Abstract

SSRF is increasingly utilized to manage patients with rib fractures. Benefits of performing SSRF appear variable and the procedure is costly, necessitating cost-effectiveness analysis for distinct subgroups. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) vs non-operative management among patients with rib fractures aged <65 vs =65 years, with vs without flail chest. We hypothesized that compared to non-operative management, SSRF is cost-effective only for patients with flail chest.This economic evaluation used a decision-analytic Markov model with a lifetime time horizon incorporating US population-representative inputs to simulate benefits and risks of SSRF compared to non-operative management. We report quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses accounted for most plausible clinical scenarios.Compared to non-operative management, SSRF was cost-effective for patients with flail chest at willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY gained. SSRF cost $25,338 and $123,377/QALY gained for those with flail chest aged <65 and =65 years, respectively. SSRF was not cost-effective for patients without flail chest; costing $172,704 and $243,758/QALY gained for those aged <65 and =65 years, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that under most plausible scenarios, SSRF remained cost-effective for subgroups with flail chest and non-operative management remained cost-effective for patients aged >65 without flail chest. Probability that SSRF is cost-effective ranged from 98% among patients aged <65 with flail chest to 35% among patients aged =65 without flail chest.SSRF is cost effective for patients with flail chest. SSRF may be cost-effective in some patients without flail chest, but delineating these patients requires further study.level II.

View details for DOI 10.1097/TA.0000000000003021

View details for PubMedID 33559982