0556;5,470; p = 0.04) in favor of the volar locking plate group. Uncertainty analyses showed that there is indifference regarding which method to recommend from a health-care perspective, with volar locking plate treatment and external fixation having a 47% and 53% likelihood of being cost-effective, respectively. From the societal perspective, volar locking plate treatment had a 90% likelihood of being cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

External fixation was less cost-effective than volar locking plate treatment for distal radial fractures from a societal perspective, primarily because patients managed with external fixation had a longer absence from work.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.