Souza, Jason M.

Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) care facilitates coordinated expertise that leads to improved patient safety and outcomes. Yet, no prior study has quantified reported benefits from plastic surgery–inclusive MDTs across several procedures. We thereby hypothesized that plastic surgery–inclusive MDTs would lead to better surgical outcomes following cranioplasty, spine surgery, abdominoperineal resection, abdominal wall reconstruction, and extremity reconstruction, compared with the primary specialties acting alone. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for comparative studies comparing outcomes of care provided by plastic surgery–inclusive MDT and non–plastic surgery–inclusive MDT. Results: Thirty studies with a total of 9614 patients were included. Plastic surgery–inclusive MDT care was associated with reduced odds of wound complications in abdominoperineal resection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.90) and spine procedures (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33–0.97). In addition, plastic surgery–inclusive MDT care for extremity reconstruction and abdominal wall reconstruction was associated with lower odds of wound complications ([OR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12–0.46] [OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12–0.90]), reoperation ([OR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04–0.49] [OR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.03–2.39]), and shorter length of stay (mean difference, −19.5 and −0.62, respectively). Conclusions: Plastic surgery–inclusive MDT care significantly reduces wound complication and reoperation rates across complex surgical procedures. These findings support the formal integration of plastic surgeons within MDTs to improve patient outcomes and surgical safety.

AimsPrior cost-effectiveness analyses on osseointegrated prosthesis for transfemoral unilateral amputees have analyzed outcomes in non-USA countries using generic quality of life instruments, which may not be appropriate when evaluating disease-specific quality of life. These prior analyses have also focused only on patients who had failed a socket-based prosthesis. The aim of the current study is to use a disease-specific quality of life instrument, which can more accurately reflect a patient’s quality of life with this condition in order to evaluate cost-effectiveness, examining both treatment-naïve and socket refractory patients.MethodsLifetime Markov models were developed evaluating active healthy middle-aged male amputees. Costs of the prostheses, associated complications, use/non-use, and annual costs of arthroplasty parts and service for both a socket and osseointegrated (OPRA) prosthesis were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using the questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA) until death. All costs and Q-TFA were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses on those cost variables which affected a change in treatment (OPRA to socket, or socket to OPRA) were evaluated to determine threshold values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.ResultsFor treatment-naïve patients, the lifetime ICER for OPRA was $279/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For treatment-refractory patients the ICER was $273/QALY. In sensitivity analysis, the variable thresholds that would affect a change in the course of treatment based on cost (from socket to OPRA), included the following for the treatment-naïve group: yearly replacement components for socket > $8,511; cost yearly replacement parts OPRA < $1,758; and for treatment-refractory group: yearly replacement component for socket of > $12,467.ConclusionThe use of the OPRA prosthesis in physically active transfemoral amputees should be considered as a cost-effective alternative in both treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory socket prosthesis patients. Disease-specific quality of life assessments such as Q-TFA are more sensitive when evaluating cost-effectiveness.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):218–226.