Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unstable elbow injuries sometimes require External fixation (ExF) or an Internal Joint Stabilizer (IJS) to maintain joint reduction. No studies have compared the clinical outcomes and surgical costs of these 2 treatment modalities. The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinical outcome and surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) differ between ExF and IJS for unstable elbow injuries. METHODS: This retrospective study identified adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unstable elbow injures treated by either an IJS or ExF between 2010 and 2019 at a single tertiary academic center. Patients postoperatively completed 3 patient-reported outcome measures (the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, the Mayo Elbow Performance score, and EQ-5D-DL). Postoperative range of motion was measured in all patients, and complications tallied. SETDCs were determined and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were identified, with 12 in each group. Clinical and radiographic follow-up for the IJS group averaged 24 months and 6 months, respectively, and for the ExF group, 78 months and 5 months, respectively. The 2 groups had similar final range of motion, the Mayo Elbow Performance score, and 5Q-5D-5L scores; ExF patients had better the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. IJS patients had fewer complications and were less likely to require additional surgery. The SETDCs were similar between the 2 groups, but the relative contributors to cost differed significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with an ExF or IJS had similar clinical outcomes, but complications and second surgeries were more likely in ExF patients. The overall SETDC was also similar for ExF and IJS, but relative contributions of the cost subcategories differed.