Systematic Review Comparing Cost Analyses of Fasciectomy, Needle Aponeurotomy, and Collagenase Injection for Treatment of Dupuytren's Contracture: Une analyse de coûts systématique comparant la fasciectomie, l'aponévrotomie percutanée à l'aiguille et l'injection de collagénase pou traiter la maladie de Dupuytren.

PURPOSE

Surgeons now have a variety of treatment options for Dupuytren's contracture including traditional partial fasciectomy (PF), percutaneous needle aponeurotomy (PNA), and collagenase (CCH) injection. An important factor in clinical decision making is the cost-effectiveness of the various modalities, as will be discussed in this article.

METHODS

A literature search was performed by 2 independent reviewers. A total of 14 articles and 3 abstracts met inclusion criteria. Papers were excluded for non-English language, insufficient breakdown of costs by treatment type, promotional materials, or works-in-progress. Cost data were extracted and subsequently converted to US dollars. Weighted means were used to objectively pool data that were sufficiently similar in methodology and population.

RESULTS

Seven observational cohort studies were pooled and found to have a weighted mean cost in favour of PNA at US$3335 per patient as compared to CCH at US$3673.14 and PF at US$4734.14. Two expected-value decision analysis models were in agreement that PF is not cost-effective, but they differed on whether PNA or CCH was the most cost-effective strategy. Two cost minimization studies agreed that CCH was less costly than PF by US$486. One cost-benefit analysis found no significant cost benefit to CCH or PF, but found significant indirect benefit to CCH. Overall 10 of 17 studies found CCH to be superior with respect to direct cost, indirect cost, or both. Only 2 of the 17 studies found PF to be the most cost-effective method. Of the 7 studies that considered PNA, 4 found it to be lowest cost.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of studies found PF to be the most costly treatment modality; however, it is still the treatment of choice in certain clinical scenarios. It is difficult to compare CCH to PNA, as many studies did not consider PNA. More studies, especially considering indirect costs, are required to be able to accurately determine which method is most cost-effective.