ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2015
Cost of external fixation vs external fixation then nailing in bone infection.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of external fixators in developing countries: a short socioeconomic analysis.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo study the cost benefit of external fixation vs external fixation then nailing in treatment of bone infection by segment transfer.
methodsOut of 71 patients with infected nonunion tibia treated between 2003 and 2006, 50 patients fitted the inclusion criteria (26 patients were treated by external fixation only, and 24 patients were treated by external fixation early removal after segment transfer and replacement by internal fixation). Cost of inpatient treatment, total cost of inpatient and outpatient treatment till full healing, and the weeks of absence from school or work were calculated and compared between both groups.
resultsThe cost of hospital stay and surgery in the group of external fixation only was 22.6 ± 3.3 while the cost of hospital stay and surgery in the group of early external fixation removal and replacement by intramedullary nail was 26.0 ± 3.2. The difference was statistically significant regarding the cost of hospital stay and surgery in favor of the group of external fixation only. The total cost of medical care (surgery, hospital stay, treatment outside the hospital including medications, dressing, physical therapy, outpatient laboratory work, etc.) in group of external fixation only was 63.3 ± 15.1, and total absence from work was 38.6 ± 6.6 wk. While the group of early removal of external fixation and replacement by IM nail, total cost of medical care was 38.3 ± 6.4 and total absence from work or school was 22.7 ± 4.1. The difference was statistically significant regarding the total cost and absence from work in favor of the group of early removal and replacement by IM nail.
conclusionEarly removal of external fixation and replacement by intramedullary nail in treatment of infected nonunion showed more cost effectiveness. Orthopaedic society needs to show the cost effectiveness of different procedures to the community, insurance, and health authorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.