Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  18 (2023)
Volume  17 (2022)
Volume  16 (2021)
Volume  15 (2020)
Volume  14 (2019)
Volume  13 (2018)
Volume  12 (2017)
Volume  11 (2016)
Volume  10 (2015)
Volume  9 (2014)
Volume  8 (2013)
Volume  7 (2012)
Volume  6 (2011)
Volume  5 (2010)
Volume  4 (2009)
Volume  3 (2008)
Volume  2 (2007)
Volume  1 (2006)
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

How Much Does Paediatric Femoral Lengthening Cost? A Cost Comparison between Magnetic Lengthening Nails and External Fixators

Mohamed Hafez, Nicolas Nicolaou, Amaka Offiah, Phillips Obasohan, Simon Dixon, Stephen Giles, Sanjeev Madan, James Alfred Fernandes

Keywords : Cost analysis, Distraction osteogenesis, External fixator lengthening, Femoral lengthening, Hybrid lengthening, Intramedullary lengthening, Lengthening nail, Limb lengthening, Motorised implantable nail, Short stature

Citation Information : Hafez M, Nicolaou N, Offiah A, Obasohan P, Dixon S, Giles S, Madan S, Fernandes JA. How Much Does Paediatric Femoral Lengthening Cost? A Cost Comparison between Magnetic Lengthening Nails and External Fixators. 2023; 18 (1):16-20.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1573

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Published Online: 31-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: Motorised intramedullary lengthening nails are considered more expensive than external fixators for limb lengthening. This research aims to compare the cost of femoral lengthening in children using the PRECICE magnetic lengthening nail with external fixation. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 50 children who underwent femoral lengthening. One group included patients who were treated with PRECICE lengthening nails, the other group included patients who had lengthening with external fixation. Each group included 25 patients aged between 11 and 17 years. The patients in both groups were matched for age. Cost analysis was performed following micro-costing and analysis of the used resources during the different phases of the treatments. Results: Each group's mean patient age was 14.7 years. Lengthening nails were associated with longer operative times compared with external fixators, both for implantation and removal surgery (p-values of 0.007 and < 0.0001, respectively). Length of stay following the implantation surgery, frequency of radiographs and frequency of outpatient department appointments were all lower with lengthening nails. The overall cost of lengthening nails was £1393 more than external fixators, however, this difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.088). Conclusion: The difference in the mean costs between femoral lengthening with lengthening nails versus external fixators was not statistically significant. Further research to review the effectiveness of the devices and the quality of life during the lengthening process is crucial for robust health economic evaluation.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Birch JG. A brief history of limb lengthening. J Pediatr Orthop 2017;37(Suppl 2):S1–S8. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001021.
  2. Paley D. PRECICE intramedullary limb lengthening system. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015;12(3):231–249. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2015.1005604.
  3. Calder PR, Laubscher M, Goodier WD. The role of the intramedullary implant in limb lengthening. Injury 2017;48(Suppl 1):S52–S58. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.028.
  4. Eltayeby HH, Alrabai HM, Jauregui JJ, et al. Post-retrieval functionality testing of PRECICE lengthening nails: The “Sleeper” nail concept. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2021;14:151–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.06.005.
  5. Laubscher M, Mitchell C, Timms A, et al. Outcomes following femoral lengthening. Bone Joint J 2016;98B(10):1382–1388. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.36643.
  6. Szymczuk VL, Hammouda AI, Gesheff MG, et al. Lengthening with monolateral external fixation versus magnetically motorized intramedullary nail in congenital femoral deficiency. J Pediatr Orthop 2019;39(9):458–465. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001047.
  7. Black SR, Kwon MS, Cherkashin AM, et al. Lengthening in congenital femoral deficiency: A comparison of circular external fixation and a motorized intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97(17): 1432–1440. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00932.
  8. Hafez M, Nicolaou N, Offiah AC, et al. Femoral lengthening in young patients: An evidence-based comparison between motorized lengthening nails and external fixation. World J Orthop 2021;12(11):909–919. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i11.909.
  9. Hafez M, Nicolaou N, Offiah A, et al. Femoral lengthening in children- A comparison between magnetic intramedullary lengthening nails and external fixators. J Pediatr Orthop 2022;42(3):e290–e294. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000002039.
  10. Baumgart R. The reverse planning method for lengthening of the lower limb using a straight intramedullary nail with or without deformity correction. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2009;21(2):221–233. DOI: 10.1007/s00064-009-1709-4.
  11. Muthusamy S, Rozbruch SR, Fragomen AT. The use of blocking screws with internal lengthening nail and reverse rule of thumb for blocking screws in limb lengthening and deformity correction surgery. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2016;11(3):199–205. DOI: 10.1007/s11751-016-0265-3.
  12. Paley D. Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;(250):81–104. PMID: 2403498
  13. Turner HC, Archer RA, Downey LE, et al. An introduction to the main types of economic evaluations used for informing priority setting and resource allocation in healthcare: Key features, uses, and limitations. Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 9. Frontiers Media SA; 2021. p. 1236.
  14. Iliadis AD, Palloni V, Wright J, et al. Pediatric lower limb lengthening using the PRECICE nail: Our experience with 50 cases. J Pediatr Orthop 2020;41(1):e44–e49. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001672.
  15. Tiefenboeck TM, Zak L, Bukaty A, et al. Pitfalls in automatic limb lengthening – First results with an intramedullary lengthening device. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016;102(7):851–855. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.07.004.
  16. Nasto LA, Coppa V, Riganti S, et al. Clinical results and complication rates of lower limb lengthening in paediatric patients using the PRECICE 2 intramedullary magnetic nail: A multicentre study. J Pediatr Orthop Part B 2020;29(6):611–617. DOI: 10.1097/BPB.0000000000000651.
  17. Richardson SS, Schairer WW, Fragomen AT, et al. Cost comparison of femoral distraction osteogenesis with external lengthening over a nail versus internal magnetic lengthening nail. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019;27(9):E430–E436. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00741.
  18. Dvorzhinskiy A, Zhang DT, Fragomen AT, et al. Cost comparison of tibial distraction osteogenesis using external lengthening and then nailing vs internal magnetic lengthening nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(1):14–19. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1513.
  19. Rölfing JD, Kold S, Nygaard T, et al. Pain, osteolysis, and periosteal reaction are associated with the STRYDE limb lengthening nail: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Acta Orthop 2021;92(4):479–484. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1903278.
  20. NICE. Guide to the Methods Technology Appraisal; 2004.
  21. Brousselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: Promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med 2011;72(6):832–839. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.008.
  22. 7 Incorporating economic evaluation | Developing NICE guidelines: The manual | Guidance | NICE [cited November 27, 2021]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/incorporating-economic-evaluation.
  23. Landge V, Shabtai L, Gesheff M, et al. J Surg Orthop Adv 2015;24(3): 174–179. PMID: 26688988.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.