ABSTRACT
Peripheral nerve injuries not repaired in an effective and timely manner may lead to permanent functional loss and/or pain. For gaps greater than 5 mm, autograft has been the gold standard. Allograft has recently emerged as an attractive alternative, delivering comparable functional recovery without risk of second surgical site morbidities. Cost is an important factor when considering surgical options, and with a paucity of nerve repair cost data, this study aimed to compare allograft and autograft procedure costs. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional observational study using the US all-payer PINC AI Healthcare Database examined facility procedure costs and cost drivers in patients undergoing allograft or autograft repair of an isolated single peripheral nerve injury between January 2018 and August 2020. Inpatient repairs were limited to nerve-specific DRGs. Multivariable regression evaluated risk-adjusted procedure cost differences. Results: Peripheral nerve graft repairs (n = 1363) were more frequent in the outpatient setting, and more than half involved the use of allograft nerve. Procedure costs for allograft and autograft repair were not significantly different in the outpatient (P = 0.43) or inpatient (P = 0.71) setting even after controlling for other risk factors. Operating room cost was significantly higher for autograft in outpatient (P < 0.0001) but not inpatient (P = 0.46), whereas allograft implant cost was significantly higher in both settings (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: No significant differences in procedure costs for autograft and allograft repair in inpatient and outpatient settings were found using real-world data. Future research should explore longer-term costs.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recent research suggests that patients' perceptions may be more important than objective clinical assessments in determining quality of life (QOL) for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS: We interviewed 165 hemodialysis patients from 3 sites using a QOL questionnaire that included the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) and the McGill QOL (MQOL) scale, which includes a single-item global measure of QOL (Single-Item QOL Scale [SIS]). The MQOL scale asks patients to report their most troublesome symptoms. We also initiated the use of a Support Network Scale and a Spiritual Beliefs Scale. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 60.9 years, 52% were men, 63% were white, and 33% were African American. Patients had a mean treatment time for ESRD of 44 months, mean hemoglobin level of 11.8 g/dL (118 g/L), mean albumin level of 3.7 g/dL (37 g/L), and mean Kt/V of 1.6. Forty-five percent of patients reported symptoms. Pain was the most common symptom (21% of patients). There was an inverse relationship between reported number of symptoms and SWLS (P < 0.01), MQOL scale score (P < 0.001), and SIS (P < 0.001). The Spiritual Beliefs Scale correlated with the MQOL scale score, SWLS (both P < 0.01), and SIS (P < 0.05). The Support Network Scale score correlated with the MQOL Existential (P = 0.01) and MQOL Support (P < 0.01) subscales. No clinical parameter correlated with any measure of QOL, spiritual beliefs, or social support. CONCLUSION: Symptoms, especially pain, along with psychosocial and spiritual factors, are important determinants of QOL of patients with ESRD. Additional studies, particularly a longitudinal trial, are needed to determine the reproducibility and utility of these QOL measures in assessing patient long-term outcome and their association with other QOL indices in larger and more diverse patient populations.
