ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a feared complication with substantial clinical and economic consequences. The main objective of this study was to compare direct and indirect healthcare costs related to long bone fractures in patients with and without FRI and to assess its impact on the patient's quality of life (QoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2015 and March 2019, 175 patients with FRI were treated at the University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium). Using a matched-pair analysis, patients with an FRI were matched by age, sex, and fracture location (humeral, femoral, or tibial shaft) to a non-FRI cohort treated during the same time period. Clinical and process-related variables, direct hospital-related healthcare costs, and indirect costs due to absenteeism were compared between the two groups. Furthermore, the patient's QoL was evaluated using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function and pain interference. RESULTS: After matched-pair analysis, 15 patients in both the FRI and non-FRI group were included. FRI was associated with direct hospital-related costs being eight times that of non-FRI patients ( 47,845 [ 43,072- 82,548] vs. 5,983 [ 4,519- 8,428], p < 0.001). Furthermore, FRI was associated with prolonged absenteeism (340 [340-676] vs. 86 [65-216] days, p = 0.007) and a median indirect cost that was nearly four times that of patients without FRI ( 77,909 vs. 19,706). Lastly, FRI patients showed significantly poorer outcomes on both physical function (35.6 vs. 48.4, p < 0.001) and pain interference (60.4 vs. 46.3, p < 0.001) PROMIS scales. CONCLUSION: Direct hospital-related healthcare costs of FRI are eight times that of non-FRI long bone fractures. Total healthcare costs are mainly driven by hospitalisation costs, wherein FRI is associated with prolonged length of stay. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that FRI is also associated with substantial absenteeism, which is almost four times higher compared to non-FRI patients. In addition to this economic impact, FRI significantly deteriorates QoL. Generalizing the outcome of this study should be done cautiously due to the small sample size of 15 patients in both the FRI and non-FRI group after matched-pair analysis.
Subject(s)
Fractures, Bone , Quality of Life , Absenteeism , Fractures, Bone/complications , Health Care Costs , Hospital Costs , HumansABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Regional anaesthesia (RA) is often used in shoulder surgery because it provides adequate postoperative analgesia and may enhance the patient outcome. RA reduces overall opioid consumption and is frequently used in enhanced recovery programs to decrease hospital stay. However, there is very limited literature confirming these advantages in the surgical repair of proximal humerus fractures. This paper reviews the current literature on the use of RA in pain management after surgical repair of these fractures and evaluates the effect of RA on the functional outcome, length of stay in hospital, and health care expenditure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to March 1, 2018. Studies investigating the use of RA in the management of proximal humerus fractures were included. RESULTS: Eleven studies (containing 1872 patients) were eligible for inclusion. The analgesic effect of RA was investigated in eight studies that confirmed its pain-relieving ability. Two studies measured functionality and length of hospitalization and suggested that RA improved function and shortened the stay in hospital. Nine papers mentioned side effects associated with RA while three articles claim that RA decreases the incidence of adverse events associated with general anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that RA is a good option for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing surgical repair of a proximal humerus fracture and is associated with fewer adverse events, a shorter recovery time, and a better functional outcome than those achieved by general anaesthesia alone. However, given the limited amount of data available, conclusions need to be made with caution and prospective studies are needed in the future.
