Do we have that nail on shelf? Comparing the financial burden of stocking an orthopaedic theatre: intramedullary nails versus innovative locking rods for femoral and tibial shaft fractures.

Abstract

Background/objectives: Femoral and tibial shaft fractures are among the most common long bone fractures. This study aims to assess and compare the economic impact of these two approaches by evaluating: direct costs (implant pricing, instrumentation and operating room expenses) and indirect costs (complication rates and reoperation expenses).

Methods: This study is a comparative cost-analysis study aimed at evaluating the financial burden of stocking an orthopaedic theatre with IM nails versus locking rods used for the treatment of femoral and tibial shaft fractures. The analysis will focus on the costs associated with the procurement; storage and utilization of these implant systems, using publicly available data, manufacturer pricing and relevant industry reports.

Results: In this comparison, IM nailing is slightly more expensive than treating the same fractures by universal locking rod systems with the cost difference ranging between $3,473and$ 5,846. The main contributors to the cost difference include the slightly higher surgical time for IM nailing, as well as higher staffing and operating room costs in addition to higher complication rates reported.

Conclusions: While universal locking rods may have a higher upfront cost, they can reduce hospital inventory needs through their innovative designs which can potentially lead to long term cost savings, as one system can accommodate a bigger range of fractures.