J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2025 Mar 25. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-24-00372. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: External fixation costs have been identified as a primary driver of initial cost in the care of tibial plateau fractures. Because hospital systems and institutions pursue value-based care, external fixation choices become a uniquely surgeon-dependent driver of cost. Our objective was to determine differences in cost in a prepackaged, single-use, external fixation system compared with standard, modular, knee spanning frames. Secondary objectives were to determine differences in surgical time and loss of distraction between the two types of fixation.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at an academic level 1 trauma center. Fifty-nine patients were treated with knee spanning external fixation over a 7-year period (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopedic Trauma Association 41-B/C). Patients received either the Zimmer FastFrame external fixator or a conventional-style, modular, external fixator. The primary outcome was implant and supply cost. The secondary outcomes were operating room facility cost, surgical time, and percent of distraction lost.
RESULTS: The FastFrame cohort demonstrated a 24.9% decrease in surgical times (29.2 vs. 38.9 minutes, P = 0.002), with a 37% decrease in supply and implant cost of conventional cohort (0.63x vs. 1x, P < 0.001). Operating room facility cost was less than the conventional cohort (0.72x vs. 1x, P = 0.41), and total cost was 21.8% less (0.78x vs. 1x, P = 0.07), although these did not reach statistical significance. The Fastframe cohort lost less distraction (72.6% vs. 62.8%, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: The FastFrame demonstrates a lower supply and implant cost, faster surgical times, and demonstrated clinical equivalence in regard to loss of distraction when compared with conventional, modular, external fixator.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic-Level III.
PMID:40127204 | DOI:10.5435/JAAOS-D-24-00372
