Search

A previous hip fracture more than doubles the risk of a contralateral hip fracture. Pharmacologic and environmental interventions to prevent hip fracture have documented poor compliance. The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic fixation of the uninjured hip to prevent contralateral hip fracture.: A Markov state-transition model was used to evaluate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for unilateral fixation of hip fracture alone (including internal fixation or arthroplasty) compared with unilateral fixation and contralateral prophylactic hip fixation performed at the time of hip fracture or unilateral fixation and bilateral hip pad protection. Prophylactic fixation involved placement of a cephalomedullary nail in the uninjured hip and was initially assumed to have a relative risk of a contralateral fracture of 1%. Health states included good health, surgery-related complications requiring a second operation (infection, osteonecrosis, nonunion, and malunion), fracture of the uninjured hip, and death. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimated as cost per QALY gained in 2006 US dollars with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below $50,000 per QALY gained considered cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of patient age, annual mortality and complication rates, intervention effectiveness, utilities, and costs on the value of prophylactic fixation.: In the baseline analysis, in a 79-year-old woman, prophylactic fixation was not found to be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $142,795/QALY). However, prophylactic fixation was found to be a cost-effective method to prevent contralateral hip fracture in: 1) women 71 to 75 years old who had 30% greater relative risk for a contralateral fracture; and 2) women younger than age 70 years. Cost-effectiveness was greater when the additional costs of prophylaxis were less than $6000. However, for most analyses, the success of prophylactic fixation was highly sensitive to the effectiveness and the relative morbidity and mortality of the additional procedure.: Prophylactic fixation with a cephalomedullary nail was not found to be cost-effective for the average older woman who sustained a hip fracture. However, it may be appropriate for select patient populations. The study supports the need for basic science and clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of prophylactic fixation for patient populations at higher lifetime risk for contralateral hip fracture.

Femoral shaft fractures are usually treated with anterograde or retrograde nails that typically do not provide femoral neck fixation. Ipsilateral femoral neck fractures occur with 2.5%-10% of femoral shaft fractures; 19%-55% of associated femoral neck fractures are missed with plain films and 5%-22% with computed tomography (CT). This study was performed to determine if routine reconstruction nailing of all femoral shaft fractures with or without occult femoral neck fractures is cost effective.A decision tree model examined the cost effectiveness of reconstruction nailing over standard intramedullary nailing for all femoral shaft fractures in which an associated femoral neck fracture was not identified on plain radiographs. As a base model, we assumed that 5% of shaft fractures had an ipsilateral femoral neck fracture, and 37% were missed and required further surgery. We assigned a small morbidity and additional cost ($680) for the use of a reconstruction nail and 2 screws. Model inputs including costs, clinical outcome probabilities, and health utilities were derived from the literature, estimated from institutional data, or assumed by the authors. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the effect of the rate of associated femoral neck fracture, the rate of missed femoral neck fracture, the complication rate of reconstruction screws, the cost of the extra reconstruction screws, and the utilities of each outcome on the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) of both strategies. Current practice in cost-effectiveness analysis uses a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained as cost effective. A secondary analysis of the use CT scans to reduce missed femoral neck fractures was also performed.The base model showed that the placement of reconstruction nails in all isolated femur fractures was not cost effective. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to the cost of the reconstruction nail, hemiarthroplasty, and a missed femoral neck fracture. The ICER was affected by the rate of femoral neck fracture and the rate of missed femoral neck fracture. If the rate of missed femoral neck fractures was38%, then reconstruction nailing was a cost-effective strategy. If the probability of an ipsilateral femoral neck fracture was7%, then reconstruction nailing was cost effective. Protocolized CT scans had an ICER$100,000. If the additional cost of the reconstruction nails was$650, then it was cost effective to perform reconstruction nailing for all femoral shaft fractures.Reconstruction nailing of femoral shaft fractures can be a cost-effective method to reduce the risks and morbidity of missed femoral neck fractures if the incremental implant costs are$650. Routine reconstruction nailing is cost effective if the rate of associated femoral neck fracture is7% or the rate of missed femoral neck fracture is38%. CT scans are not a cost-effective strategy to reduce the risk and morbidity of missed femoral neck fractures if the cost is$243. Weaknesses of this study include the reliance on low-powered studies and on estimations of some utilities and costs. To prevent the morbidity of missed or occult femoral neck fractures, the use of reconstruction nails for femoral shaft fractures is cost effective when the incremental costs of implants are$650.Economic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.