Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 87–95 | Cite as

The Cost of Intramedullary Nailing Versus Skeletal Traction for Treatment of Femoral Shaft Fractures in Malawi: A Prospective Economic Analysis

  • Mohamed Mustafa Diab
  • David W. Shearer
  • James G. Kahn
  • Hao-Hua Wu
  • Brian Lau
  • Saam Morshed
  • Linda Chokotho
Original Scientific Report
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

Background

In many low- and middle-income countries, non-surgical management of femoral shaft fractures using skeletal traction is common because intramedullary (IM) nailing is perceived to be expensive. This study assessed the cost of IM nailing and skeletal traction for treatment of femoral shaft fractures in Malawi.

Methods

We used micro-costing methods to quantify the costs associated with IM nailing and skeletal traction. Adult patients who sustained an isolated closed femur shaft fracture and managed at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Malawi were followed from admission to discharge. Resource utilization and time data were collected through direct observation. Costs were quantified for procedures and ward personnel, medications, investigations, surgical implants, disposable supplies, procedures instruments and overhead.

Results

We followed 38 nailing and 27 traction patients admitted between April 2016 and November 2017. Nailing patient’s average length of stay (LOS) was 36.35 days (SD 21.19), compared to 61 (SD 18.16) for traction (p = 0.0003). The total cost per patient was $596.97 ($168.81) for nailing and $678.02 (SD $144.25) for traction (p = 0.02). Major cost drivers were ward personnel and overhead; both are directly proportional to LOS. Converting patients from traction to nailing is cost-saving up to day 23 post-admission.

Conclusion

Savings from IM nailing as compared with skeletal traction were achieved by shortened LOS. Although this study did not assess the effectiveness of either intervention, the literature suggests that traction carries a higher rate of complications than nailing. Investment in IM nailing capacity may yield substantial net savings to health systems, as well as improved clinical outcomes.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Elliot Marseille for developing the data collection tool for the time and motion analysis. We also acknowledge Foster Mbomuwa and Florence Zombeya for their extraordinary efforts in data collection.

References

  1. 1.
    Debas HT, Donkor P, Gawande A et al (2015) Disease control priorities, (volume 1): essential surgery. World Bank Publications, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD et al (2013) A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 380:2224–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach O (2004) Musculo skeletal trauma in an East African public hospital. Injury 35:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naddumba E (2008) Musculoskeletal trauma services in Uganda. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2317–2322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salomon JA, Wang H, Freeman MK et al (2013) Healthy life expectancy for 187 countries, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden disease study 2010. Lancet 380:2144–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mathers C, Fat DM, Boerma JT (2008) The global burden of disease: 2004 update. World Health Organization, GenevaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young S, Banza LN, Hallan G et al (2013) Complications after intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures in a low-income country: a prospective study of follow-up, HIV infection, and microbial infection rates after IM nailing of 141 femoral fractures at a central hospital in Malawi. Acta Orthop 84:460–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Young S, Beniyasi FJ, Munthali B et al (2012) Infection of the fracture hematoma from skeletal traction in an asymptomatic HIV-positive patient: Additional support for early surgical treatment of femoral fractures in people living with HIV in low-income countries? Acta Orthop 83:423–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kramer EJ, Shearer D, Morshed S (2016) The use of traction for treating femoral shaft fractures in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Int Orthop 40:875–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bezabeh B, Wamisho BL, Coles MJM (2012) Treatment of adult femoral shaft fractures using the Perkins traction at Addis Ababa Tikur Anbessa University Hospital: the Ethiopian experience. Int Surg 97:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buxton RA (1981) The use of Perkins’ traction in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures. Bone Joint J 63:362–366Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosselin R, Lavaly D (2007) Perkins traction for adult femoral shaft fractures: a report on 53 patients in Sierra Leone. Int Orthop 31:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parkes RJ, Parkes G, James K (2017) A systematic review of cost-effectiveness, comparing traction to intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures, in the less economically developed context. BMJ Glob Health 2:e000313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Phillips J, Zirkle LG, Gosselin RA (2012) Achieving locked intramedullary fixation of long bone fractures: technology for the developing world. Int Orthop 36:2007–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matityahu A, Elliott I, Marmor M et al (2013) Time intervals in the treatment of fractured femurs as indicators of the quality of trauma systems. Bull World Health Organ 92:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shah R, Moehring H, Singh R et al (2004) surgical implant generation network (SIGN) intramedullary nailing of open fractures of the Tibia. Int Orthop 28:163–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Opondo E, Wanzala P, Makokha A (2013) Cost effectiveness of using surgery versus skeletal traction in management of femoral shaft fractures at Thika level 5 hospital, Kenya. Pan Afr Med J 15:42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gosselin RA, Heitto M, Zirkle L (2009) Cost-effectiveness of replacing skeletal traction by interlocked intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures in a provincial trauma hospital in Cambodia. Int Orthop 33:1445–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamau DM, Gakuu LN, Gakuya EM et al (2014) Comparison of closed femur fracture: skeletal traction and intramedullary nailing cost-effectiveness. East Afr Orthop J 8:4–9Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richland Technique Manual of SIGN IM Nail and Interlocking Screw System Insertion and Extraction Guide, 2012Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lopetegui M, Yen P-Y, Lai A et al (2014) Time motion studies in healthcare: what are we talking about? J Biomed Inform 49:292–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trust MCMS The Central Medical Stores Trust Catalogue, 2015Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kramer EJ, Shearer DW, Marseille E et al (2016) The cost of intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. World J Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3496-z Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spry CC (2007) Care and handling of basic surgical instruments. Aorn J 86:S77–S81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Budget USGsOoMa useful life and disposal value table, 2003Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Converter XEC (2017). https://www.xe.com. Accessed 1 April 2017
  27. 27.
    StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. In: College Station TSL editor, 2013Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boopalan P, Sait A, Jepegnanam TS et al (2014) The efficacy of single-stage open intramedullary nailing of neglected femur fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:759–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soren OO (2009) Outcome of surgical implant generation network nail initiative in treatment of long bone shaft fractures in Kenya. East Afr Orthop J 3:7–14Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sekimpi P, Okike K, Zirkle L et al (2011) Femoral fracture fixation in developing countries: an evaluation of the surgical implant generation network (SIGN) intramedullary nail. JBJS 93:1811–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L et al (2015) Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet 386:569–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    World Health O, World Health O Choosing interventions that are cost effective (WHO-CHOICE), 2010Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    World Health Organization Global Health expenditure database, 2014Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chu K, Rosseel P, Gielis P et al (2009) Surgical task shifting in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS medicine 6:e1000078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Young S, Lie SA, Hallan G et al (2011) Low infection rates after 34,361 intramedullary nail operations in 55 low-and middle-income countries: validation of the surgical implant generation network (SIGN) online surgical database. Acta Orthop 82:737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neumann M, Südkamp N, Strohm P (2014) Management of femoral shaft fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cechoslov 82:22–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Global Orthopaedics and TraumatologyUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Beit CURE International HospitalBlantyreMalawi
  3. 3.Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy StudiesUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Global Health Economics ConsortiumUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations