The ideal implant for Mayo 2A olecranon fractures? An economic evaluation

Abstract

The ideal implant for stable, noncomminuted olecranon fractures is controversial. Tension band wiring (TBW) is associated with lower cost but higher implant removal rates.On the other hand, plate fixation (PF) is purported to be biomechanically superior, with lower failure and implant removal rates, although associated with higher cost. The primary aim of this study is to look at the clinical outcomes for all Mayo 2A olecranon between PF and TBW. The secondary aim is to perform an economic evaluation of PF vs. TBW. This is a retrospective study of all surgically treated Mayo 2A olecranon fractures in a tertiary hospital from 2005-2016. Demographic data, medical history, range of motion, and complications were collected. All inpatient and outpatient costs in a 1-year period postsurgery including the index surgical procedure were collected via the hospital administrative cost database (normalized to 2014). A total of 147 cases were identified (94 TBW, 53 PF). PF was associated with higher mean age (P < .01), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P< .01), and higher proportion of hypertensives (P = .04). There was no difference in the range of motion achieved at 1 year for both groups. In terms of complications, TBW was associated with more symptomatic hardware (21.6% vs. 13.7%, P= .24) and implant failures (16.5% vs. none, P < .01), whereas the plate group had a higher wound complication (5.9% vs. none, P = .02) and infection rate (9.8% vs. 3.1%, P = .09). TBW had a higher implant removal rate of 30.9% compared with 22.7% for PF (P = .36). PF had a higher cost at all time points, from the index surgery ($10,313.64 vs. $5896.36, P < .01), 1-year cost excluding index surgery ($5069.61 vs. $3850.46, P = .46), and outpatient cost ($1667.80 vs. $1613.49, P = .27). Based on our study results, we have demonstrated that TBW is the ideal implant for Mayo 2A olecranon fractures from both a clinical and economic standpoint, with comparable clinical results, potentially similar implant removal rates as PF's, and a lower cost over a 1-year period. In choosing the ideal implant, the surgeon must take into account, first, the local TBW and PF removal rate, which can vary significantly because of the patient's profile and beliefs, and second, the PF implant cost.