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
. 2021 Jan-Apr;16(1):14-19.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1513.

Cost Comparison of Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Using External Lengthening and Then Nailing vs Internal Magnetic Lengthening Nails

Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy  1 , David T Zhang  1 , Austin T Fragomen  1 , S Robert Rozbruch  1
Affiliations

Cost Comparison of Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Using External Lengthening and Then Nailing vs Internal Magnetic Lengthening Nails

Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy et al. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2021 Jan-Apr.

Abstract

Aim and objective: Tibial lengthening can be performed by distraction osteogenesis via lengthening and then nailing (LATN) or by using a magnetic lengthening nail (MLN). MLN avoids the complications of external fixation while providing accurate and easily controlled lengthening. Concerns exist still regarding the high upfront cost of the magnetic nail, which serves to limit its use in resource-poor areas and decrease adoption among cost-conscious surgeons. The purpose of this study was to compare the hospital, surgeon, and total cost between LATN and MLN when used for tibial lengthening.

Materials and methods: A retrospective review was performed comparing consecutive tibial lengthening using either LATN (n = 17) or MLN (n = 15). The number of surgical procedures and time to union were compared. Surgeon and hospital payments were used to perform cost analysis after adjusting for inflation using the consumer price index (CPI).

Results: Patients treated with MLN underwent fewer surgeries (3.6 vs 2.8; p < 0.001) but had a longer time to union as compared with patients treated with LATN (19.79 vs 27.84 weeks; p = 0.006). Total costs were similar ($50,345 vs $46,162; p = 0.249) although surgeon fees were lower for MLN as compared with LATN ($6,426 vs $4,428; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: LATN and MLN had similar overall costs in patients undergoing tibial lengthening. MLN was associated with fewer procedures but a longer time to union as compared with LATN.

Clinical significance: Despite an increased upfront cost in MLN, there was no difference in total cost between LATN and MLN when used for tibial lengthening. Thus, in cases where either method is feasible, cost may not be a deciding factor when selecting the appropriate treatment.

How to cite this article: Dvorzhinskiy A, Zhang DT, Fragomen AT, et al. Cost Comparison of Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Using External Lengthening and Then Nailing vs Internal Magnetic Lengthening Nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(1):14-19.

Keywords: Bone lengthening; Circular external fixation; Distraction osteogenesis; Internal fixation combined with external ring fixation; Internal lengthening nail; Intramedullary lengthening; Leg length discrepancy; Lengthening nail; Motorized implantable nail; Tibia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None

Figures

Figs 1A to F
Figs 1A to F
Radiographs depicting treatment with LATN and MLN. (A to C) LATN: lengthening of the tibia using an external fixator (A). Consolidation of the regenerate after removal of the external fixator and insertion of an intramedullary nail (B), and ultimate removal of the intramedullary nail after union (C). (D to F) MLN: insertion of the MLN (D), consolidation of the regenerate after lengthening was completed (E), and the final result after removal of the nail (F). LATN, lengthening and then nailing; MLN, magnetic lengthening nail
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of the number of procedures performed and office visits for patients treated with LATN vs MLN. *Signifies p < 0.05. LATN, lengthening and then nailing; MLN, magnetic lengthening nail. Bars represent standard deviation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of total, hospital, and surgeon costs for the patients treated with LATN vs MLN. *Signifies p < 0.05. LATN, lengthening and then nailing; MLN, magnetic lengthening nail. Bars represent standard deviation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kim HJ, Fragomen AT, Reinhardt K, et al. Lengthening of the femur over an existing intramedullary nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(11):681–684. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181f92d6e. DOI: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sangkaew C. Distraction osteogenesis of the femur using conventional monolateral external fixator. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128(9):889–899. doi: 10.1007/s00402-007-0437-1. DOI: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wan J, Ling L, Zhang XS, et al. Femoral bone transport by a monolateral external fixator with or without the use of intramedullary nail: a single-department retrospective study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(4):457–464. doi: 10.1007/s00590-012-1008-x. DOI: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gordon JE, Manske MC, Lewis TR, et al. Femoral lengthening over a pediatric femoral nail: results and complications. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013;33(7):730–736. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3182a122a1. DOI: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paley D, Herzenberg JE, Paremain G, et al. Femoral lengthening over an intramedullary nail. A matched-case comparison with ilizarov femoral lenghtening. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(10):1464–1480. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199710000-00003. DOI: - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources