Cháidez-Reyes JC, Almazán-Díaz A, Espinosa-Morales R, Cruz-López F, Pérez-Jiménez FX, Encalada-Díaz I, Ibarra-Ponce LC

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 331-335
PDF size: 41.27 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Health economics studies play an important role in all healthcare systems. The purpose of the latter is to offer effective and low-cost treatments. Objective: Analyze the costs and the economic impact of the comprehensive ACL treatment. Material and methods: An average cost study was done of primary ACL reconstruction. We studied 104 patients during 2005, 79 males and 25 females, with mean age 31.5 years. The assessment of the preoperative, operative and postoperative costs was related to each patient’s socioeconomic stratum (SES). Results: The hamstrings were the most frequently used graft (71%) versus the bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (BTB) (29%). Socioeconomic strata 2 and 3 were predominant. The following were the most frequent hamstrings implants used: Rigidfix/Intrafix and Endobutton/Xtralok, while the most frequent BTB grafts used were the metallic interference screws. No difference was found between the types of grafts and the SES in the preoperative and postoperative costs, including imaging studies, hospital say and rehabilitation. However, differences were found among the different groups in the cost of surgery, resulting from the type of implant used. The mean cost for SES 1 and 2 was $6,475.20, for SES 3 and 4, $8,057.51, and for SES 5 and 6, $16,242.5. The vulnerable population (SES 1) needs 7.34-fold its monthly income to pay for the comprehensive treatment, while the middle stratum (SES 3) needs 3.27-fold its monthly income. Conclusions: The comprehensive cost of treatment is proportionally higher than the patients’ income. It is important to point out that the systems using state-of-the-art technology, which in another setting would be inaccessible, have significant advantages when compared with the less expensive systems. Thus the economically vulnerable SES benefit from the subsidy granted by the National Institutes of Health.

REFERENCES

1. Folksam, Idrottkador: (Sports Injuries) 1986-1990. A report from Folksam Insurance. Company Stockholm, Sweden. 1994.

2. Maletius W, Messner K: Eighteen to twenty four year follow-up after complete rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sport Med 1999; 27: 711-7.

3. Aglietti P, Buzzi R, Zacherotti G, et al: Patelar tendon versus doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1994; 22: 211-8.

4. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Fleming BC, et al: Anterior cruciate ligament replacement comparison of bone-patellar-bone grafts with two-strand hamstring grafts. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84A: 1503-13.

5. Corry IS, Webb JM, Clingeleffer, et al: Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament a comparison of patellar tendon autograft and four strand hamstring tendon autograft. Am J Sport Med 1999; 27: 444-54.

6. Marder RA, Raskind JR, Caroll M: Prospective evaluation of arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendons. Am J Sports Med 1991; 19: 478-84.

7. Kousa P, Jarvinen TLN, Vihavainen M: The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction part 1 and II: Femoral site and tibial site. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31(12): 174-88.

8. Craig H, Bennett, Christopher R: Recent concepts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Current Op Orthop 2005; 16: 112-6.

9. Kohn D, Sander-Beuermann: Donor site morbility after harvest of a bone tendon bone patellar tendon autograft. Knee Surg Sports Traum Arthrosc 1994; 2: 219-33.

10. Torry MR, Decker MJ, Jackel JR: Comparison of tibial rotation strength in patients status after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring versus patellar tendon autografts. Clin J Sport Med 2004; 14: 325-31.

11. Aglietti P, Grion F, Buzzi R, et al: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: bone-patellar tendon bone compared with double semitendinosus and gracilis tendon grafts. A prospective randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86A: 2143-55.

12. Eriksson K, Anderberg P, Hamberg P, et al: There are differences in early morbidity after ACL reconstruction when comparing patellar tendon and semitendinosus tendon graft. A prospective randomized study of 107 patients. Scand J. Med Sci Sports 2001; 11: 170-7.

13. Caxdal G, Kartus J, Hansson, et al : A prospective randomized comparison of bone patellar tendon bone and hamstring grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2005; 21: 32-4.

14. Magnus F, Anders V, Bjorn E: ACL reconstruction: patellar tendon versus hamstring grafts-economical aspects. Knee Surg Sports Traum Arthrosc 2006: 324-7.