BACKGROUND: In situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition for cubital tunnel syndrome have historically yielded similar outcomes. The authors' null hypothesis is that no differences exist in surgical encounter total direct costs for in situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition. METHODS: Adult patients treated surgically for cubital tunnel syndrome by four fellowship-trained hand surgeons between August of 2011 and December of 2016 were identified by CPT code (64718) at their tertiary academic institution. Patients with prior elbow surgery or fracture/dislocation and those undergoing revision or additional simultaneous procedures were excluded. Using their institution's information technology value tools, the authors extracted prospectively collected surgical encounter total direct costs data for each surgical encounter. Costs were compared between groups and modeled using univariate and multivariable gamma regression. RESULTS: In situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition were performed on 45, 62, and 14 unique surgical encounters, respectively, with mean surgical times of 28.0, 46.5, and 50.0 minutes, respectively. Costs differed significantly between surgical methods. Surgical method and provider significantly affected surgical encounter total direct costs in the univariate model. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that subcutaneous transposition was 1.18-fold more costly than in situ decompression and submuscular transposition was 1.55-fold more costly than in situ decompression while controlling for age, sex, and provider. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical costs differed significantly between in situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition. Given historically similar outcomes reported for these techniques, cost differences should be considered in addition to clinical factors to inform surgical decision-making for cubital tunnel syndrome patients.
BACKGROUND: In situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition for cubital tunnel syndrome have historically yielded similar outcomes. The authors' null hypothesis is that no differences exist in surgical encounter total direct costs for in situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition. METHODS: Adult patients treated surgically for cubital tunnel syndrome by four fellowship-trained hand surgeons between August of 2011 and December of 2016 were identified by CPT code (64718) at their tertiary academic institution. Patients with prior elbow surgery or fracture/dislocation and those undergoing revision or additional simultaneous procedures were excluded. Using their institution's information technology value tools, the authors extracted prospectively collected surgical encounter total direct costs data for each surgical encounter. Costs were compared between groups and modeled using univariate and multivariable gamma regression. RESULTS: In situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition were performed on 45, 62, and 14 unique surgical encounters, respectively, with mean surgical times of 28.0, 46.5, and 50.0 minutes, respectively. Costs differed significantly between surgical methods. Surgical method and provider significantly affected surgical encounter total direct costs in the univariate model. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that subcutaneous transposition was 1.18-fold more costly than in situ decompression and submuscular transposition was 1.55-fold more costly than in situ decompression while controlling for age, sex, and provider. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical costs differed significantly between in situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition. Given historically similar outcomes reported for these techniques, cost differences should be considered in addition to clinical factors to inform surgical decision-making for cubital tunnel syndromepatients.
Authors: Justin D Krogue; Alexander W Aleem; Daniel A Osei; Charles A Goldfarb; Ryan P Calfee Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Ronald H M A Bartels; Wim I M Verhagen; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Jan Meulstee; Leo G M van Rossum; J André Grotenhuis Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Kensaku Kawamoto; Cary J Martin; Kip Williams; Ming-Chieh Tu; Charlton G Park; Cheri Hunter; Catherine J Staes; Bruce E Bray; Vikrant G Deshmukh; Reid A Holbrook; Scott J Morris; Matthew B Fedderson; Amy Sletta; James Turnbull; Sean J Mulvihill; Gordon L Crabtree; David E Entwistle; Quinn L McKenna; Michael B Strong; Robert C Pendleton; Vivian S Lee Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jesse N Steadman; Andrew R Stephens; Guo Wei; Angela P Presson; Nikolas H Kazmers Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Jesse N Steadman; Andrew R Stephens; Chong Zhang; Angela P Presson; Nikolas H Kazmers Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 2.342