Search

Background: The objectives of this study were to build upon previously-reported 12-month findings by retrospectively comparing 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges and potentially-relevant readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries that employed either recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or a cellular bone allograft comprised of viable lineage-committed bone cells (V-CBA) via a nationwide healthcare system database., Methods: A total of 16,172 patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery using V-CBA or rhBMP-2 in the original study, of whom 3,792 patients (23.4%) were identified in the current study with all-cause readmissions during the 24-month follow-up period. Confounding baseline patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics found in the original study were used to adjust multivariate regression models comparing differences in 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges (in 2020 US dollars) and lengths of stay (LOS; in days) between the groups. Differences in potentially-relevant follow-up readmissions were also compared, and all analyses were repeated in the subset of patients who only received treatment at a single level of the spine., Results: The adjusted cumulative mean 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges in the full cohort were significantly lower in the V-CBA group ($99,087) versus the rhBMP-2 group ($124,389; P < 0.0001), and this pattern remained in the single-level cohort (V-CBA = $104,906 vs rhBMP-2 = $125,311; P = 0.0006). There were no differences between groups in adjusted cumulative mean LOS in either cohort. Differences in the rates of follow-up readmissions aligned with baseline comorbidities originally reported for the initial procedure. Subsequent lumbar fusion rates were significantly lower for V-CBA patients in the full cohort (10.12% vs 12.00%; P = 0.0002) and similar between groups in the single-level cohort, in spite of V-CBA patients having significantly higher rates of baseline comorbidities that could negatively impact clinical outcomes, including bony fusion., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that use of V-CBA for lumbar fusion surgeries performed in the US is associated with substantially lower 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges versus rhBMP-2, with both exhibiting similar rates of subsequent lumbar fusion procedures and potentially-relevant readmissions., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Concepts to ameliorate the continued mismatch between demand for liver allografts and supply include the acceptance of allografts that meet extended donor criteria (ECD). ECD grafts are generally associated with an increased rate of complications such as early allograft dysfunction (EAD). The costs of liver transplantation for the health care system with respect to specific risk factors remain unclear and are subject to change. We analyzed 317 liver transplant recipients from 2013 to 2018 for outcome after liver transplantation and hospital costs in a German transplant center. In our study period, 1-year survival after transplantation was 80.1% (95% confidence interval: 75.8%-84.6%) and median hospital stay was 33 days (interquartile rage: 24), with mean hospital costs of €115,924 (SD €113,347). There was a positive correlation between costs and laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (r s  = 0.48, P  < 0.001), and the development of EAD increased hospital costs by €26,229. ECD grafts were not associated with a higher risk of EAD in our cohort. When adjusting for recipient-associated risk factors such as laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, recipient age, and split liver transplantation with propensity score matching, only EAD and cold ischemia increased total costs. Conclusion: Our data show that EAD leads to significantly higher hospital costs for liver transplantation, which are primarily attributed to recipient health status. Strategies to reduce the incidence of EAD are needed to control costs in liver transplantation., (© 2020 The Authors. Hepatology Communications published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Purpose: To review the relative cost-effectiveness of allografts and autografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament., Methods: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis., Results: The available evidence does not show any significant difference in clinical effectiveness between autografts and allografts. Given that, only a cost analysis is provided, which shows that allografts are more costly., Conclusion: Given the lack of any benefit of allografts over autografts, autografts should be preferred on cost grounds, if available. However, there may be situations where an allograft is indicated, for example, in multiple ligament reconstructions., Level of Evidence: IV.

Purpose: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of allografts versus autografts in the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments., Methods: Systematic review of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis., Results: Both autograft and allograft reconstruction are highly effective. Recent studies show little difference in failure rates between autografts and allografts (about 6% and 7%, respectively). In cost-effectiveness analysis, the price differential is the main factor, making autografts the first choice. However, there will be situations, particularly in revision ACL reconstruction, where an allograft may be preferred, or may be the only reasonable option available., Conclusion: In ACL reconstruction, clinical results with autografts are as good as or slightly better than with allografts. Allografts cost more, indicating that autografts are more cost-effective and should usually be first choice., Level of Evidence: II.

Purpose: Osteochondral allografts (OCA) consist of a layer of hyaline cartilage and a layer of underlying bone. They are used to repair combined defects of articular cartilage and bone. Such defects often occur in people far too young to have knee arthroplasty, for whom the main alternative to OCA is conservative symptomatic care, which will not prevent development of osteoarthritis. The aim of this report was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee., Methods: Systematic review of evidence on clinical effectiveness and economic modelling., Results: The evidence on osteochondral allograft transplantation comes from observational studies, but often based on good quality prospective registries of all patients having such surgery. Without controlled trials, it was necessary to use historical cohorts to assess the effect of osteochondral grafts. There is good evidence that OCA are clinically effective with a high graft survival rate over 20 years. If an OCA graft fails, there is some evidence that revision with a second OCA is also effective, though less so than primary OCA. Economic modelling showed that osteochondral allograft transplantation was highly cost-effective, with costs per quality adjusted life year much lower than many other treatments considered cost effective., Conclusions: Osteochondral allograft transplantation appears highly cost-effective though the cost per quality adjusted life year varies according to the widely varying costs of allografts. Based on one small study, revision OCA also appears very cost-effective, but more evidence is needed., Level of Evidence: II.

Background: Obtaining intraoperative cultures of allograft bone just before use in orthopedic procedures is standard practice in many centres; however, the association between positive cultures and subsequent surgical infections is unknown. Our study had 3 goals: to determine the prevalence of positive intraoperative allograft culture and subsequent infection; to determine if, in cases of subsequent infection, organisms isolated at reoperation were the same as those cultured from the allograft at the time of the index procedure; and to assess the costs associated with performing intraoperative allograft cultures., Methods: In this retrospective case series, we obtained data on patients receiving allograft bone between 2009 and 2012. Patients receiving allograft with positive cultures were reviewed to identify cases of significant infection. Organisms isolated at reoperation were compared with the allograft culture taken at the time of implantation, and we performed a cost assessment., Results: Of the 996 allograft bone grafts used, 43 (4.3%) had positive intraoperative cultures and significant postoperative infections developed in 2, requiring reoperation. Antibiotics based on culture results were prescribed in 24% of cases. Organisms cultured at the time of reoperation differed from those isolated initially. The cost of performing 996 allograft cultures was $169 320., Conclusion: This series suggests that rates of positive intraoperative bone allograft culture are low, and subsequent infection is rare. In cases of postoperative infection, primary allograft culture and secondary tissue cultures isolated different organisms. Costs associated with performing cultures are high. Eliminating initial culture testing could save $42 500 per year in our health region.

Background: Bending the cost curve in medical expenses is a high national priority. The relationship between cost and kidney allograft failure has not been fully investigated in the United States., Methods: Using Medicare claims from the United States Renal Data System, we determined costs for all adults with Medicare coverage who underwent kidney transplant January 1, 2007, to June 30, 2009. We compared relative cost (observed/expected payment) for year 1 after transplantation for all transplant centers, adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics, region, and local wage index. Using program-specific reports from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we correlated relative cost with observed/expected allograft failure between centers, excluding small centers., Results: Among 19,603 transplants at 166 centers, mean observed cost per patient per center was $65,366 (interquartile range, $55,094-$71,624). Mean relative cost was 0.99 (± 0.20); mean observed/expected allograft failure was 1.03 (± 0.46). Overall, there was no correlation between relative cost and observed/expected allograft failure (r = 0.096, P = 0.22). Comparing centers with higher than expected costs and allograft failure rates (lower performing) and centers with lower than expected costs and failure rates (higher-performing) showed differences in donor and recipient characteristics. As these characteristics were accounted for in the adjusted cost and allograft failure models, they are unlikely to explain the differences between higher- and lower-performing centers., Conclusions: Further investigations are needed to determine specific cost-effective practices of higher- and lower-performing centers to reduce costs and incidence of allograft failure.

Introduction: Acute myeloid leukemia represents about 20% of leukemias in minors under 18 years old. At present, there are only two consolidation treatment alternatives: Chemotherapy and stem-cell transplantation., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of unrelated and related hematopoietic stem cell transplantations, versus chemotherapy consolidation in pediatric patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia., Materials and Methods: A decision tree was constructed with life-years gained as the outcome. Costs and probabilities were extracted from the literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and acceptability curves were computed. The cost-effectiveness threshold was three times the 2010 per capita gross domestic product., Results: When compared to consolidation chemotherapy cycles, related and unrelated hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of COP$ 9,226,421 (USD$ 4,820) and COP$ 6,544,116 (USD$ 3,419) respectively, which are lower than the per capita gross domestic product (COP$ 12,047,418, USD$ 6,294). Transplant proved to be cost-effective in 70% of the simulations and had a higher probability of the willingness to pay being over than COP$ 7,200,000 (USD$ 3,762)., Conclusion: In Colombia, related and unrelated hematopoietic stem-cell transplants are cost-effective alternatives to consolidation treatment for high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in pediatric patients.

Background: Although donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver allografts have been used to expand the donor pool, concerns exist regarding primary nonfunction and biliary complications. Our aim was to compare resource use and outcomes of DCD allografts with donation after brain death (DBD) liver allografts., Study Design: Using a linkage between the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified 11,856 patients who underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) from 2007 to 2011. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on type of allograft (DCD vs DBD). Matched pair analysis (n = 613 in each group) was used to compare outcomes of the 2 donor types., Results: Donation after cardiac death allografts comprised 5.2% (n = 613) of all LTs in the studied cohort; DCD allograft recipients were healthier and had lower median Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (17 vs 19; p < 0.0001). Post LT, there was no significant difference in length of stay, perioperative mortality, and discharge to home rates. However, DCD allografts were associated with higher direct cost ($110,414 vs $99,543; p < 0.0001) and 30-day readmission rates (46.4% vs 37.1%; p < 0.0001). Matched analysis revealed that DCD allografts were associated with higher direct cost, readmission rates, and inferior graft survival., Conclusions: While confirming the previous reports of inferior graft survival associated with DCD allografts, this is the first national report to show increased financial and resource use associated with DCD compared with DBD allografts in a matched recipient cohort., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Large facial tissue defects are traditionally treated with staged conventional reconstruction. Facial allograft transplantation has emerged as a treatment modality. Facial allografts are procured from a dead donor and transplanted to the recipient. Recipients are then subjected to lifelong global immunosuppression to prevent immunologic rejection. This study analyzes the cost of facial allograft transplantation in comparison with conventional reconstruction., Methods: Hospital billing records from facial allograft transplantation (2009 to 2011) and conventional reconstruction (2000 to 2010) patients were compiled. Comparative 1-year costs were calculated, segregated by physician, hospital, and hospital's department costs. Because most conventional reconstruction patients had smaller facial deficits than their facial allograft transplantation counterparts, regression models were used to estimate costs of conventional reconstruction for full facial defects, mirroring the facial transplantation cohort. All costs were adjusted using the medical consumer price index., Results: One-year costs for facial allograft transplantation were significantly higher than those for conventional reconstruction (mean/median, $337,360/$313,068 versus $70,230/$64,451, respectively). One-year costs for a hypothetical full-face conventional reconstruction were $184,061 (95 percent CI, $89,358 to $278,763). The per-patient cost in a hypothetical cohort of conventional reconstruction patients with deficits identical to four facial allograft transplantation recipients was $155,475 (95 percent CI, $69,021 to $241,929)., Conclusions: Initial cost comparison portrays facial allograft transplantation as significantly more costly than conventional reconstruction. However, after adjustments for case severity, the cost profiles are similar. Gains in efficiency and experience are expected to lower costs. Additional unmeasured benefits may also positively influence the cost-to-benefit ratio of facial allograft transplantation.

Study Design: Systematic review., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lumbar or cervical spinal arthrodesis using biological substitutes and extenders compared with iliac crest autograft for the treatment of degenerative spinal conditions., Summary of Background Data: The cost-effectiveness of using bone graft substitutes and extenders for spinal fusion compared with using iliac crest autograft is not yet well established., Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, EMBASE, the CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) database, and Tuft's CEA registry for literature published through December 2013 was performed to identify full formal economic analyses comparing the use of biological grafts with iliac crest bone graft in spinal fusion for thoracolumbar or cervical degenerative, deformity, and traumatic spinal conditions. Economic outcomes such as cost per improved outcome or cost per quality-adjusted life year were reported in the context of the model type, analytic perspective clinical comparisons, and sensitivity analyses employed., Results: The search strategy yielded 88 citations, and 6 full economic analyses ultimately met our inclusion criteria. For the comparison of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 to iliac crest bone graft in the lumbar spine, data from 4 cost-effectiveness studies and 1 cost-utility study provided discordant conclusions that varied with type of data used, cost-measurement methods, and study design. In the cervical spine, one study suggested that from a societal perspective, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with allograft is similarly cost-effective as ACDF with autograft., Conclusion: The results suggest that compared with use of iliac crest bone graft in lumbar spinal fusion, use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein is not cost-effective from a payer perspective with higher upfront costs, but it may be cost-effective from a societal perspective due to a decrease in lost productivity. The data in this study also suggest that from a societal perspective, ACDF with allograft is similarly cost-effective to ACDF with autograft., Level of Evidence: 3.

Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the side effects of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), resulting in major morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the introduction of a specialized oral care program including laser therapy in the care of patients receiving HSCT with regard to morbidity associated with OM. Clinical information was gathered on 167 patients undergoing HSCT and divided according to the presence (n = 91) or absence (n = 76) of laser therapy and oral care. Cost analysis included daily hospital fees, parenteral nutrition (PN) and prescription of opioids. It was observed that the group without laser therapy (group II) showed a higher frequency of severe degrees of OM (relative risk = 16.8, 95% confidence interval -5.8 to 48.9, p < 0.001), with a significant association between this severity and the use of PN (p = 0.001), prescription of opioids (p < 0.001), pain in the oral cavity (p = 0.003) and fever > 37.8°C (p = 0.005). Hospitalization costs in this group were up to 30% higher. The introduction of oral care by a multidisciplinary staff including laser therapy helps reduce morbidity resulting from OM and, consequently, helps minimize hospitalization costs associated with HSCT, even considering therapy costs., (Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)