Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

To date, the optimal management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures remains unknown. Operatively, plate or nail fixation may be used. Nonoperatively, the options are sling or harness. Given the equivocal effectiveness between approaches, the costs to the health care system and the patient become critical considerations. A decision tree model was constructed to study plate and sling management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Primary analysis used 6 randomized controlled trials that directly compared open reduction and internal fixation with a plate to sling. Secondary analysis included 18 studies that studied either plate, sling, or both. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Second-order Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was subsequently conducted. In primary analysis, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000, operative management was found to be less cost-effective relative to nonoperative management, with an ICER of $606,957/QALY (0.03 additional QALYs gained for an additional $16,120). In PSA, sling management was cost-effective across all WTP ranges. In secondary analysis, the ICER decreased to $75,230/QALY. Primary analysis shows that plate management is not a cost-effective option. In secondary analysis, the incremental effectiveness of plate management increased enough that the calculated ICER is below the WTP threshold of $100,000; however, the strength of evidence in secondary analysis is lower than in primary analysis. Thus, because neither option is dominant in this model, both plate and sling remain viable approaches, although the cost-conscious decision will be to treat these fractures with a sling until future data suggest otherwise. [. 2022;45(5):e243-e251.].