Search

Objective: To demonstrate that the creation of a Center for Trauma Survivorship (CTS) is not cost-prohibitive but is a revenue generator for the institution. Background: A dedicated CTS has been demonstrated to increase adherence with follow-up visits and improve overall aftercare in severely injured patients discharged from the trauma center. A potential impediment to the creation of similar centers is its assumed prohibitive cost. Methods: This pre and post-cohort study examines the financial impact of patients treated by the CTS. Patients in the PRE cohort were those treated in the year before CTS inception. Eligibility criteria are trauma patients admitted who are =18 years of age and have a New Injury Severity Score = 16 or intensive care unit stay = 2 days. Financial data were obtained from the hospital's billing and cost accounting systems for a 1-year time period after discharge. Results: There were 176 patients in the PRE and 256 in the CTS cohort. The CTS cohort generated 1623 subsequent visits versus 748 in the PRE cohort. CTS patients underwent more follow-up surgery in their first year of recovery as compared with the PRE cohort (98 vs 26 procedures). Each CTS patient was responsible for a $7752 increase in net revenue with a positive contribution margin of $4558 compared with those in the PRE group. Conclusions: A dedicated CTS increases subsequent visits and necessary procedures and is a positive revenue source for the trauma center. The presumptive financial burden of a CTS is incorrect and the creation of dedicated centers will improve patients' outcomes and the institution's bottom line. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Operative management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) involves release of the transverse carpal ligament (TCL) and often the volar antebrachial fascia (VAF). Evidence of a difference between TCL and TCL+VAF release is limited. We conducted a pilot study to measure changes of intraoperative nerve conduction velocity (NCV) after CTS surgery and compared outcomes of variable degrees of decompression., Methods: Patients aged 18 to 65 years diagnosed with idiopathic CTS that failed to respond to conservative management were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they had prior surgical release, diabetes, acute CTS, trauma, or cervical spine radiculopathy. Outcomes included motor and sensory amplitude and latency. Electrodes were placed on the skin intraoperatively along the abductor pollicis brevis, index finger, and forearm. Outcome data were recorded at baseline, after TCL release, and after TCL+VAF release. Data were compared using a single-tail t test., Results: A total of 10 patients were included in this study. There were no significant changes in mean motor or sensory amplitude and latency from baseline to TCL release, TCL to VAF release, or from baseline to TCL+VAF release measured intraoperatively., Conclusions: This pilot study shows there is no immediate detectable difference in NCV following release of TCL or TCL+VAF. This suggests that NCV may not be useful for assessing intraoperative improvement. We highlight the need for future research in the form of case-control studies to determine the utility of intraoperative NCV. These studies should be conducted with larger numbers of patients and involve multiple hand specialists., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Author Michael M Vosbikian, MD receives honorarium for content authorship from The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Clinical Classroom and is an editorial board member for ePlasty. The authors do not have any other potential conflicts of interest with respect to this manuscript., (© 2022, HMP Global. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited. Content may not be reproduced in any form without written permission. Rights, Permission, Reprint, and Translation information is available at www.hmpglobal.com.)