使用 Novosorb 生物可降解临时基质与 Integra 胶原-软骨素硅胶重建复杂的上肢伤口:成本分析。

Eplasty Pub Date : 2024-06-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
Christopher Jou, Kyle J Chepla
{"title":"使用 Novosorb 生物可降解临时基质与 Integra 胶原-软骨素硅胶重建复杂的上肢伤口:成本分析。","authors":"Christopher Jou, Kyle J Chepla","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reconstruction of upper extremity wounds with dermal matrices can reduce the length of hospitalization and surgical complexity without compromising functional outcomes. We aimed to compare costs between Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) bilayer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A chart review was performed for patients with isolated upper extremity traumatic wounds who underwent reconstruction with either BTM or CCS between January 2017 and May 2022. Demographic data, surgical procedures, outcomes, and costs were collected for analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven patients were included: 18 BTM and 9 CCS. There were no differences in age, sex, wound size, or dermal template size. Skin grafting was required less frequently in BTM compared with CCS (44.4% vs 55.6%, <i>P</i> = .013). Time to skin graft was longer in the BTM group (43.4 days vs 21.4 days, <i>P</i> = .002). The BTM group experienced fewer complications (33.3% vs 55.6%, <i>P</i> = .002). The mean number of secondary procedures required after template placement was 0.67 in BTM compared with 1.56 in CCS, <i>P</i> = .049. When factoring in the cost of product, the cost of reconstruction with BTM was significantly lower than CCS ($1361.92 vs $3185.71, <i>P</i> = .049).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Novosorb BTM is a more cost-effective option when compared with CCS for reconstruction of upper extremity soft tissue defects.</p>","PeriodicalId":93993,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":"24 ","pages":"e38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11367154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconstruction of Complex Upper Extremity Wounds With Novosorb Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix Versus Integra Collagen-Chondroitin Silicone: A Cost Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Jou, Kyle J Chepla\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reconstruction of upper extremity wounds with dermal matrices can reduce the length of hospitalization and surgical complexity without compromising functional outcomes. We aimed to compare costs between Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) bilayer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A chart review was performed for patients with isolated upper extremity traumatic wounds who underwent reconstruction with either BTM or CCS between January 2017 and May 2022. Demographic data, surgical procedures, outcomes, and costs were collected for analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven patients were included: 18 BTM and 9 CCS. There were no differences in age, sex, wound size, or dermal template size. Skin grafting was required less frequently in BTM compared with CCS (44.4% vs 55.6%, <i>P</i> = .013). Time to skin graft was longer in the BTM group (43.4 days vs 21.4 days, <i>P</i> = .002). The BTM group experienced fewer complications (33.3% vs 55.6%, <i>P</i> = .002). The mean number of secondary procedures required after template placement was 0.67 in BTM compared with 1.56 in CCS, <i>P</i> = .049. When factoring in the cost of product, the cost of reconstruction with BTM was significantly lower than CCS ($1361.92 vs $3185.71, <i>P</i> = .049).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Novosorb BTM is a more cost-effective option when compared with CCS for reconstruction of upper extremity soft tissue defects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eplasty\",\"volume\":\"24 \",\"pages\":\"e38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11367154/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用真皮基质重建上肢伤口可以缩短住院时间,降低手术复杂性,同时又不影响功能效果。我们旨在比较 Novosorb 生物可降解临时基质(BTM)和 Integra 胶原-软骨素硅胶(CCS)双层材料的成本:对2017年1月至2022年5月期间接受BTM或CCS重建的孤立性上肢创伤患者进行病历审查。收集人口统计学数据、手术过程、结果和费用进行分析:结果:共纳入 27 名患者:结果:共纳入 27 例患者:18 例 BTM 和 9 例 CCS。年龄、性别、伤口大小或真皮模板大小均无差异。与 CCS 相比,BTM 需要植皮的频率较低(44.4% vs 55.6%,P = .013)。BTM 组的植皮时间更长(43.4 天 vs 21.4 天,P = .002)。BTM 组的并发症较少(33.3% 对 55.6%,P = .002)。BTM 组放置模板后所需二次手术的平均次数为 0.67 次,而 CCS 组为 1.56 次,P = .049。如果将产品成本考虑在内,BTM 的重建成本明显低于 CCS(1361.92 美元 vs 3185.71 美元,P = .049):结论:在上肢软组织缺损的重建中,Novosorb BTM 比 CCS 更具成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reconstruction of Complex Upper Extremity Wounds With Novosorb Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix Versus Integra Collagen-Chondroitin Silicone: A Cost Analysis.

Background: Reconstruction of upper extremity wounds with dermal matrices can reduce the length of hospitalization and surgical complexity without compromising functional outcomes. We aimed to compare costs between Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) bilayer.

Methods: A chart review was performed for patients with isolated upper extremity traumatic wounds who underwent reconstruction with either BTM or CCS between January 2017 and May 2022. Demographic data, surgical procedures, outcomes, and costs were collected for analysis.

Results: Twenty-seven patients were included: 18 BTM and 9 CCS. There were no differences in age, sex, wound size, or dermal template size. Skin grafting was required less frequently in BTM compared with CCS (44.4% vs 55.6%, P = .013). Time to skin graft was longer in the BTM group (43.4 days vs 21.4 days, P = .002). The BTM group experienced fewer complications (33.3% vs 55.6%, P = .002). The mean number of secondary procedures required after template placement was 0.67 in BTM compared with 1.56 in CCS, P = .049. When factoring in the cost of product, the cost of reconstruction with BTM was significantly lower than CCS ($1361.92 vs $3185.71, P = .049).

Conclusions: Novosorb BTM is a more cost-effective option when compared with CCS for reconstruction of upper extremity soft tissue defects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信