Patient Willingness to Pay for Faster Return to Work or Smaller Incisions

Final 1-Year Results of the TUTOR Randomized Trial Comparing Carpal Tunnel Release with Ultrasound Guidance to Mini-open Technique

Background

Studies comparing carpal tunnel release with ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) to mini-open CTR (mOCTR) are limited. This randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of these techniques.

Methods

In this multicenter randomized trial, patients were randomized (2:1) to unilateral CTR-US or mOCTR. Outcomes included Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) and Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS), numeric pain scale (0-10), EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), scar outcomes, and complications over 1 year.

Results

Patients received CTR-US (n = 94) via wrist incision (mean 6 mm) or mOCTR (n = 28) via palmar incision (mean 22 mm). Comparing CTR-US with mOCTR, the mean changes in BCTQ-SSS (-1.8 versus -1.8; P = 0.96), BCTQ-FSS (-1.0 versus -1.0; P = 0.75), numeric pain scale (-3.9 versus -3.8; P = 0.74), and EQ-5D-5L (0.13 versus 0.12; P = 0.79) over 1 year were comparable between groups. Freedom from scar sensitivity or pain favored CTR-US (95% versus 74%; P = 0.005). Complications occurred in 2.1% versus 3.6% of patients (P = 0.55), all within 3 weeks postprocedure. There was one revision surgery in the CTR-US group, and no revisions for persistent or recurrent symptoms in either group.

Conclusions

CTR-US and mOCTR demonstrated similar improvement in carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms and quality of life with comparable low complication rates over 1 year of follow-up. CTR-US was performed with a smaller incision and associated with less scar discomfort.

Early Return to Work after Carpal Tunnel Release with Ultrasound Guidance

Background

The duration of postoperative leave varies by the carpal tunnel release (CTR) technique. This study aimed to determine the time to return to work (RTW) after CTR with ultrasound (CTR-US) guidance and identify factors contributing to this duration.

Methods

This was a multicenter postmarket registry of patients treated with CTR-US. Time to RTW was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier methods. Logistic regression identified the association of patient, work, and procedural factors with the probability of RTW within 5 days (a standard work week) after CTR-US.

Results

A total of 544 employed patients (655 hands) from 24 centers were treated with CTR-US between November 2019 and August 2022. The mean patient age was 50 years, 62% were women, and most (76%) were full-time employees, where work activities were desk-based (49%), light manual (28%), or heavy manual (23%). The complication rate was 0.8%. After CTR-US, the median RTW was 3 days (interquartile range: 1-6 days), with 74.6% returning by 5 days, 87.8% by 10 days, and 97.1% by 30 days. Work activity (desk-based versus heavy manual: odds ratio = 2.93, 95% confidence interval: 1.70-5.04, P < 0.001) and sex (man versus woman: odds ratio = 1.85, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-2.98, P = 0.01) were associated with higher probability of RTW within 5 days. The median RTW ranged from 2 to 4 days in all patient subgroups, including heavy manual laborers (median 4 days) and women (median 3 days).

Conclusions

CTR-US offers an efficient approach to treating CTS, enabling most patients to RTW with minimal delay. The short recovery periods observed across diverse patient and work characteristic subgroups compare favorably to other CTR techniques.

Patient preferences for physical therapy programs after a lower extremity fracture: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To quantify patients' preferences for physical therapy programmes after a lower extremity fracture and determine patient factors associated with preference variation.

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

SETTING

Level I trauma centre.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred fifty-one adult (≥18 years old) patients with lower extremity fractures treated operatively.

INTERVENTION

Patients were given hypothetical scenarios and asked to select their preferred therapy course when comparing cost, mobility, long-term pain, session duration, and treatment setting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A multinomial logit model was used to determine the relative importance and willingness to pay for each attribute.

RESULTS

Mobility was of greatest relative importance (45%, 95% CI: 40% to 49%), more than cost (23%, 95% CI: 19% to 27%), long-term pain (19%, 95% CI: 16% to 23%), therapy session duration (12%, 95% CI: 9% to 5%) or setting (1%, 95% CI: 0.2% to 2%). Patients were willing to pay US$142 more per session to return to their preinjury mobility level (95% CI: US$103 to US$182). Willingness to pay for improved mobility was higher for women, patients aged 70 years and older, those with bachelor's degrees or higher and those living in less-deprived areas. Patients were willing to pay US$72 (95% CI: US$50 to US$93) more per session to reduce pain from severe to mild. Patients were indifferent between formal and independent home therapy (willingness to pay: -US$12, 95% CI: -US$33 to US$9).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with lower extremity fractures highly value recovering mobility and are willing to pay more for postoperative physical therapy programmes that facilitate returning to their pre-injury mobility level. These patient preferences might be useful when prescribing and designing new techniques for postoperative therapy.

The Influence of Out-of-Pocket Cost on Wrist Fracture Treatment Selection

PURPOSE

Patient-centered care prioritizes patients' specific health needs and desired outcomes based on their preferences, values, and goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate nonclinical factors that affect decision-making related to wrist fracture treatment options.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was administered via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants chose between two treatment options for theoretical wrist fractures. Each choice set contained three levels for four attributes-total out-of-pocket cost, length of cast immobilization, time to return to work, and number of posttreatment follow-up visits-determined using Medicare national average out-of-pocket costs and a range of standard treatment options. Financial stress was evaluated using the InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 232 responses were collected. The average financial stress score was 6.29 (SD, 1.97), with 22% (52/232) being classified as financially distressed (score < 5.00). Twenty-eight percent of the participants (n = 64) always chose the lowest cost option, and two participants (0.01%) always chose less time in a cast. Over one-third of the participants chose the cheaper monetary option 80% of the time or more. The odds of choosing a lower cost option were 1.06 times greater per $100 decrease in cost in the entire cohort and 1.03 times greater among 166 participants who did not always choose the least expensive option. In monetary terms, relative importance showed that the participants were willing to pay $19.48 and $58.37 for a week less of cast immobilization and out of work, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the important role that out-of-pocket cost plays in decision-making compared with the nonclinical components of two equivalent treatment options.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Providers should be cognizant of the cost associated with treatment options so that information on treatment cost can be incorporated into counseling and shared decision-making with patients undergoing hand surgery.