Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Apr;133(4):827-840.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000019.

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries

Erika Davis Sears et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries across a spectrum of injury scenarios.

Methods: The study was conducted from the societal perspective. Decision tree models were created for the reference case (two-finger amputation injury) and seven additional injury scenarios for comparison. Inputs included cost, quality of life, and probability of each health state. A Web-based time trade-off survey was created to determine quality-adjusted life-years for health states; 685 nationally representative adult community members were invited to participate in the survey. Overall cost and quality-adjusted life-years for revision amputation and replantation were calculated for each decision tree. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated if a treatment was more costly but more effective.

Results: The authors had a 64 percent response rate (n = 437). Replantation treatment had greater costs and quality-adjusted life-years compared with revision amputation in all injury scenarios. Replantation of single-digit injuries had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($136,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Replantation of three- and four-digit amputation injuries had relatively low cost-to-benefit ratios ($27,100 and $23,800 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Replantation for distal thumb amputation had a relatively low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($26,300 per quality-adjusted life-year) compared with replantation of nonthumb distal amputations ($60,200 per quality-adjusted life-year).

Conclusions: The relative cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with replantation treatment varied greatly among the injury scenarios. Situations in which indications for replantation are debated had higher cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This study highlights variability in value for replantation among different injury scenarios.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Reference case decision tree.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Simple model decision tree.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Two-way sensitivity analysis on revision amputation and replantation trade-offs for late complications with $100,000 per QALY willingness to pay threshold. Dotted lines denote baseline values for trade-offs of each treatment.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Buntic RF, Brooks D, Buncke GM. Index finger salvage with replantation and revascularization: revisiting conventional wisdom. Microsurgery. 2008;28:612–616. - PubMed
    1. Hattori Y, Doi K, Ikeda K, et al. A retrospective study of functional outcomes after successful replantation versus amputation closure for single fingertip amputations. J Hand Surg Am. 2006;31:811–818. - PubMed
    1. Hattori Y, Doi K, Sakamoto S, et al. Fingertip replantation. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32:548–555. - PubMed
    1. Li J, Guo Z, Zhu Q, et al. Fingertip replantation: determinants of survival. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:833–839. - PubMed
    1. Matsuzaki H, Yoshizu T, Maki Y, et al. Functional and cosmetic results of fingertip replantation: anastomosing only the digital artery. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;53:353–359. - PubMed

Publication types