Daniel Rolton1, Joanna Richards, Colin Nnadi. 1. Department of Spine Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK, danrolton@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost differences between a conventional growth rod system (CGRS) and magnetic controlled growth rods (MCGR) in treating early onset scoliosis (EOS) over a projected 5 year period. We hypothesise that the high initial outlay for MCGR would be recouped from fewer admissions and surgical procedures over the lifetime of the implant. METHODS: The costs of all aspects of treatment for 14 patients undergoing conversion from CGRS to MGRS were collected over a 3 year period. The costs of all aspects of each treatment including clinic visits, hospital stay, theatre and complications were calculated and projected over the lifetime of each device. RESULTS: The initial outlay for insertion for MCGR was £12,913 more than the CGRS. There were significant cost savings for each lengthening which projected over the 5 year lifetime amounted to a cost saving of over £8,000 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic controlled growth rods reduce the need for multiple invasive procedures in the management of EOS. The implant has a significant projected cost saving in comparison to CGRS.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost differences between a conventional growth rod system (CGRS) and magnetic controlled growth rods (MCGR) in treating early onset scoliosis (EOS) over a projected 5 year period. We hypothesise that the high initial outlay for MCGR would be recouped from fewer admissions and surgical procedures over the lifetime of the implant. METHODS: The costs of all aspects of treatment for 14 patients undergoing conversion from CGRS to MGRS were collected over a 3 year period. The costs of all aspects of each treatment including clinic visits, hospital stay, theatre and complications were calculated and projected over the lifetime of each device. RESULTS: The initial outlay for insertion for MCGR was £12,913 more than the CGRS. There were significant cost savings for each lengthening which projected over the 5 year lifetime amounted to a cost saving of over £8,000 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic controlled growth rods reduce the need for multiple invasive procedures in the management of EOS. The implant has a significant projected cost saving in comparison to CGRS.
Authors: Shay Bess; Behrooz A Akbarnia; George H Thompson; Paul D Sponseller; Suken A Shah; Hazem El Sebaie; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Lawrence I Karlin; Sarah Canale; Connie Poe-Kochert; David L Skaggs Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Selina Poon; Ryan Nixon; Stephen Wendolowski; Rachel Gecelter; Yen Hsun Chen; Jon-Paul DiMauro; Terry Amaral; Adam Graver; Daniel A Grande Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Chrishan Thakar; David Christopher Kieser; Mihai Mardare; Shahnawaz Haleem; Jeremy Fairbank; Colin Nnadi Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Nicandro Figueiredo; Salman F Kananeh; Heloise H Siqueira; Rita C Figueiredo; Mohamed W Al Sebai Journal: Neurosciences (Riyadh) Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 0.735