Comparison of Surgical Encounter Direct Costs for Three Methods of Cubital Tunnel Decompression.

Plast Reconstr Surg

From the Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Public Health, and the Department of Pediatric Research Enterprise, School of Medicine, University of Utah.

Published: February 2019

Background: In situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition for cubital tunnel syndrome have historically yielded similar outcomes. The authors' null hypothesis is that no differences exist in surgical encounter total direct costs for in situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition.

Methods: Adult patients treated surgically for cubital tunnel syndrome by four fellowship-trained hand surgeons between August of 2011 and December of 2016 were identified by CPT code (64718) at their tertiary academic institution. Patients with prior elbow surgery or fracture/dislocation and those undergoing revision or additional simultaneous procedures were excluded. Using their institution's information technology value tools, the authors extracted prospectively collected surgical encounter total direct costs data for each surgical encounter. Costs were compared between groups and modeled using univariate and multivariable gamma regression.

Results: In situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition were performed on 45, 62, and 14 unique surgical encounters, respectively, with mean surgical times of 28.0, 46.5, and 50.0 minutes, respectively. Costs differed significantly between surgical methods. Surgical method and provider significantly affected surgical encounter total direct costs in the univariate model. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that subcutaneous transposition was 1.18-fold more costly than in situ decompression and submuscular transposition was 1.55-fold more costly than in situ decompression while controlling for age, sex, and provider.

Conclusions: Surgical costs differed significantly between in situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition. Given historically similar outcomes reported for these techniques, cost differences should be considered in addition to clinical factors to inform surgical decision-making for cubital tunnel syndrome patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352723PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005196DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

situ decompression
24
surgical encounter
20
subcutaneous transposition
20
direct costs
16
cubital tunnel
16
decompression subcutaneous
16
transposition submuscular
16
submuscular transposition
16
tunnel syndrome
12
encounter total
12

Similar Publications

Introduction: Surgical treatment of ulnar tunnel syndrome is controversial, with no consensus on the ideal procedure. Nevertheless, in-situ decompression seems to provide faster recovery with less morbidity than neurolysis-transposition. The aim of this retrospective study was to validate a new percutaneous technique using ultrasonography.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) involves placement of a graft/implant to ensure fusion and stabilization along with neural decompression. We share our experience with a subset of ACCF patients in whom graft/implant could not be placed post decompression for varying reasons but had a favorable long-term outcome. The necessity for routine fusion after corpectomy is critically analyzed, and the feasibility of an alternative surgical option without graft/implant is discussed.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize factors that may contribute to revision surgery following primary cubital tunnel release (CuTR) surgery.

Methods: A retrospective study was performed by reviewing all patients who underwent CuTR at a single institution between 2014 and 2021. Only primary CuTR surgeries were included.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) is the second most common nerve entrapment syndrome of the upper extremity after carpal tunnel syndrome. In situ decompression (ISD) and ulnar nerve transposition (UNT) are the major surgery methods in practice for the treatment of CuTS. However, controversies exist over the efficacy and safety of these methods.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Is the anconeus epitrochlearis muscle a predictor for ulnar nerve compression?

J Shoulder Elbow Surg

November 2024

Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, department of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology, Schiepse Bos 6, 3600 Genk, Belgium; University of Hasselt, faculty of rehabilitation sciences. Martelarenlaan 42, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium. Electronic address:

Background: The role of the anconeus epitrochlearis (AE) in cubital tunnel syndrome, either as protector or potential compressor of the ulnar nerve, as well as its prevalence in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients are still unclear. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of the AE in a large cohort using 3-dimensional imaging and to investigate any association of the AE with preoperative or postoperative features of patients undergoing cubital tunnel surgery.

Methods: From a database of 1240 elbow MRIs, all patients with an AE were retrospectively screened for major criteria of cubital tunnel syndrome.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!