Literature DB >> 24410127

A comparison of costs associated with endoscope-assisted craniectomy versus open cranial vault repair for infants with sagittal synostosis.

Timothy W Vogel1, Albert S Woo, Alex A Kane, Kamlesh B Patel, Sybill D Naidoo, Matthew D Smyth.   

Abstract

OBJECT: The surgical management of infants with sagittal synostosis has traditionally relied on open cranial vault remodeling (CVR) techniques; however, minimally invasive technologies, including endoscope-assisted craniectomy (EAC) repair followed by helmet therapy (HT, EAC+HT), is increasingly used to treat various forms of craniosynostosis during the 1st year of life. In this study the authors determined the costs associated with EAC+HT in comparison with those for CVR.
METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective case-control analysis of 21 children who had undergone CVR and 21 who had undergone EAC+HT. Eligibility criteria included an age less than 1 year and at least 1 year of clinical follow-up data. Financial and clinical records were reviewed for data related to length of hospital stay and transfusion rates as well as costs associated with physician, hospital, and outpatient clinic visits.
RESULTS: The average age of patients who underwent CVR was 6.8 months compared with 3.1 months for those who underwent EAC+HT. Patients who underwent EAC+HT most often required the use of 2 helmets (76.5%), infrequently required a third helmet (13.3%), and averaged 1.8 clinic visits in the first 90 days after surgery. Endoscope-assisted craniectomy plus HT was associated with shorter hospital stays (mean 1.10 vs 4.67 days for CVR, p < 0.0001), a decreased rate of blood transfusions (9.5% vs 100% for CVR, p < 0.0001), and a decreased operative time (81.1 vs 165.8 minutes for CVR, p < 0.0001). The overall cost of EAC+HT, accounting for hospital charges, professional and helmet fees, and clinic visits, was also lower than that of CVR ($37,255.99 vs $56,990.46, respectively, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscope-assisted craniectomy plus HT is a less costly surgical option for patients than CVR. In addition, EAC+HT was associated with a lower utilization of perioperative resources. Theses findings suggest that EAC+HT for infants with sagittal synostosis may be a cost-effective first-line surgical option.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24410127     DOI: 10.3171/2013.12.PEDS13320

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Pediatr        ISSN: 1933-0707            Impact factor:   2.375


  9 in total

1.  Single incision endoscope-assisted surgery for sagittal craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Rajiv R Iyer; Rafael Uribe-Cardenas; Edward S Ahn
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 1.475

2.  The Temporal Region in Unilateral Coronal Craniosynostosis: Fronto-orbital Advancement Versus Endoscopy-Assisted Strip Craniectomy.

Authors:  Benjamin Masserano; Albert S Woo; Gary B Skolnick; Sybill D Naidoo; Mark R Proctor; Matthew D Smyth; Kamlesh B Patel
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2017-12-14

3.  Practical Review of the Cost of Diagnosis and Management of Positional Plagiocephaly.

Authors:  Ayden Watt; Abdulaziz Alabdulkarim; James Lee; Mirko Gilardino
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-05-16

4.  Endoscope-assisted management of sagittal synostosis: wide vertex suturectomy and barrel stave osteotomies versus narrow vertex suturectomy.

Authors:  Brian J Dlouhy; Dennis C Nguyen; Kamlesh B Patel; Gwendolyn M Hoben; Gary B Skolnick; Sybill D Naidoo; Albert S Woo; Matthew D Smyth
Journal:  J Neurosurg Pediatr       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 5.  Endoscopic craniosynostosis repair.

Authors:  Mark R Proctor
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2014-07

Review 6.  Endoscopic versus open approach in craniosynostosis repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes.

Authors:  Anshit Goyal; Victor M Lu; Yagiz U Yolcu; Mohamed Elminawy; David J Daniels
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 1.475

7.  Characterization of complications associated with open and endoscopic craniosynostosis surgery at a single institution.

Authors:  Rowland H Han; Dennis C Nguyen; Brent S Bruck; Gary B Skolnick; Chester K Yarbrough; Sybill D Naidoo; Kamlesh B Patel; Alex A Kane; Albert S Woo; Matthew D Smyth
Journal:  J Neurosurg Pediatr       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Dipyridamole-loaded 3D-printed bioceramic scaffolds stimulate pediatric bone regeneration in vivo without disruption of craniofacial growth through facial maturity.

Authors:  Maxime M Wang; Roberto L Flores; Lukasz Witek; Andrea Torroni; Amel Ibrahim; Zhong Wang; Hannah A Liss; Bruce N Cronstein; Christopher D Lopez; Samantha G Maliha; Paulo G Coelho
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  A 24-month cost and outcome analysis comparing traditional fronto-orbital advancment and remodeling with endoscopic strip craniectomy and molding helmet in the management of unicoronal craniosynostosis: A retrospective bi-institutional review.

Authors:  B A Jivraj; N Ahmed; K Karia; R Menon; E Robertson; A Sodha; J C R Wormald; J O'hara; O Jeelani; D Dunaway; G James; J Ong
Journal:  JPRAS Open       Date:  2019-02-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.