Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Cranioplasty Implants

Le résumé fourni par la source

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare operative duration and total hospital costs incurred for patients undergoing elective cranioplasty with a variety of materials, including manually shaped autogenous bone graft and titanium mesh, custom patient-specific titanium mesh, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) acrylic, and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants. Methods: A single-centre retrospective chart review was used. Patient demographics, defect characteristics, total operative time, and length of hospital stay were obtained. Total costs were sourced from Sunnybrook and standardized to the 2014 to 2015 year. Bivariate and age-controlled multivariate analyses were performed with (n = 119) and without (n = 101) outliers. Results: When outliers were removed, an age-controlled analysis revealed that autogenous implants resulted in an operative time of 178 ± 37 minutes longer than manually shaped titanium implants ( P < .01). The average cost of cranioplasty was CAD$18 335 ± CAD$10 265 for manually shaped titanium implants, CAD$31 956 ± CAD$31 206 for custom patient-specific titanium implants, CAD$20 786 ± CAD$13 075 for PMMA, CAD$14 291 ± CAD$5562 for autogenous implants, and CAD$27 379 ± CAD$4945 for PEEK implants ( P = .013). When outliers were removed, cranioplasty with PMMA and PEEK incurred greater costs, CAD$4442 ± CAD$2100 and CAD$13 372 ± CAD$2728, respectively, more than manually shaped titanium implants ( P < .01). Conclusions: Manually shaped titanium mesh is the most cost-effective implant choice for small cranial defects. Large unknown defects and frontal paranasal sinus defects are most effectively treated with autogenous bone or titanium mesh. Despite prolonged operative duration and inpatient admission, total costs were not significantly increased. Both PMMA and PEEK implants were significantly more costly, which may be a result of higher complications necessitating reoperation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.