Open Versus Closed Reduction of Maxillary Fractures

Complications and Resource Utilization

Yasmina Zoghbi, David J. Gerth, Jun Tashiro, Albert Lee, Seth Thaller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Maxillary fractures are frequently managed depending on the surgeon's preferences, nature of the injury, presence of associated injuries, and comorbidities. Current literature advocates open reduction with plating versus closed techniques. However, data defining associated costs and complications comparing the 2 approaches remains lacking. Methods: National Inpatient Sample (2006-2011) was examined for patients undergoing closed or open (76.73-76.74) reduction of maxillary fractures. Treatment-related complications were regarded as re-exploration of surgical site, hemorrhage, hematoma, seroma, wound infection, and dehiscence. Results: Overall, 22,157 patients were identified. There were 18,874 closed and 3283 open procedures. Median age was 35 (interquartile range 27). Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days. Median total charges were reported as 51486.80 USD. Males comprised 77% of the cohort. 68% of patients were Caucasian. Private payer/HMO accounted for the largest source of health care coverage (43.5%). On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, there was no difference in surgical approach regarding incidence of postoperative complications. Males (2.73), nonprivate insurer payer (P = 0.002), South region (2.49), and transferred patients (2.55) had higher incidence of complications. Presence of chronic pulmonary disease (2.87) and coagulopathy (6.62) also increased risk of complications. Length of stay was shorter for open reduction (0.68) versus closed. Total charges were also less for open approach (0.37). Conclusion: While surgical approach did not affect complications, open approach favorably affected LOS and total charges. Future studies should focus on comorbidities, demographics, and associated injuries in relation to resource utilization for maxillary fractures. In current economic environment, such information might further dictate management options.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1797-1802
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Craniofacial Surgery
Volume28
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

Maxillary Fractures
Length of Stay
Comorbidity
Wounds and Injuries
Surgical Blood Loss
Seroma
Insurance Carriers
Health Maintenance Organizations
Incidence
Wound Infection
Hematoma
Lung Diseases
Inpatients
Chronic Disease
Multivariate Analysis
Economics
Demography
Delivery of Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Closed reduction
  • healthcare costs
  • maxillary fracture
  • open reduction
  • postoperative complications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Open Versus Closed Reduction of Maxillary Fractures : Complications and Resource Utilization. / Zoghbi, Yasmina; Gerth, David J.; Tashiro, Jun; Lee, Albert; Thaller, Seth.

In: Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, Vol. 28, No. 7, 01.10.2017, p. 1797-1802.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zoghbi, Yasmina ; Gerth, David J. ; Tashiro, Jun ; Lee, Albert ; Thaller, Seth. / Open Versus Closed Reduction of Maxillary Fractures : Complications and Resource Utilization. In: Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2017 ; Vol. 28, No. 7. pp. 1797-1802.
@article{cec5c57b1f934fa8ac505ab87dd279ed,
title = "Open Versus Closed Reduction of Maxillary Fractures: Complications and Resource Utilization",
abstract = "Introduction: Maxillary fractures are frequently managed depending on the surgeon's preferences, nature of the injury, presence of associated injuries, and comorbidities. Current literature advocates open reduction with plating versus closed techniques. However, data defining associated costs and complications comparing the 2 approaches remains lacking. Methods: National Inpatient Sample (2006-2011) was examined for patients undergoing closed or open (76.73-76.74) reduction of maxillary fractures. Treatment-related complications were regarded as re-exploration of surgical site, hemorrhage, hematoma, seroma, wound infection, and dehiscence. Results: Overall, 22,157 patients were identified. There were 18,874 closed and 3283 open procedures. Median age was 35 (interquartile range 27). Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days. Median total charges were reported as 51486.80 USD. Males comprised 77{\%} of the cohort. 68{\%} of patients were Caucasian. Private payer/HMO accounted for the largest source of health care coverage (43.5{\%}). On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, there was no difference in surgical approach regarding incidence of postoperative complications. Males (2.73), nonprivate insurer payer (P = 0.002), South region (2.49), and transferred patients (2.55) had higher incidence of complications. Presence of chronic pulmonary disease (2.87) and coagulopathy (6.62) also increased risk of complications. Length of stay was shorter for open reduction (0.68) versus closed. Total charges were also less for open approach (0.37). Conclusion: While surgical approach did not affect complications, open approach favorably affected LOS and total charges. Future studies should focus on comorbidities, demographics, and associated injuries in relation to resource utilization for maxillary fractures. In current economic environment, such information might further dictate management options.",
keywords = "Closed reduction, healthcare costs, maxillary fracture, open reduction, postoperative complications",
author = "Yasmina Zoghbi and Gerth, {David J.} and Jun Tashiro and Albert Lee and Seth Thaller",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/SCS.0000000000003776",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1797--1802",
journal = "Journal of Craniofacial Surgery",
issn = "1049-2275",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open Versus Closed Reduction of Maxillary Fractures

T2 - Complications and Resource Utilization

AU - Zoghbi, Yasmina

AU - Gerth, David J.

AU - Tashiro, Jun

AU - Lee, Albert

AU - Thaller, Seth

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Introduction: Maxillary fractures are frequently managed depending on the surgeon's preferences, nature of the injury, presence of associated injuries, and comorbidities. Current literature advocates open reduction with plating versus closed techniques. However, data defining associated costs and complications comparing the 2 approaches remains lacking. Methods: National Inpatient Sample (2006-2011) was examined for patients undergoing closed or open (76.73-76.74) reduction of maxillary fractures. Treatment-related complications were regarded as re-exploration of surgical site, hemorrhage, hematoma, seroma, wound infection, and dehiscence. Results: Overall, 22,157 patients were identified. There were 18,874 closed and 3283 open procedures. Median age was 35 (interquartile range 27). Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days. Median total charges were reported as 51486.80 USD. Males comprised 77% of the cohort. 68% of patients were Caucasian. Private payer/HMO accounted for the largest source of health care coverage (43.5%). On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, there was no difference in surgical approach regarding incidence of postoperative complications. Males (2.73), nonprivate insurer payer (P = 0.002), South region (2.49), and transferred patients (2.55) had higher incidence of complications. Presence of chronic pulmonary disease (2.87) and coagulopathy (6.62) also increased risk of complications. Length of stay was shorter for open reduction (0.68) versus closed. Total charges were also less for open approach (0.37). Conclusion: While surgical approach did not affect complications, open approach favorably affected LOS and total charges. Future studies should focus on comorbidities, demographics, and associated injuries in relation to resource utilization for maxillary fractures. In current economic environment, such information might further dictate management options.

AB - Introduction: Maxillary fractures are frequently managed depending on the surgeon's preferences, nature of the injury, presence of associated injuries, and comorbidities. Current literature advocates open reduction with plating versus closed techniques. However, data defining associated costs and complications comparing the 2 approaches remains lacking. Methods: National Inpatient Sample (2006-2011) was examined for patients undergoing closed or open (76.73-76.74) reduction of maxillary fractures. Treatment-related complications were regarded as re-exploration of surgical site, hemorrhage, hematoma, seroma, wound infection, and dehiscence. Results: Overall, 22,157 patients were identified. There were 18,874 closed and 3283 open procedures. Median age was 35 (interquartile range 27). Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days. Median total charges were reported as 51486.80 USD. Males comprised 77% of the cohort. 68% of patients were Caucasian. Private payer/HMO accounted for the largest source of health care coverage (43.5%). On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, there was no difference in surgical approach regarding incidence of postoperative complications. Males (2.73), nonprivate insurer payer (P = 0.002), South region (2.49), and transferred patients (2.55) had higher incidence of complications. Presence of chronic pulmonary disease (2.87) and coagulopathy (6.62) also increased risk of complications. Length of stay was shorter for open reduction (0.68) versus closed. Total charges were also less for open approach (0.37). Conclusion: While surgical approach did not affect complications, open approach favorably affected LOS and total charges. Future studies should focus on comorbidities, demographics, and associated injuries in relation to resource utilization for maxillary fractures. In current economic environment, such information might further dictate management options.

KW - Closed reduction

KW - healthcare costs

KW - maxillary fracture

KW - open reduction

KW - postoperative complications

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030694297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030694297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003776

DO - 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003776

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 1797

EP - 1802

JO - Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

SN - 1049-2275

IS - 7

ER -