Search

Objective: While there has been increasing interest in minimally invasive surgery, the expenses incurred by patients undergoing this form of surgery have not been comprehensively studied. The authors compared the costs borne by patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with the standard mini-open repair at a tertiary hospital in an Asian population., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. The authors studied the inpatient hospital bills of patients following rotator cuff tear repair between January 2010 and October 2014 via the hospital electronic medical records system. 148 patients had arthroscopic repair and 78 had mini-open repair. The cost of implants, consumables, and the total cost of hospitalization were analyzed. Operative times and length of stay for both procedures were also studied. Constant scores and American Shoulder Elbow Scores (ASES) were recorded preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively., Results: Three fellowship-trained surgeons performed arthroscopic repairs and one performed the mini-open repair. The cost of implants and consumables was significantly higher with arthroscopic repair. The duration of surgery was also significantly longer with that technique. There was no difference in length of stay between the two techniques. There was also no difference in Constant scores or ASES scores, both preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively., Conclusions: The immediate costs of mini-open repair of rotator cuff tears are significantly less than that of arthroscopic repair. Most of the difference arises from the cost of implants and consumables. Equivalent functional outcomes from both techniques suggest that mini-open repair may be more cost-effective.

Introduction: We present our experience with limb salvage emphasising the use of vascularised bone grafts in combination with autoclaved tumour bone for limb salvage in osteosarcoma., Materials and Methods: Thirty-six cases with extremity osteosarcoma, all of which were managed at a single institution between 1980 and 1999, were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 9 years (range, 10 months to 200 months). There were 26 patients who underwent limb salvage surgery and 10 patients who had amputation., Results: In the limb salvage group, 12 bone defects were bridged using vascularised bone grafts alone while autoclaved tumour bone was used for reconstruction in the remaining 14 patients. In these 14, there were 10 with autoclaved tumour bone and vascularised bone, 2 with autoclaved bone and non-vascularised bone and 2 with autoclaved bone alone. The joint was preserved in 13 of the 26 reconstructions. Of these, 11 involved preservation of the knee joint contributing to a quantum gain in function with 84% good and excellent results. The actuarial survival was 64% at 2 years and 48% at 5 years, with no significant difference between ablation and limb salvage., Conclusion: The use of the autoclaved bone provided yet another effective alternative for bridging large defects following resection of high grade tumours.