Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
J Hand Surg Am. 2022 Jan;47(1):32-42.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.07.024. Epub 2021 Sep 20.
Digit replantation is a high-stakes procedure that has been shown to be cost-effective, especially for multiple-digit replantation. However, it is associated with prolonged lengths of stay (LOS) for monitoring and attempts at salvage. The cost-effectiveness of prolonged inpatient stays presumes that this is necessary and inherent to the replantation. We hypothesized that prolonged monitoring of replanted digits, in the hope of possible salvage after primary failure, is cost-ineffective due to the low rates of vascular compromise and salvage after replantation.
Using previously published data comparing quality adjusted life years lost after traumatic digit amputation versus digit replantation, we devised a cost utility model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of inpatient monitoring. To determine rates of vascular compromise and salvage after digit replantation, we performed a systematic review of the literature through MEDLINE and SCOPUS database searches to identify relevant articles on digital replantation since 1990. Cost-effectiveness was stratified based on the number of digits replanted.
Fewer than 9% of replanted digits both experience vascular compromise and are successfully salvaged. Adjusting for this, inpatient monitoring for single-digit and thumb replantation becomes cost-ineffective after 1 day of admission and monitoring for multiple-digit replantation becomes cost-ineffective after 2 days of admission.
In the United States, prolonged admissions for inpatient monitoring quickly become cost-ineffective, especially with relatively low rates of salvage. Surgeons should avoid extended hospitalizations for replant monitoring and should pursue enhanced recovery protocols for replantation, especially considering burgeoning health care costs in the United States.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/Decision Analysis III.
断指再植是一项高风险的手术,已被证明具有成本效益,尤其是对于多指再植。然而,它与监测和挽救尝试相关的住院时间(LOS)延长有关。延长住院时间的成本效益假设这是必要的,并且是再植固有的。我们假设,为了在初次失败后可能进行挽救,对再植指进行长时间监测是不经济的,因为再植后血管并发症和挽救的可能性较低。
我们使用先前发表的数据比较创伤性断指与断指再植后丧失的质量调整生命年,设计了一个成本效用模型来评估住院监测的增量成本效益比。为了确定断指再植后血管并发症和挽救的发生率,我们通过 MEDLINE 和 SCOPUS 数据库搜索对 1990 年以来的相关文章进行了系统回顾,以确定数字再植的相关文章。成本效益根据再植的手指数量进行分层。
不到 9%的再植手指同时发生血管并发症并成功挽救。根据这一点调整后,单指和拇指再植的住院监测在入院后 1 天就变得不经济,而多指再植的住院监测在入院后 2 天就变得不经济。
在美国,延长住院时间进行住院监测很快就变得不经济,尤其是挽救率相对较低。外科医生应避免为再植监测延长住院时间,并应寻求增强的再植恢复方案,特别是考虑到美国不断增长的医疗保健成本。
类型的研究/证据水平:经济/决策分析 III。