Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Skip Navigation LinksHome > April 2014 - Volume 133 - Issue 4 > Economic Analysis of Revision Amputation and Replantation Tr...
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000019
Hand/Peripheral Nerve: Outcomes Articles

Economic Analysis of Revision Amputation and Replantation Treatment of Finger Amputation Injuries

Sears, Erika Davis M.D., M.S.; Shin, Ryan B.S., M.P.H.; Prosser, Lisa A. Ph.D.; Chung, Kevin C. M.D., M.S.

Supplemental Author Material
Coding Perspective
Collapse Box


Background: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries across a spectrum of injury scenarios.

Methods: The study was conducted from the societal perspective. Decision tree models were created for the reference case (two-finger amputation injury) and seven additional injury scenarios for comparison. Inputs included cost, quality of life, and probability of each health state. A Web-based time trade-off survey was created to determine quality-adjusted life-years for health states; 685 nationally representative adult community members were invited to participate in the survey. Overall cost and quality-adjusted life-years for revision amputation and replantation were calculated for each decision tree. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated if a treatment was more costly but more effective.

Results: The authors had a 64 percent response rate (n = 437). Replantation treatment had greater costs and quality-adjusted life-years compared with revision amputation in all injury scenarios. Replantation of single-digit injuries had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($136,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Replantation of three- and four-digit amputation injuries had relatively low cost-to-benefit ratios ($27,100 and $23,800 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Replantation for distal thumb amputation had a relatively low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($26,300 per quality-adjusted life-year) compared with replantation of nonthumb distal amputations ($60,200 per quality-adjusted life-year).

Conclusions: The relative cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with replantation treatment varied greatly among the injury scenarios. Situations in which indications for replantation are debated had higher cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This study highlights variability in value for replantation among different injury scenarios.

©2014American Society of Plastic Surgeons


Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

The Clinical Masters of PRS – Breast eBooks

4 Essential eBooks for Plastic Surgeons