Cost Comparison of Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Using External Lengthening and Then Nailing vs Internal Magnetic Lengthening Nails

How Much Does Paediatric Femoral Lengthening Cost? A Cost Comparison between Magnetic Lengthening Nails and External Fixators

Aim

Motorised intramedullary lengthening nails are considered more expensive than external fixators for limb lengthening. This research aims to compare the cost of femoral lengthening in children using the PRECICE magnetic lengthening nail with external fixation.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 50 children who underwent femoral lengthening. One group included patients who were treated with PRECICE lengthening nails, the other group included patients who had lengthening with external fixation. Each group included 25 patients aged between 11 and 17 years. The patients in both groups were matched for age. Cost analysis was performed following micro-costing and analysis of the used resources during the different phases of the treatments.

Results

Each group's mean patient age was 14.7 years. Lengthening nails were associated with longer operative times compared with external fixators, both for implantation and removal surgery (p-values of 0.007 and < 0.0001, respectively). Length of stay following the implantation surgery, frequency of radiographs and frequency of outpatient department appointments were all lower with lengthening nails. The overall cost of lengthening nails was £1393 more than external fixators, however, this difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.088).

Conclusion

The difference in the mean costs between femoral lengthening with lengthening nails versus external fixators was not statistically significant. Further research to review the effectiveness of the devices and the quality of life during the lengthening process is crucial for robust health economic evaluation.

How to cite this article

Hafez M, Nicolaou N, Offiah A, et al. How Much Does Paediatric Femoral Lengthening Cost? A Cost Comparison between Magnetic Lengthening Nails and External Fixators. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(1):16-20.

An Update on the Intramedullary Implant in Limb Lengthening: A Quinquennial Review Part 2: Extending Surgical Indications and Further Innovation

The use of the intramedullary lengthening nail has gained in popularity over the last decade. The reduction in complications associated with the use of external fixators and excellent patient outcomes has resulted in the largest change in management of limb length discrepancy since the concept of distraction osteogenesis was accepted by the Western world in the 1980s. Success following "simple" limb lengthening has led to surgeons extending the indications for the lengthening nail, including different bone segments, lengthening associated with potential joint instability and lengthening combined with acute deformity correction. There has been a drive for further implant modification to reduce complications, and enable full weight bearing during the lengthening process. This would offer the opportunity to consider simultaneous limb lengthening. The aim of this review is to evaluate the literature published over the last five years and highlight important learning points and technical tips for these expanding indications.

What Factors Correlate With Length of Stay and Readmission After Limb Lengthening Procedures? A Large-database Study

BACKGROUND

Indications and techniques for limb lengthening procedures have evolved over the past two decades. Although there are several case series reporting on the complications and efficacy of these techniques, limited data are available on length of stay and hospital readmission rates after these procedures.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the median length of stay after lower limb lengthening procedures, and is variability in patient demographics, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical technique associated with length of stay? (2) What is the 1-year readmission rate after lower limb lengthening procedures? (3) Is variability in patient demographics, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical technique associated with varying rates of hospital readmission?

METHODS

Patients who underwent femoral or tibial lengthening from 2005 to 2015 in seven states were identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases. These databases include a large, diverse group of patients across a wide range of hospitals and socioeconomic backgrounds with inclusion of patients regardless of payer. Between 2005 and 2015, there were 3979 inpatient admissions that were identified as involving femoral and/or tibial lengthening procedures based on ICD-9 procedure codes; of those, 2% (97 of 3979) of the inpatient admissions were excluded from analysis because they had ICD-9 procedure codes for primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty, and 10% (394 of 3979) of the inpatient admissions were excluded because they involved repeated admissions of patients with previous hospitalization data within the database. This yielded 3488 patients for analysis. The median (interquartile range) age of patients was 18 years (12 to 41), and 42% (1481 of 3488) of patients were women. A total of 49% (1705 of 3469) of patients were children (younger than 18 years), 19% (675 of 3469) were young adults (18 to 34 years), 24% (817 of 3469) were adults (35 to 59 years), and 8% (272 of 3469) were seniors (60 years and older). Length of stay and rates of readmission at 1 year after the lengthening procedure were calculated. Univariate analysis was performed to examine associations between age, race, payment method, underlying diagnosis, bone lengthened, and lengthening technique with length of stay and readmission rate. Factors found to be significantly associated with the outcome variables (p < 0.05) were further examined with a multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Included patients had a median (IQR) length of hospital stay of 3 days (2 to 4). Given the poor explanatory power of the multivariate model for length of stay (R 2 = 0.03), no meaningful correlations could be drawn between age, race, underlying diagnosis, lengthening technique, and length of stay. The overall 1-year readmission rate was 35% (1237 of 3488). There were higher readmission rates among adult patients compared with pediatric patients (odds ratio 1.78 [95% confidence interval 1.46 to 2.18]; p < 0.001), patients with government insurance compared with commercial insurance (OR 1.28 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.54]; p = 0.01), and patients undergoing lengthening via external fixation (OR 1.61 [95% CI 1.29 to 2.02]; p < 0.001) or hybrid fixation (OR 1.81 [95% CI 1.38 to 2.37]; p < 0.001) compared with lengthening with internal fixation only.

CONCLUSION

When counseling patients who may be candidates for limb lengthening, providers should inform individual patients and their caretakers on the anticipated length of hospital stay and likelihood of hospital readmission based on our findings. Adult patients, those with government insurance, and patients undergoing hybrid or external fixator limb lengthening procedures should be advised that they are at greater risk for hospital readmission. The relationship of specific patient-related factors (such as severity of deformity or associated comorbidities) and treatment-related variables (such as amount of lengthening, compliance with physical therapy, or surgeon's experience) with clinical outcomes after lower limb lengthening and the burden of care associated with hospital readmission needs further study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Dual Magnetically Expandable Intramedullary Nails for Treatment of a Large Bony Defect in a Patient with Sarcoma: A Case Report

Aim

To describe the surgical technique of performing an all-internal lengthening to address a large diaphyseal femur defect in the sarcoma patient.

Background

Various strategies exist to address large intercalary bone defects with various biomechanical and biological implications.

Case description

A 23-year-old female with high-grade osteosarcoma of her left femur underwent wide resection and an internal reconstruction of a 12.5-cm femoral defect using dual magnetic lengthening intramedullary nails resulting in restoration of leg lengths, and pre-resection function with minimal residual disability.

Conclusion

Preoperative chemotherapy, wide resection and post-operative chemotherapy for osteosarcoma are the current standard of care. Resection often leads to large bone defects requiring complex reconstruction. Following intercalary bone resection, biological reconstruction is a consideration. An all-inside technique was developed in an effort to minimise complications of long-term external fixation for distraction osteogenesis, or extensile secondary grafting procedures for induced membrane strategy.

Clinical significance

This previously unreported surgical technique allows for an all-internal lengthening of large diaphyseal bone defects. While specifically used in an oncologic post-resection setting, this technique is applicable to the broader limb reconstruction and lengthening practice and overcomes some inherent limitations to previously described techniques.

How to cite this article

Copp J, Magister S, Napora J, et al. Dual Magnetically Expandable Intramedullary Nails for Treatment of a Large Bony Defect in a Patient with Sarcoma: A Case Report. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2022;17(3):189-194.