SUMMARY: The study rationale was to provide a detailed overview of the costs for femoral neck fracture treatment with internal fixation in the Netherlands. Mean total costs per patient at 2-years follow-up were <euro>19,425. Costs were higher for older, less healthy patients. Results are comparable to internationally published costs. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to provide a detailed overview of the cost and healthcare consumption of patients treated for a hip fracture with internal fixation. A secondary aim was to compare costs of patients who underwent a revision surgery with patients who did not. METHODS: The study was performed alongside the Dutch sample of an international randomized controlled trial, concerning femoral neck fracture patients treated withinternal fixation. Patient characteristics and healthcare consumption were collected. Total follow-up was 2 years. A societal perspective was adopted. Costs included hospital costs during primary stay and follow-up, and costs related to rehabilitation and changes in living situation. Costs were compared between non-revision surgery patients, implant removal patients, and revision arthroplasty patients. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients were included (mean age 71 years). Mean total costs per patient at 2-years follow-up were <euro>19,425. In the non-revision surgery patients total costs were <euro>17,405 (N = 137), in the implant removal patients <euro>10,066 (N = 38), and in the revision arthroplasty patients <euro>26,733 (N = 67). The main contributing costs were related to the primary surgery, admission days, physical therapy, and revision surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: The main determinant was the costs of admission to a rehabilitation center/nursing home. Costs were specifically high in elderly with comorbidity, who were less independent pre-fracture, and have a longer admission to the hospital and/or a nursing home. Costs were also higher in revision surgery patients. The 2-years follow-up costs in our study were comparable to published costs in other Western societies.
RCT Entities:
SUMMARY: The study rationale was to provide a detailed overview of the costs for femoral neck fracture treatment with internal fixation in the Netherlands. Mean total costs per patient at 2-years follow-up were <euro>19,425. Costs were higher for older, less healthy patients. Results are comparable to internationally published costs. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to provide a detailed overview of the cost and healthcare consumption of patients treated for a hip fracture with internal fixation. A secondary aim was to compare costs of patients who underwent a revision surgery with patients who did not. METHODS: The study was performed alongside the Dutch sample of an international randomized controlled trial, concerning femoral neck fracturepatients treated with internal fixation. Patient characteristics and healthcare consumption were collected. Total follow-up was 2 years. A societal perspective was adopted. Costs included hospital costs during primary stay and follow-up, and costs related to rehabilitation and changes in living situation. Costs were compared between non-revision surgery patients, implant removal patients, and revision arthroplasty patients. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients were included (mean age 71 years). Mean total costs per patient at 2-years follow-up were <euro>19,425. In the non-revision surgery patients total costs were <euro>17,405 (N = 137), in the implant removal patients <euro>10,066 (N = 38), and in the revision arthroplasty patients <euro>26,733 (N = 67). The main contributing costs were related to the primary surgery, admission days, physical therapy, and revision surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: The main determinant was the costs of admission to a rehabilitation center/nursing home. Costs were specifically high in elderly with comorbidity, who were less independent pre-fracture, and have a longer admission to the hospital and/or a nursing home. Costs were also higher in revision surgery patients. The 2-years follow-up costs in our study were comparable to published costs in other Western societies.
Authors: Torsten Johansson; Margareta Bachrach-Lindström; Per Aspenberg; Dick Jonsson; Ola Wahlström Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2005-12-23 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Ellen F Binder; Marybeth Brown; David R Sinacore; Karen Steger-May; Kevin E Yarasheski; Kenneth B Schechtman Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Klaas A Hartholt; Christian Oudshoorn; Stephanie M Zielinski; Paul T P W Burgers; Martien J M Panneman; Ed F van Beeck; Peter Patka; Tischa J M van der Cammen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Clazien Bouwmans; Kim De Jong; Reinier Timman; Moniek Zijlstra-Vlasveld; Christina Van der Feltz-Cornelis; Siok Tan Swan; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Stephanie M Zielinski; Noël L Keijsers; Stephan F E Praet; Martin J Heetveld; Mohit Bhandari; Jean Pierre Wilssens; Peter Patka; Esther M M Van Lieshout Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: P T P W Burgers; M Hoogendoorn; E A C Van Woensel; R W Poolman; M Bhandari; P Patka; E M M Van Lieshout Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 4.507