Poster 181: Dual plating as a Cost-Effective Treatment Option for Operatively Indicated Midshaft Clavicle Fractures

• Published in: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine Vol. 11; no. 7_suppl3
• Main Authors: Kumar, Praveen, Reddy, Rajiv, Chen, Stephen, Mittwede, Peter, Moloney, Gele, Sabzevari, Soheil, Siska, Peter, Lin, Albert, Charles, Shaquille
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 31.07.2023; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Cost analysis; Patients; Quality of life; Sensitivity analysis
• ISSN: 2325-9671; 2325-9671
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967123S00167

Objectives: Many studies have highlighted lower rates of secondary operations with dual-plating compared to single-plating. Despite higher upfront costs associated with the dual-plating construct, the observed reduction in secondary operations compared to single-plating may make it a more cost- effective treatment option. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dual-plate fixation compared to single-plate fixation in patients with operatively indicated displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. We hypothesized dual-plating would be a more cost-effective surgical option than single-plating, given its lower rates of postoperative complications. Methods: We developed a decision tree to model the occurrence of postoperative complications (hardware issues, wound healing issues, deep infection, non-union, and symptomatic hardware) associated with secondary surgeries. Complication-specific risk estimates were summarized for both plating techniques. The time horizon was two years, and the analysis was conducted from the healthcare payer’s perspective. The costs included direct medical costs, while the benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We assumed that dual-plating would be $300 more expensive than single-plating upfront. We conducted probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses. Results: The model predicted reoperation in 6% of patients in the dual-plating arm compared to 14% of patients in the single-plating arm. In the base case analysis, the dual-plating increased QALYs by 0.007 and costs by $70 per patient yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,600 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of dual plating is driven by the cost of index surgery, risk of non-union, and symptomatic hardware complications in single- and dual- plating. At a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, 92% of simulations suggested dual-plating is cost-effective compared to single-plating (Figure 1). Conclusions: When indicated, operative management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures with dual- plating is cost-effective compared to single-plating. Despite its higher initial upfront hardware costs, dual plating appears to offset added costs via lower rates of reoperations and improved patient quality of life.