Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Distal radius malunion is a frequent complication after a distal radius fracture, impairing function and quality of life. Corrective osteotomy using conventional two-dimensional (2-D) planning often fails to achieve optimal alignment, leading to residual symptoms and revision surgery. Growing evidence shows that three-dimensional (3-D) planning with patient-specific surgical guides has better radiographic and clinical outcomes and fewer complications, but at increased upfront costs.</p> Methods <p>We developed a health state transition model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 3-D versus 2-D based surgery in the Netherlands over a five-year time horizon from a societal perspective. Clinical outcomes of 3-D, including transition probabilities, were obtained from a clinical cohort, whereas literature informed 2-D transition probabilities. Literature was used to obtain costs, and utility values. Outcomes of interests were the number of revisions, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs in each strategy. All 3-D analyses and guide development were performed in our in-house 3-D lab.</p> Results <p>Notably, revisions performed for nonunion or implant failure were reduced by 179 per 1,000 patients in the 3-D strategy. Overall, 3-D yielded slightly higher QALYs (+ 0.007) and lower costs (-€219), primarily due to fewer revisions performed for nonunion or implant failure and reduced productivity losses.</p> Conclusion <p>Using this model, 3-D-guided corrective osteotomy (supported by an in-house 3-D lab) is anticipated to be cost-effective versus 2-D-planned corrective osteotomy from a Dutch societal perspective; it potentially yields a modest improvement in health outcomes alongside a slight reduction in costs. However further clinical validation, including prospective collection of clinical outcome data, is needed to confirm these findings in real-world practice.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring the cost-effectiveness of 3-D-guided versus traditional 2-D corrective osteotomy in patients with a distal radius malunion

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月25日

查看全文
  • Anne J. H. Vochteloo,
  • Camiel J. Smees,
  • Quinty Teggeler,
  • Judith olde Heuvel,
  • Michelle M. A. Kip,
  • Xavier G. L. V. Pouwels

摘要

Introduction

Distal radius malunion is a frequent complication after a distal radius fracture, impairing function and quality of life. Corrective osteotomy using conventional two-dimensional (2-D) planning often fails to achieve optimal alignment, leading to residual symptoms and revision surgery. Growing evidence shows that three-dimensional (3-D) planning with patient-specific surgical guides has better radiographic and clinical outcomes and fewer complications, but at increased upfront costs.

Methods

We developed a health state transition model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 3-D versus 2-D based surgery in the Netherlands over a five-year time horizon from a societal perspective. Clinical outcomes of 3-D, including transition probabilities, were obtained from a clinical cohort, whereas literature informed 2-D transition probabilities. Literature was used to obtain costs, and utility values. Outcomes of interests were the number of revisions, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs in each strategy. All 3-D analyses and guide development were performed in our in-house 3-D lab.

Results

Notably, revisions performed for nonunion or implant failure were reduced by 179 per 1,000 patients in the 3-D strategy. Overall, 3-D yielded slightly higher QALYs (+ 0.007) and lower costs (-€219), primarily due to fewer revisions performed for nonunion or implant failure and reduced productivity losses.

Conclusion

Using this model, 3-D-guided corrective osteotomy (supported by an in-house 3-D lab) is anticipated to be cost-effective versus 2-D-planned corrective osteotomy from a Dutch societal perspective; it potentially yields a modest improvement in health outcomes alongside a slight reduction in costs. However further clinical validation, including prospective collection of clinical outcome data, is needed to confirm these findings in real-world practice.