Low-cost alternative external rotation shoulder brace and review of treatment in acute shoulder dislocations.

Traumatic dislocations of the shoulder commonly present to emergency departments (EDs). Immediate closed reduction of both anterior and posterior glenohumeral dislocations is recommended and is frequently performed in the ED. Recurrence of dislocation is common, as anteroinferior labral tears (Bankart lesions) are present in many anterior shoulder dislocations.14,15,18,23 Immobilization of the shoulder following closed reduction is therefore recommended; previous studies support the use of immobilization with the shoulder in a position of external rotation, for both anterior and posterior shoulder dislocations.7-11,19 In this study, we present a technique for assembling a low-cost external rotation shoulder brace using materials found in most hospitals: cotton roll, stockinette, and shoulder immobilizers. This brace is particularly suited for the uninsured patient, who lacks the financial resources to pay for a pre-fabricated brace out of pocket. We also performed a cost analysis for our low-cost external rotation shoulder brace, and a cost comparison with pre-fabricated brand name braces. At our institution, the total materials cost for our brace was $19.15. The cost of a pre-fabricated shoulder brace at our institution is $150 with markup, which is reimbursed on average at $50.40 according to our hospital billing data. The low-cost external rotation shoulder brace is therefore a more affordable option for the uninsured patient presenting with acute shoulder dislocation.

Economic evaluations in shoulder pathologies: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations provide decision makers with a tool for reducing health care costs because they assess both the costs and consequences of health care interventions. This study reviewed the quality of published economic evaluations for shoulder pathologies. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify articles published from 1980 to 2010 that contained "cost" or "economic" combined with terms for several shoulder disorders and treatments. We selected studies that fit the definition of 1 of the 4 routinely performed economic evaluations: cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit analyses. Study quality was determined by measuring adherence to 6 established health economic principles, as described in the literature. RESULTS: The search retrieved 942 studies. Of these, 32 were determined to be economic evaluations, and 53% of the economic evaluations were published from 2005 to 2010. Only 8 of the 32 studies (25%) adhered to all 6 health economic principles. Publication in a nonsurgical journal (P < .05) or in more recent years (P < .01) was significantly associated with higher quality. CONCLUSION: Future health care resource allocation will likely be based on the economic feasibility of treatments. Although the number and quality of economic evaluations of shoulder disorders have risen in recent years, the current state of the literature is poor. Given that availability of such data may factor in private and public reimbursement decisions, there is a clear demand for more rigorous economic evaluations.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy following glenohumeral joint distension for adhesive capsulitis: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an active physiotherapy program following arthrographic joint distension for adhesive capsulitis provides additional benefits. METHODS: We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, participant and single assessor blinded trial. A total of 156 participants with pain and stiffness in predominantly 1 shoulder for >or=3 months and restriction of passive motion >30 degrees in >or=2 planes of movement entered the study, and 144 completed the study. Following joint distension, participants were randomly assigned to either manual therapy and directed exercise or placebo (sham ultrasound), both administered twice weekly for 2 weeks then once weekly for 4 weeks. Pain, function, active shoulder movements, participant-perceived success, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 26 weeks. Costs were also collected. RESULTS: Both groups improved over time with no significant differences in improvement between groups for pain, function, or quality of life at any time point. Significant differences favored the physiotherapy group for all active shoulder movements (e.g., pooled difference in mean change between groups across all time points for total shoulder abduction was 10.6 degrees , 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 3.1, 18.1) and participant-perceived success (pooled relative risk 1.4, 95% CI 1.1, 1.65; number needed to treat = 5). Net cost of physiotherapy was $136.8 Australian (95% CI -177.5, 223.1) over the 6 months. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapy following joint distension provided no additional benefits in terms of pain, function, or quality of life but resulted in sustained greater active range of shoulder movement and participant-perceived improvement up to 6 months.

[Effects of two types of treatment for shoulder subluxation in hemiplegics: a pilot study]. / Effetti di due tipi di trattamento della sublussazione di spalla in pazienti emiplegici: uno studio pilota.

PURPOSE: The aim of this pilot study is to compare the effects of a new sling, a special type of strapping and their association to treat shoulder subluxation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effectiveness of a modified version of a sling, a special type of strapping and their association to treat shoulder subluxation has been compared in three hemiplegic patients. Shoulder subluxation has been diagnosed by palpation, then assessed by radiographic measurements in sitting position with the plane of the scapula method (at 30 degrees to the coronal plane). The distance between the inferior acromial surface and the horizontal line crossing through the central point of the humeral head (in millimeters) has been taken as measurement of subluxation. RESULTS: All the patients showed a reduction of the acromial-humeral distance when the sling was applied with strapping. When sling or strapping alone was applied, a slight difference was measured in each patient. CONCLUSIONS: The association of sling and strapping seems to be an effective strategy to treat shoulder subluxation in hemiplegic patients in sub-acute stage. The tools described in the paper give a better cost/benefit ratio in comparison with others described in literature and widely used in clinical practice. Hawever, further investigations are necessary to confirm these results.

[Open versus arthroscopic shoulder stabilization. An analysis of the treatment costs]. / Offene vs. arthroskopische anteriore Schulterstabilisierung. Eine Kostenvergleichsanalyse.

In this study the total costs of clinical open and arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization were evaluated, analyzed and compared. From 1988 to 1998 147 patients underwent open (Bankart) or arthroscopic (ASK) anterior shoulder stabilization. We randomized two groups of 30 patients for each method (Bankart: 25 male, 5 female, 29 years of age; ASK: 25 male, 5 female, 26 years of age) and evaluated the costs of their clinical treatment. The total cost was significantly ( p<0.05, Mann-Whitney U-Test) higher for the open (5639 euro) than for the arthroscopic (4601 euro) therapy. There was a significant difference between the groups for the average cost of surgery (Bankart: 2741 euro; ASK: 2315 euro, p<0.05) and the average postoperative treatment cost (Bankart: 2202 euro; ASK: 1630 euro, p<0.05) whereas the average preoperative treatment cost was not significantly different (Bankart: 669 euro, ASK: 657 euro). The staff costs for the surgical procedure (Bankart: 1800 euro (32%), ASK: 1319 euro (29%)) and the postoperative staff costs of the nurses (Bankart: 1271 euro (23%), ASK: 997 euro (22%)) represented the greatest parts of the total costs. The average duration of the clinical treatment was 15.8 days for the open- and 12,4 days for the arthroscopic group.

Arthroscopic or open Bankart procedures: what are the costs?

The cost implications and resource utilization of arthroscopic and open Bankart procedures were evaluated to determine if differences exist between these procedures when performed in a community setting. Billing and hospital records of consecutive patients who underwent either open or arthroscopic Bankart procedures at the three facilities in our city during an 18-month period were analyzed. Procedure type (open or arthroscopic), location (hospital or surgicenter), operation time, operating room time, postanesthesia care unit time, step-down area time, charges for each of these, and anesthesiologist charges were analyzed for 11 open and 13 arthroscopic Bankart procedures. Open procedures took longer and required more operating room time than arthroscopic procedures regardless of location (P < .01). Open procedures required longer postanesthesia care unit time than arthroscopic procedures (P < .01). Facility made no difference. Anesthesia fees were less for arthroscopic ($882) than open Bankarts ($1,075) (P = .002). Total facility and anesthesia fees were less for arthroscopic ($4,747) than for open Bankarts ($6,062) (P = .05). The arthroscopic Bankart repair was performed more quickly than the open Bankart procedure, regardless of facility choice, and resulted in lower total charges. A surgicenter is less expensive whether these procedures are performed arthroscopically or open.