Loading…

Cost Comparison and Complication Rate of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis

Category: Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. Our retrospective study uses a private payer database to compare cost, complicat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Foot & ankle orthopaedics 2018-07, Vol.3 (3)
Main Authors: Barnds, Brandon, Vopat, Bryan, Mullen, Scott, Schroeppel, Paul, Morris, Brandon, Tarakemeh, Armin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 3
container_start_page
container_title Foot & ankle orthopaedics
container_volume 3
creator Barnds, Brandon
Vopat, Bryan
Mullen, Scott
Schroeppel, Paul
Morris, Brandon
Tarakemeh, Armin
description Category: Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. Our retrospective study uses a private payer database to compare cost, complication rate, and hardware removal rate in Lisfranc injuries treated with primary open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis. Methods: Utilizing data mining software created by a private organization, a national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007-2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes for tarsometatarsal (TMT) dislocation (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with TMT dislocations then progressed on to either non-operative treatment, open reduction internal fixation, or primary arthrodesis. Treatment costs based on diagnosis codes were followed after initial diagnosis and t-tests were used to determine statistical significance. Subgroups were created based on having at least one complication ICD or current procedural terminology (CPT) code after the beginning of treatment, which included: hemorrhage, infection, nonunion, malunion, thromboembolism, wound and hardware complications, or amputation. Additionally, patients undergoing implant removal were identified by CPT code for removal of hardware performed after the index procedure. Complication and hardware removal rates were compared with chi-square test. Results: 2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent non-operative management, 670 underwent open reduction internal fixation, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5,005.82) than for open reduction internal fixation ($3,961.97, P=0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P=0.04). Rates of hardware removal independent of complications were 43.6% (292/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P
doi_str_mv 10.1177/2473011418S00025
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_13925beb4b3c4c11a254b73ec40e5a47</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_2473011418S00025</sage_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_13925beb4b3c4c11a254b73ec40e5a47</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2313768941</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2155-8c3c5b7251559f45abdb04c93aa6155f3ca75f63328a8f6da172a1fdd21eb693</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1vEzEQxa2KSlShd46Wel7w53r3WEUUIkUqorlbs_a4dZSug73Lx5l_HCeLACFxsufn997YHkJec_aGc2PeCmUk41zx7oExJvQFuTqh5sRe_LV_Sa5L2VcJN7rvu-6K_FinMtF1ej5CjiWNFEZ_Lg_RwRQr-AQT0hToNpaQYXR0M-7nHLHQXcZ65unXOD3R-yNWLfrZnV2bccI8woHexW9LzhfMZS70Y47PkL_T2zw95eSxxPKKXAY4FLz-ta7I7u7dbv2h2d6_36xvt40TXOumc9LpwQhdiz4oDYMfmHK9BGgrCtKB0aGVUnTQhdYDNwJ48F5wHNpershmifUJ9va43MMmiPYMUn60kKfoDmi57IUecFCDdMpxDkKrwUh0iqGG-psrcrNkHXP6PGOZ7D7Np_cWKySXpu16xauKLSqXUykZw--unNnT4Oy_g6uWZrEUeMQ_of_V_wTJeZiz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2313768941</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost Comparison and Complication Rate of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis</title><source>SAGE Open Access</source><source>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Barnds, Brandon ; Vopat, Bryan ; Mullen, Scott ; Schroeppel, Paul ; Morris, Brandon ; Tarakemeh, Armin</creator><creatorcontrib>Barnds, Brandon ; Vopat, Bryan ; Mullen, Scott ; Schroeppel, Paul ; Morris, Brandon ; Tarakemeh, Armin</creatorcontrib><description>Category: Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. Our retrospective study uses a private payer database to compare cost, complication rate, and hardware removal rate in Lisfranc injuries treated with primary open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis. Methods: Utilizing data mining software created by a private organization, a national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007-2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes for tarsometatarsal (TMT) dislocation (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with TMT dislocations then progressed on to either non-operative treatment, open reduction internal fixation, or primary arthrodesis. Treatment costs based on diagnosis codes were followed after initial diagnosis and t-tests were used to determine statistical significance. Subgroups were created based on having at least one complication ICD or current procedural terminology (CPT) code after the beginning of treatment, which included: hemorrhage, infection, nonunion, malunion, thromboembolism, wound and hardware complications, or amputation. Additionally, patients undergoing implant removal were identified by CPT code for removal of hardware performed after the index procedure. Complication and hardware removal rates were compared with chi-square test. Results: 2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent non-operative management, 670 underwent open reduction internal fixation, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5,005.82) than for open reduction internal fixation ($3,961.97, P=0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P=0.04). Rates of hardware removal independent of complications were 43.6% (292/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P&lt;0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the open reduction internal fixation group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9,505.12. Conclusion: Primary arthrodesis for the management of acute Lisfranc injuries is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than open reduction internal fixation. Open reduction internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with open reduction internal fixation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2473-0114</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-0114</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/2473011418S00025</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Injuries ; Terminology</subject><ispartof>Foot &amp; ankle orthopaedics, 2018-07, Vol.3 (3)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2018. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No Derivatives License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2473011418S00025$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2313768941?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21966,25753,27853,27924,27925,37012,44590,44945,45333</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Barnds, Brandon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vopat, Bryan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullen, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schroeppel, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Brandon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tarakemeh, Armin</creatorcontrib><title>Cost Comparison and Complication Rate of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis</title><title>Foot &amp; ankle orthopaedics</title><description>Category: Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. Our retrospective study uses a private payer database to compare cost, complication rate, and hardware removal rate in Lisfranc injuries treated with primary open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis. Methods: Utilizing data mining software created by a private organization, a national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007-2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes for tarsometatarsal (TMT) dislocation (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with TMT dislocations then progressed on to either non-operative treatment, open reduction internal fixation, or primary arthrodesis. Treatment costs based on diagnosis codes were followed after initial diagnosis and t-tests were used to determine statistical significance. Subgroups were created based on having at least one complication ICD or current procedural terminology (CPT) code after the beginning of treatment, which included: hemorrhage, infection, nonunion, malunion, thromboembolism, wound and hardware complications, or amputation. Additionally, patients undergoing implant removal were identified by CPT code for removal of hardware performed after the index procedure. Complication and hardware removal rates were compared with chi-square test. Results: 2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent non-operative management, 670 underwent open reduction internal fixation, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5,005.82) than for open reduction internal fixation ($3,961.97, P=0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P=0.04). Rates of hardware removal independent of complications were 43.6% (292/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P&lt;0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the open reduction internal fixation group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9,505.12. Conclusion: Primary arthrodesis for the management of acute Lisfranc injuries is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than open reduction internal fixation. Open reduction internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with open reduction internal fixation.</description><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Terminology</subject><issn>2473-0114</issn><issn>2473-0114</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1vEzEQxa2KSlShd46Wel7w53r3WEUUIkUqorlbs_a4dZSug73Lx5l_HCeLACFxsufn997YHkJec_aGc2PeCmUk41zx7oExJvQFuTqh5sRe_LV_Sa5L2VcJN7rvu-6K_FinMtF1ej5CjiWNFEZ_Lg_RwRQr-AQT0hToNpaQYXR0M-7nHLHQXcZ65unXOD3R-yNWLfrZnV2bccI8woHexW9LzhfMZS70Y47PkL_T2zw95eSxxPKKXAY4FLz-ta7I7u7dbv2h2d6_36xvt40TXOumc9LpwQhdiz4oDYMfmHK9BGgrCtKB0aGVUnTQhdYDNwJ48F5wHNpershmifUJ9va43MMmiPYMUn60kKfoDmi57IUecFCDdMpxDkKrwUh0iqGG-psrcrNkHXP6PGOZ7D7Np_cWKySXpu16xauKLSqXUykZw--unNnT4Oy_g6uWZrEUeMQ_of_V_wTJeZiz</recordid><startdate>20180701</startdate><enddate>20180701</enddate><creator>Barnds, Brandon</creator><creator>Vopat, Bryan</creator><creator>Mullen, Scott</creator><creator>Schroeppel, Paul</creator><creator>Morris, Brandon</creator><creator>Tarakemeh, Armin</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publishing</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180701</creationdate><title>Cost Comparison and Complication Rate of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis</title><author>Barnds, Brandon ; Vopat, Bryan ; Mullen, Scott ; Schroeppel, Paul ; Morris, Brandon ; Tarakemeh, Armin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2155-8c3c5b7251559f45abdb04c93aa6155f3ca75f63328a8f6da172a1fdd21eb693</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Terminology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barnds, Brandon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vopat, Bryan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullen, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schroeppel, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Brandon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tarakemeh, Armin</creatorcontrib><collection>SAGE Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Proquest Health and Medical Complete</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Foot &amp; ankle orthopaedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barnds, Brandon</au><au>Vopat, Bryan</au><au>Mullen, Scott</au><au>Schroeppel, Paul</au><au>Morris, Brandon</au><au>Tarakemeh, Armin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost Comparison and Complication Rate of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis</atitle><jtitle>Foot &amp; ankle orthopaedics</jtitle><date>2018-07-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>3</issue><issn>2473-0114</issn><eissn>2473-0114</eissn><abstract>Category: Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. Our retrospective study uses a private payer database to compare cost, complication rate, and hardware removal rate in Lisfranc injuries treated with primary open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis. Methods: Utilizing data mining software created by a private organization, a national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007-2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes for tarsometatarsal (TMT) dislocation (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with TMT dislocations then progressed on to either non-operative treatment, open reduction internal fixation, or primary arthrodesis. Treatment costs based on diagnosis codes were followed after initial diagnosis and t-tests were used to determine statistical significance. Subgroups were created based on having at least one complication ICD or current procedural terminology (CPT) code after the beginning of treatment, which included: hemorrhage, infection, nonunion, malunion, thromboembolism, wound and hardware complications, or amputation. Additionally, patients undergoing implant removal were identified by CPT code for removal of hardware performed after the index procedure. Complication and hardware removal rates were compared with chi-square test. Results: 2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent non-operative management, 670 underwent open reduction internal fixation, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5,005.82) than for open reduction internal fixation ($3,961.97, P=0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P=0.04). Rates of hardware removal independent of complications were 43.6% (292/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P&lt;0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the open reduction internal fixation group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9,505.12. Conclusion: Primary arthrodesis for the management of acute Lisfranc injuries is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than open reduction internal fixation. Open reduction internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with open reduction internal fixation.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/2473011418S00025</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2473-0114
ispartof Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2018-07, Vol.3 (3)
issn 2473-0114
2473-0114
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_13925beb4b3c4c11a254b73ec40e5a47
source SAGE Open Access; ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database
subjects Injuries
Terminology
title Cost Comparison and Complication Rate of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T14%3A02%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost%20Comparison%20and%20Complication%20Rate%20of%20Lisfranc%20Injuries%20Treated%20with%20Open%20Reduction%20Internal%20Fixation%20versus%20Primary%20Arthrodesis&rft.jtitle=Foot%20&%20ankle%20orthopaedics&rft.au=Barnds,%20Brandon&rft.date=2018-07-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=3&rft.issn=2473-0114&rft.eissn=2473-0114&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/2473011418S00025&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2313768941%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2155-8c3c5b7251559f45abdb04c93aa6155f3ca75f63328a8f6da172a1fdd21eb693%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2313768941&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_2473011418S00025&rfr_iscdi=true