Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Schatzker V Tibial Plateau Fractures Treated with Locking Plate in a University Hospital

Author(s): José Eduardo Nogueira Forni, Stefan Corniani Aran, João Pedro Passos Godinho, Wahi Jalikji

This study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of the locking plate in grade V tibial plateau fractures in a university hospital. A retrospective study was conducted in patients with Schatzker V tibial plateau fracture. Patients were randomly divided into control (conventional plate, n = 10) and study (locking plate, n = 10) groups. Visual analog scale for pain intensity and WOMAC index were assessed. Total cost of surgery paid by the hospital and the amount paid by the public healthcare system for hospitalization were studied. Among the studied patients, 75% were males, 15% had exposed fracture, 70% used external fixator prior to osteosynthesis, and 10% presented infection. A significant difference in pain intensity was found between the groups (p = 0.0047), with less pain in the study group. WOMAC index was significantly lower in the study group (p = 0.0170). Mean surgery time and mean hospital stay were greater in the control group, but the differences were non-significant (p = 0.2051 and 0.8065, respectively). Total cost of surgery paid by the hospital was lower in the control group. Amount paid by the public healthcare system was higher in the control group. Total cost was lower in the control group. Two of the patients (control group) were reoperated within 30 days of the postoperative period. Thus, total cost of treatment was higher in the control group. Treatment for grade V tibial plateau fractures with a lateral locking plate proved to be more cost effective than treatment with a conventional a double plate and two access points.

Tibial Plateau Fracture, Bone Plates, Treatment, Costs and Costs Analysis

1. Shao J, Chang H, Zhu Y, Chen W, Zheng Z, Zhang H, et al. Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2017;41:176-182. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.03.085.
2. Marsh JL, Smith ST, Do TT. External fixation and limited internal fixation for complex fractures of the tibial plateau. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77(05):661-673. doi:10.2106/00004623-199505000-00002.
3. Ruffolo MR, Gettys FK, Montijo HE, Seymour RB, Karunakar MA. Complications of high-energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dual plating through 2 incisions. J Orthop Trauma 2015;29(02):85-90. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000203.
4. Colman M, Wright A, Gruen G, Siska P, Pape HC, Tarkin I. Prolonged operative time increases infection rate in tibial plateau fractures. Injury 2013;44(02):249-252. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.10.032.
5. Lin S, Mauffrey C, Hammerberg EM, Stahel PF, Hak DJ. Surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014;24(05):797-803. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1252-8.
6. Morris BJ, Unger RZ, Archer KR, Mathis SL, Perdue AM, Obremskey WT. Risk factors of infection after ORIF of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2013;27(09):e196-200. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e318284704e.
7. Metsemakers WJ, Smeets B, Nijs S, Hoekstra H. Infection after fracture fixation of the tibia: analysis of healthcare utilization and related costs. Injury 2017;48(06):1204-1210. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.03.030.
8. Lindeque B, Baldini T. A biomechanical comparison of three different lateral tibia locking plates. Orthopedics 2010;33(01):18-21. doi:10.3928/01477447-20091124-25.
9. Mueller KL, Karunakar MA, Frankenburg EP, Scott DS. Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: a biomechanical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;412:189-195. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000071754.41516.e9.
10. Souza BGS, Leite TA, Silva TAB, Candido COFF, Almeida FF, Oliveira VM. Comparative study of function and quality of life in patients with fracture of the tibial plateau operated with locked or conventional plates. Rev Bras Ortop 2019;54(01):37-44. doi:10.1016/j.rbo.2017.09.004.