Search

© 2019 American Society for Surgery of the Hand Purpose: Current evidence on predictors of outcomes after distal radius fracture is often based on retrospective analyses or may be confounded by fracture type. Using data from the Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial (WRIST), a 24-site randomized study of distal radius fracture treatment, in which all fractures are severe enough to warrant surgery, we set out to perform a secondary data analysis to explore predictors of better or worse hand outcomes. Methods: The primary outcome measure was the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) summary score 12 months after treatment. We used a regression tree analysis with recursive partitioning to identify subgroups of participants who experienced similar outcomes (ie, MHQ score) and to determine which baseline or treatment factors they had in common. Results: Factors most predictive of 12-month MHQ score were pain at enrollment, education, age, and number of comorbidities. Specifically, participants who had a high school education or less and also reported severe pain had the lowest MHQ scores. Conversely, participants with less pain and more education and who were age 87 years or younger with one or no comorbid condition had the highest MHQ scores. Treatment type or radiographic measurements assessed on post-reduction films did not affect 12-month outcomes. Conclusions: These results identified patient characteristics that can be used by surgeons to identify subgroups of patients who may experience similar hand outcomes. Type of study/level of evidence: Prognostic III.

Purpose We sought to compare preferences for arthroplasty versus arthrodesis among patients with proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint osteoarthritis (OA) by quantifying the patient-assigned utility of each operation's attributes. Methods We undertook a multistep process to identify relevant surgical attributes, including a literature review, surgeon survey, and pretest patient pilot test to build a set of discrete choice experiments. Patients with PIP joint osteoarthritis were identified using a single university electronic medical record and were recruited via electronic message or postcard. Participants completed a demographic survey and 11 discrete choice experiments designed using Sawtooth Software's Discover tool. Utility and importance scores were generated for each attribute. Results Pretest analysis identified out-of-pocket cost, joint stiffness, need for future surgery, change in grip strength, and total recovery time as the most important surgical attributes. Initial response rate to the conjoint survey was 75% and survey completion rate was 61%. The study sample was predominantly white (91%) and female (72%), mean age 64.3 years (range, 34–90 years), and mean daily pain score was 4.32 (range, 0–10). Attribute importance scores demonstrated that joint stiffness (32%) and grip strength (29%) were most important to patients. Cost (17%) and need for future surgery (19%) were intermediate patient-preference drivers. Recovery time was the least important attribute (2%). Conclusions In aggregate, patients prefer surgical attributes characteristic of arthroplasty (ability to preserve joint motion and grip strength) relative to those associated with arthrodesis (decreased need for reoperation, lower costs, and shorter reoperation times). Type of study/level of evidence Economic/Decision Analysis III.

Purpose Understanding patient preferences for shared decision making is valuable for surgeons to advance patient-centered care, particularly in cases where there is not a clearly superior treatment option, like distal radius fracture. The existing evidence presents conflicting views on the desired role of the provider among older patients when making medical decisions. We aimed to investigate the perceived versus desired role of the provider in older adult patients with distal radius fracture. Methods Thirty patients (≥62 years old) who had sustained a distal radius fracture within the past 5 years were recruited from the screening process of the Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial at the principal investigator's site using purposive sampling. A trained member of the research team conducted interviews in a semistructured format with the help of an interview guide. Findings were derived following the principles of grounded theory. Results Participants experienced varied levels of shared decision making with the hand surgeon. Subjects' perceived role of the surgeon did not always match their desired role. Most patients placed distinct trust in the recommendations of hand specialists regarding the technical aspects of the treatment. Nonetheless, respondents wanted to provide input when decisions pertained to outcomes or functionality. Many patients sought outside support from family or friends in the health care field, regardless of the outside source's medical specialty. Conclusions Despite conflicting evidence, most older adult patients desire a shared approach when making treatment decisions. Exchanging information and preferences on outcomes of each treatment option may be more important to the patient than detailing the specific technical aspects of their care. Clinical relevance To provide high quality care, surgeons should evaluate the desired role of the patient to make treatment decisions at the start of their interaction. Surgeons must be aware of outside medical influences that guide their patients' decision-making processes.

Purpose This study attempted to determine the extent to which surgeon age influences treatment patterns for distal radius fractures (DRFs). We hypothesized that younger surgeons perform open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for DRFs among elderly individuals more frequently than older surgeons, who employ a wider range of treatment modalities. Methods We identified 61,314 Medicare beneficiaries who experienced DRFs and the 12,823 surgeons who performed ORIF, external fixation, pinning, or closed reduction on them during 2007. We examined the effect of surgeon age on DRF treatment pattern, controlling for patient characteristics and other surgeon factors using multinomial logistic regression. We then stratified our analysis by American Society for Surgery of the Hand membership to more closely examine the influence of surgeon specialization on the association between surgeon age and DRF treatment. Results Surgeons aged 40 years and younger were more likely to perform ORIF and less likely to choose external fixation and percutaneous pinning to treat DRFs, compared with older surgeons. Surgeon specialization mitigated this relationship, and American Society for Surgery of the Hand members were more likely to choose ORIF compared with nonmembers. However, surgeon age remained a significant predictor of treatment choice after controlling for other factors and surgeon specialization. Conclusions Younger surgeons are more likely to perform ORIF for DRFs among Medicare beneficiaries over 65 years of age. Given the lack of evidence supporting any single treatment option for DRF, understanding the factors that drive dissemination of operative techniques may provide insight into treatment disparities within the Medicare population. Type of study/level of evidence Therapeutic III.

Decision analysis is a method of probabilistic reasoning and decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. These methods are being used increasingly in hand surgery and medicine in general. It is important for hand surgeons to understand these techniques and how to interpret the results from these studies. Performing a decision analysis involves (1) defining a specific question, (2) creating a model to frame the question, (3) assigning value to outcomes in the model, (4) assigning probabilities to chance events in the model, (5) identifying the best strategy within the model, (6) sensitivity analysis, and (7) model refinement. It is important to recognize the limitations inherent in decision analysis but also to understand its value in overcoming clinical uncertainty by employing a practical technique of modeling choices and outcomes.

Purpose In January 2006, the American College of Emergency Physicians released updated guidelines for air transfer. Digit amputation and near-amputation were no longer an indication for this costly service. We analyzed the effect of this update on the use of air transport and associated care outcomes for finger amputation patients and examined factors involved in providing follow-up care for these patients. Methods A retrospective chart review identified all patients treated for traumatic finger amputation between 1995 and 2012 at a major hand trauma referral center. Analysis of available outcome measures was conducted using multiple logistic and linear regression models. Analysis of factors affecting frequency of return visits was performed via negative binomial regression. Results We identified 724 patients with isolated traumatic finger amputations. A total of 267 patients (37%) were transferred from an outside hospital. Patients injured after 2006 were less likely to be transferred via air, with a decrease from 29.5% pre-2006 to 14.9% post-2006. There was no difference in likelihood of replantation success, length of hospital stay, or number of return visits pre- versus post-2006. Patients transferred via helicopter after 2006 were more likely to be younger than 20 years of age and injured in a winter month. Following successful replantation, work-relatedness was associated with a higher number of return visits, whereas increasing age and transfer from farther than 100 miles away were associated with fewer. Conclusions After the American College of Emergency Physicians policy update, decreased use of emergency air transport to a hand trauma referral center for patients with traumatic finger amputations did not adversely affect care delivery and outcomes. These changes may be successfully implemented on a center-by-center basis to reduce costs without detriment to patient care; however, coordination of follow-up care for long-distance transport patients may require special focus when designing policy around referral centers. Type pf study/level of evidence Therapeutic IV.

Purpose Patients with tetraplegia consistently rank better use of the upper extremity as their top functional priority. Multiple case series have demonstrated that upper extremity reconstruction (UER) is well-tolerated and can produce substantial functional improvements for appropriate candidates; however, UER remains critically underutilized. The mechanisms that drive differences in provider practice and referral patterns have been studied, but comprehensive examination of the patient factors that influence UER decisions has not been performed for American patients. Methods Nineteen patients with C4–8 cervical spinal injuries were selected using purposive sampling: 9 patients had undergone UER, 10 had not undergone UER. Semistructured interviews were conducted and transcripts evaluated using grounded theory methodology. Results Our study yielded a conceptual model that describes the characteristics common to all patients who undergo UER. Patients who selected reconstruction proceeded stepwise through a shared sequence of steps: (1) functional dissatisfaction, (2) awareness of UER, and (3) acceptance of surgery. Patients’ ability to meet these criteria was determined by 3 checkpoints: how well they coped, their access to information, and the acceptability of surgery. Extremely positive or negative coping prevented patients from moving from the Coping to the Information Checkpoint; thus, they remained unaware of UER and did not undergo surgery. A lack of knowledge regarding reconstruction was the strongest barrier to surgery among our participants. Conclusions We built a conceptual model that outlines how patients’ personal and contextual factors drive their progression to UER. Moving from functional dissatisfaction to understanding that they were candidates for UER was a substantial barrier for participants, particularly those with very high and very low coping skills. Clinical relevance To improve utilization for all patients, interventions are needed to increase UER awareness. Standardizing introduction to UER during the rehabilitation process or improving e-content may represent key awareness access points.

Purpose Reconstructive surgery for complete brachial plexus avulsion injuries only partially restores function, and many patients are dissatisfied with results that surgeons consider good. Preoperative expectations have been shown to influence postoperative satisfaction but are poorly understood in patients with complete brachial plexus avulsion injuries. Qualitative methodology can elucidate patient beliefs and attitudes, which are difficult to quantify. The purpose of this study was to examine patient-reported outcomes, including satisfaction, and to understand the patient perspective. Methods We used qualitative interviews and questionnaires to assess patient-reported outcomes. Two members of the research team analyzed interview data using Grounded Theory methodology. Data from participants who had and did not have reconstructive surgery were compared. Results Twelve patients participated in this study. Of the 7 participants who had reconstructive surgery, 4 felt their expectations had been met and 5 were satisfied with their outcomes. Reconstruction did not produce statistically significant improvements in upper extremity function, pain, or work ability. All patients reported dissatisfaction with upper extremity ability, and 9 expressed hope for innovative treatments (eg, stem cell therapy, nerve reinsertion) that could potentially provide better outcomes than existing procedures and enable return to work. Conclusions Satisfaction with surgical outcomes after complete avulsion brachial plexus injury depends heavily on whether preoperative expectations are met, but patients are unfamiliar with nerve avulsion and do not always know what to expect. Low satisfaction with upper extremity ability and the lack of statistically significant differences produced by reconstruction suggest that current treatments may not be meeting patients' needs. Physicians must provide robust preoperative education to encourage realistic expectations and direct patients toward resources for pain management to facilitate comprehensive rehabilitation. Type of study/level of evidence Therapeutic III.

Purpose To evaluate prolonged opioid use in opioid-naive patients after common hand surgery procedures in the United States. Methods We studied insurance claims from the Truven MarketScan databases to identify opioid-naive adult patients (no opioid exposure 11 months before the perioperative period) who underwent an elective (carpal tunnel release, carpometacarpal arthroplasty/arthrodesis, cubital tunnel release, or trigger finger release) or trauma-related (closed distal radius fracture fixation, flexor tendon repair, metacarpal fracture fixation, or phalangeal fracture fixation) hand surgery procedure between 2010 and 2012 (N = 77,573 patients). Patients were observed for 6 months to determine the number, timing, duration, and oral morphine equivalent dosage of postoperative opioid prescriptions. We assessed prolonged postoperative opioid use, defined as patients who filled a perioperative opioid prescription followed by a prescription between 90 and 180 days after surgery, and evaluated associated risk factors using multivariable logistic regression. Results In this cohort, 59,725 opioid-naive patients (77%) filled a perioperative opioid prescription. Of these, 13% of patients continued to fill prescriptions between 90 and 180 days after surgery. Elective surgery patients were more likely to continue to fill opioid prescriptions after 90 days compared with trauma patients (13.5% vs 10.5%). Younger age, female gender, lower income, comprehensive insurance, higher Elixhauser comorbidity index, mental health disorders, and tobacco dependence or abuse were associated with prolonged opioid use. Conclusions Approximately 13% of opioid-naive patients continue to fill opioid prescriptions after hand surgery procedures 90 days after surgery. Preoperative interventions centered on opioid alternatives and early cessation, particularly among patients at risk for long-term use, is critical to addressing the prescription opioid crisis in the United States. Clinical relevance The current national opioid use epidemic requires an assessment of the prevalence of hand surgery patients who receive and fill opioid prescriptions after common hand surgery procedures.

Outcomes research serves as a mechanism to assess the quality of care, cost effectiveness of treatment, and other aspects of health care. The use of administrative databases in outcomes research is increasing in all medical specialties, including hand surgery. However, the real value of databases can be maximized with a thorough understanding of their contents, advantages, and limitations. We performed a literature review pertaining to databases in medical, surgical, and epidemiologic research, with special emphasis on orthopedic and hand surgery. This article provides an overview of the available database resources for outcomes research, their potential value to hand surgeons, and suggestions to improve their effective use.

Purpose There is a lack of scientific data regarding which treatment provides the best outcome for distal radius fractures (DRFs) in the elderly. Currently, casting is used to treat the majority of these fractures, although open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been used increasingly in recent years. Given the recent emphasis on the wise use of medical resources, we conducted a cost–utility analysis to assess which of 4 common DRF treatments (casting, wire fixation, external fixation, or ORIF) optimizes the cost–to–patient preference ratio. Methods We created a decision tree to model the process of choosing a DRF treatment and experiencing a final outcome. Fifty adults aged 65 and older were surveyed in a time trade-off, one-on-one interview to obtain utilities for DRF treatments and possible complications. We gathered Medicare reimbursement rates and calculated the incremental cost–utility ratio for each treatment. Results Participants rated DRF treatment relatively high, assigning utility values close to perfect health to all treatments. The ORIF was the most preferred treatment (utility, 0.96), followed by casting (utility, 0.94), wire fixation (utility, 0.94), and external fixation (utility, 0.93). The ORIF was the most expensive treatment (reimbursement, $3,516), whereas casting was the least expensive (reimbursement, $564). The incremental cost–utility ratio for ORIF, when compared to casting, was $15,330 per quality-adjusted life years, which is less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year, thereby indicating that, from the societal perspective, ORIF is considered a worthwhile alternative to casting. Conclusions There is a slight preference for the faster return to minimally restricted activity provided by ORIF. Overall, patients show little preference for one DRF treatment over another. Because Medicare patients pay similar out-of-pocket costs regardless of procedure, they are not particularly concerned with procedure costs. Considering the similar long-term outcomes, this study adds to the uncertainty surrounding the choice of DRF treatment in the elderly, further indicating the need for a high-powered, randomized trial. Type of study/level of evidence Economic and Decision Analyses II.

Purpose Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are the second most common fracture experienced by elderly individuals. In 2005, 16% of DRFs in the Medicare population were being treated with internal fixation, up from 3% in 1997. This shift in treatment strategy can have substantial financial impact on Medicare and the health care system in general. The specific aims of this project were to quantify the current and future Medicare expenditures attributable to DRF and to compare Medicare payments for the 4 treatment options for elderly DRF. Methods We analyzed the 100% 2007 Medicare dataset for annual DRF-attributable spending. Payments were obtained for claims that were identified as attributable to DRF by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes for DRF in conjunction with a Current Procedural Technology code for relevant treatment or service. We projected annual payments based on increasing internal fixation treatment. All payments are reported in 2007 U.S. dollars. Results In 2007, Medicare made $170 million in DRF-attributable payments. If the usage of internal fixation were to reach 50%, DRF-attributable payments could be nearly $240 million. The mean attributable payment made for each patient in 2007 was $1,983. Most of this is due to facility and staffing cost for the treatment procedure. Conclusions This analysis provides an accurate quantification of Medicare DRF-attributable expenditure. Use of 100% Medicare data allows for the summation of actual patient experience rather than modeling or estimation. The burden of DRF is going to grow as the U.S. population ages and as internal fixation becomes more widely used. The Medicare payment data can help in allocating resources nationally to address the increasing disease burden of DRF. Type of study/level of evidence Economic and Decision Analysis I.

Purpose Internal fixation for distal radius fractures (DRFs) in the elderly has increased from 3% in 1997 to 17% in 2007. This increase has been uneven across regions of the United States. There is some evidence that patients treated by hand surgeons receive internal fixation at an increased rate and that hand surgeons might be driving the increased usage in regions where their presence is greatest. The specific aim of this study was to explore this relationship by analyzing Medicare beneficiaries treated by members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH). Methods Surgeons who were members of ASSH in 2007 were matched with surgeons treating Medicare beneficiaries for DRFs in the same year. We then fit a series of multilevel models to estimate the proportion of total variance in internal fixation usage explained by ASSH membership status, patient demographic data, patient comorbidity, and/or type of fracture diagnosed. Results Beneficiaries treated by ASSH members received internal fixation significantly more often than beneficiaries who were treated by surgeons who were not ASSH members. ASSH member status accounts for 12% of the total variance in internal fixation utilization. Conclusions Medicare beneficiaries who were treated by ASSH member surgeons receive internal fixation at a significantly higher rate than do patients of other physicians. When there is uncertainty about the optimal treatment for a condition, there is the possibility for specialty-related disparities. This specialty effect contributes to the national variations in the treatment of DRFs in the Medicare population. Type of study/level of evidence Therapeutic II.

Purpose To determine the change in score required in various domains of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) to indicate meaningful patient improvement, or the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), for 3 common hand conditions: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and distal radius fracture (DRF). Methods The MHQ was administered to patients at 2 time points. Patient satisfaction was defined as a satisfaction score ≥80% of the standard deviation of that patient sample. The minimal change in score in specific MHQ domains that corresponded with patient satisfaction was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results For CTS patients, MCIDs of 23, 13, and 8 were identified for the pain, function, and work domains, respectively. For RA patients, pain and function were also identified as having discriminative ability, with MCIDs of 11 and 13, respectively. An MCID of 3 was identified for the activities of daily living domain. For DRF patients, no MHQ domains showed discriminative ability because of the ceiling effect at the 3-month assessment period. Conclusions Individual domains of the MHQ can be used to discriminate between patients who are satisfied and those who are not after either carpal tunnel release or silicone arthroplasty of the metacarpophalangeal joints for RA. Pain and function are the domains of the MHQ that are best able to discriminate between patients who are satisfied and those who are not. The identical function MCID for both RA patients and CTS patients, despite markedly different preoperative values, indicates that a standard amount of functional change may indicate patient satisfaction. High postoperative satisfaction, even only 3 months after surgery, prevented any domains from showing discriminative ability for the DRF patients. Type of study/level of evidence Diagnostic III.

Purpose To compare the societal preferences for finger replantation between the United States (US) and Japan and to investigate factors influencing the preferences. Methods A sample of the general population without current hand disease or condition was recruited via flyers posted in public areas of 2 major academic centers in the US and Japan. The recruited subjects completed a survey presenting finger amputation scenarios and various factors that may affect treatment decisions. We performed univariate analysis using treatment preference as the outcome and all other factors as possible predictors using the chi-square test. Results Most respondents in both countries preferred replantation and there was no significant difference between the US and Japan. Treatment preference was significantly associated with the importance of appearance, recovery time, and the chance of survival of the replanted digit. There was no association between treatment preference and attitudes regarding body integrity or estimate of stigma toward finger amputees. Japanese participants agreed more with statements of body integrity, and Japanese respondents rated appearance, sensation, and chance of survival of the replant as more important than did American participants. Conclusions Patient preference is not driving the decrease in finger replantations in the US. The general public in both countries prefer replantation over wound closure for digit amputations. Type of study/level of evidence Economic and decision analysis III.

Purpose To conduct a systematic review to guide hand surgeons in an evidenced-based approach in managing postoperative pain. Methods We performed a literature review for primary research articles on management of postoperative pain in hand surgery patients using Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE; PubMed), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Inclusion criteria were primary journal articles examining treatment of acute postoperative pain based on any modality. Data related to pain assessment, postoperative recovery, and total postoperative analgesic consumption were extracted. Results A total of 903 publications were reviewed; 184 publications underwent abstract review. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 primary articles were selected for inclusion in this review. Data were noted to be heterogeneous and findings were compiled. Results were divided into groups evaluating postoperative pain medications or pain infusion catheters. Conclusions Although this review did not demonstrate a best practices model for postoperative pain management, it provides evidence for alternative medications and treatment strategies. The evidence available suggests that postoperative pain control should begin before surgery and that combining multiple strategies for pain treatment is beneficial. Given the increasing attention paid to narcotic prescriptions and the potential for abuse, surgeons should adopt evidence-based pain management practices. We provide an example algorithm for pain treatment in hand surgery based on available data and the authors' experience. Type of study/level of evidence Therapeutic III.

l t a s m h n p AH, THE INTERVIEWING season is upon us, filling the air with great anticipation and excitement as we choose the hand fellow who will work ide-by-side with us for the next whole year. Will here be chemistry between the fellow and the resients and the support staff? And more importantly, ill the hand fellow like me? I can imagine this xperience is similar to meeting your child’s signifcant other for the first time: will it be a wonderful atch or a tormenting experience? Earlier in the year, I went through the pile of pplications. Before me, reduced to a few pages, ere dozens of highly qualified individuals, all top of he class since kindergarten, exceptional clinicians, nd overall great people. The letters of recommenation all read similarly: “Dear Dr. Chung, . . . deightful, articulate, jovial, I cannot recommend this andidate any higher, best I have had in my career.” espite this, a few applicants stood out. This one tarted a foundation to raise money for science eduation in underserved areas. That one was an NCAA ivision 1 tennis ace. Another spent a summer at Le ordon Bleu in Paris studying microgastronomy. When the interview day arrived, 18 carefully curated pplicants congregated in the conference room, eagerly nticipating the interview questions and, of course, sizng up the competition. The tension in the room was alpable. In an effort to lighten the mood, I did my best mpression of a coach giving a motivating pregame. I poke passionately about the University of Michigan’s inningest football program in the country, trying to loss over the fact that this distinction is really just a esult of the program’s lengthy existence. So what if we ave not won a national championship since the turn of

Hypothesis: The National Institutes of Healthefunded Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial (WRIST) is a historic collaboration of 21 hand surgery centers in the United States, Canada, and Singapore (Fig. 1). This multicenter clinical trial was initiated after the seminal systematic review by Margaliot et al and the Cochrane report that indicated marked deficiency in the quality of evidence in the distal radius fracture (DRF) literature, specifically in the case of volar locking plate use in patients over the age of 55 years. The WRIST team was created to answer questions about treatment of DRF in elderly patients with outcomes of function and patient-rated items including satisfaction and quality of life. Methods: The Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial is a 21-center National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseaseseand National Institute onAgingefunded, randomized, controlled trial evaluatingDRFs in a patient group age 60 years and over. Participants are randomly allocated to 1 of the 3 surgical procedures: internalfixationwith volar lockingplate, external fixation, and percutaneous pinning. Those who opt out of surgery are observed in an observation group. Outcomes include the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, the Short Form-36, grip and pinch strength, and wrist range of motion. The Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial received National Institutes of Health approval to begin screening in January 2012. Results: The WRIST team experienced setbacks, including obtaining regulatory approval across all sites. Any changes to the protocol must be reviewed at every site. It took nearly a year for all sites to obtain approval from their institutional review or ethics board. This severely limited the time available for recruitment. Furthermore, WRIST has screened 252 patients. Among these, 154 patients were excluded owing to noneligibility (61%). Of the 98 eligible patients, 40 were enrolled into the study, for an enrollment rate of only 16%. When calculating sample size, we had anticipated a 50% refusal rate. We were not prepared for the large number of ineligible patients. However, with the incorporation of additional sites within and outside the United States, we expect to increase the number of patients screened, and thus to meet our recruitment goals.

Purpose We undertook a cost-utility analysis to compare traditional fasciectomy for Dupuytren with 2 new treatments, needle aponeurotomy and collagenase injection. Methods We constructed an expected-value decision analysis model with an arm representing each treatment. A survey was administered to a cohort of 50 consecutive subjects to determine utilities of different interventions. We conducted multiple sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of varying the rate of disease recurrence in each arm of the analysis as well as the cost of the collagenase injection. The threshold for a cost-effective treatment is based on the traditional willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. Results The cost of open partial fasciectomy was $820,114 per QALY gained over no treatment. The cost of needle aponeurotomy was $96,474 per QALY gained versus no treatment. When we performed a sensitivity analysis and set the success rate at 100%, the cost of needle aponeurotomy was $49,631. When needle aponeurotomy was performed without surgical center or anesthesia costs and with reduced hand therapy, the cost was $36,570. When a complete collagenase injection series was priced at $250, the cost was $31,856 per QALY gained. When the injection series was priced at $945, the cost was $49,995 per QALY gained. At the market price of $5,400 per injection, the cost was $166,268 per QALY gained. Conclusions In the current model, open partial fasciectomy is not cost-effective. Needle aponeurotomy is cost-effective if the success rate is high. Collagenase injection is cost-effective when priced under $945. Type of study/level of evidence Economic and Decision Analysis II.