A cost minimization analysis comparing minimally‑invasive with open reduction surgical techniques for pelvic ring fracture

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the in-hospital direct medical costs of patients with pelvic fracture treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). A retrospective, single-center, cohort, and comparative study was performed. Administrative information and clinical results, in addition to cost data, were collected and analyzed. A cost minimization analysis method was used to evaluate the costs of two different surgical techniques. A total of 128 patients diagnosed with pelvic fracture were included in this study; 62 were treated with MIS and 66 underwent ORIF. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in terms of patients' clinical baseline characteristics. The operative time, length of incision, intra-operative blood loss, and post-operative length of stay in the MIS group were significantly different compared with those in the ORIF group. The cost-minimization analysis demonstrated that the cost effectiveness of MIS was better than ORIF as the MIS was associated with a significantly lower total in-hospital direct medical cost ($8,900 vs. $5,786, P=0.032), compared with ORIF. The cost-minimization analysis demonstrated that for similar clinical baseline characteristics as well as outcomes, there were differences in direct hospitalization cost of two surgical techniques, and MIS had a lower cost on average than ORIF.