Dual Versus Single Plate Fixation of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures

Background:Prior studies have highlighted lower rates of reoperation if fixation of a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture is performed with dual plating (DP) compared with single plating (SP). Despite higher initial costs associated with the DP construct, the observed reduction in secondary surgeries compared with the SP construct may make it a more cost-effective treatment option. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of DP compared with SP in patients with operatively indicated displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.Methods:We developed a decision tree to model the occurrence of postoperative complications (acute hardware complications, wound healing issues, deep infection, nonunion, and symptomatic hardware) associated with secondary surgeries. Complication-specific risk estimates were pooled for both plating techniques using the available literature. The time horizon was 2 years, and the analysis was conducted from the health-care payer's perspective. The costs were estimated using direct medical costs, and the benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We assumed that DP would be $300 more expensive than SP initially. We conducted probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses.Results:The model predicted reoperation in 6% of patients in the DP arm compared with 14% of patients in the SP arm. In the base case analysis, DP increased QALYs by 0.005 and costs by $71 per patient, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $13,242 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of DP was driven by the cost of the index surgery, risk of symptomatic hardware, and nonunion complications with SP and DP. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, 95% of simulations suggested that DP was cost-effective compared with SP.Conclusions:When indicated, operative management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures using DP was found to be cost-effective compared with SP. Despite its higher initial hardware costs, DP fixation appears to offset its added costs with greater health utility via lower rates of reoperation and improved patient quality of life.Level of Evidence:Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.