Search

Background: Indication for intervention in Dupuytren disease is influenced by many factors, including location and extent of disease, surgeon preference, and comfort level with different treatment techniques. The aim of this study was to determine current Dupuytren disease management trends. Methods: A questionnaire was sent through the American Society for Surgery of the Hand to all members. In addition to demographic data, questions focused on indications for different procedural interventions based on location of disease, age, and activity level of the patient. Results: Approximately 24% of respondents completed the survey. Respondents were mostly orthopedic surgeons in private practice who do not work with residents or fellows. Respondents preferred collagenase over needle aponeurotomy and limited fasciectomy for primary Dupuytren disease involving only the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint. Limited fasciectomy was the preferred treatment for primary Dupuytren disease involving the MCP and proximal interphalangeal joints. For a patient amenable to any treatment option, the majority would use collagenase, although 87.1% felt that fasciectomy offered the longest disease-free interval. Furthermore, given the option of a young, working patient, 42.7% would use collagenase, while plastic and general surgeons were more likely to treat this patient with limited fasciectomy. More plastic surgeons (vs orthopedic) believe that limited fasciectomy yields the longest disease-free interval. For a patient amenable to any surgical option, orthopedic surgeons prefer collagenase, whereas plastic hand surgeons prefer a limited fasciectomy. Conclusion: There are several procedural options for the treatment of Dupuytren disease. This study details current practice patterns among hand surgeons and reveals the increasingly prevalent use of collagenase.

Background: The increased efficiency and cost savings have led many surgeons to move their practice away from the traditional operating room (OR) or outpatient surgery center (OSC) and into the clinic setting. With the cost of health care continuing to rise, the venue with the lowest cost should be utilized. We performed a direct cost analysis of a single surgeon performing an open carpal tunnel release in the OR, OSC, and clinic. Methods: Four treatment groups were prospectively studied: the hospital OR with monitored anesthesia care (OR-MAC), OSC with MAC (OSC-MAC), OSC with local anesthesia (OSC-local), and clinic with local anesthesia (clinic). To determine direct costs, a detailed inventory was recorded including the weight and disposal of medical waste. Indirect costs were not included. Results: Five cases in each treatment group were prospectively recorded. Average direct costs were OR ($213.75), OSC-MAC ($102.79), OSC-local ($55.66), and clinic ($31.71). The average weight of surgical waste, in descending order, was the OR (4.78 kg), OSC-MAC (2.78 kg), OSC-local (2.6 kg), and the clinic (0.65 kg). Using analysis of variance, the clinic's direct costs and surgical waste were significantly less than any other setting ( P < .005). Conclusions: The direct costs of an open carpal tunnel release were nearly 2 times more expensive in the OSC compared with the clinic and almost 7 times more expensive in the OR. Open carpal tunnel release is more cost-effective and generates less medical waste when performed in the clinic versus all other surgical venues.