Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures

Abstract

Background: Decision-making with regard to the treatment of humeral shaft fractures remains under debate. The cost-effectiveness of these treatment options has yet to be established. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of operative treatment with that of nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods: We developed a decision tree for treatment options. Surgical costs included the ambulatory surgical fee, physician fee, anesthesia fee, and, in the sensitivity analysis, lost wages during recovery. We used the Current Procedural Terminology codes from the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery to determine physician fees via the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database. The anesthesia fee was obtained from the national conversion factor and mean operative time for included procedures. We obtained data on mean wages from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and data on weeks missed from a similar study. We reported functional data via the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores obtained from existing literature. We used rollback analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to determine the cost-effectiveness of each treatment option, presented in dollars per meaningful change in DASH score, utilizing a $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Results: The cost per meaningful change in DASH score for operative treatment was $18,857.97 at the 6-month follow-up and $25,756.36 at the 1-year follow-up, by Monte Carlo simulation. Wage loss-inclusive models revealed values that fall even farther below the WTP threshold, making operative management the more cost-effective treatment option compared with nonoperative treatment in both settings. With an upward variation of the nonoperative union rate to 84.17% in the wage-exclusive model and 89.43% in the wage-inclusive model, nonoperative treatment instead became more cost-effective. Conclusions: Operative management was cost-effective at both 6 months and 1 year, compared with nonoperative treatment, in both models. Operative treatment was found to be even more cost-effective with loss of wages considered, suggesting that an earlier return to baseline function and, thus, return to work are important considerations in making operative treatment the more cost-effective option. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.