Open Repair Versus Closed Repair: A Cost-Analysis of the Two Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Craniosynostoses.

Abstract

PURPOSE\nThe purpose of this study was to quantify the hospitalization charges of the 2 general surgical approaches in the treatment of craniosynostosis and determine if there was a significant difference between the 2. Several studies compared them side-by-side according to specific variables, such as success rates, postoperative complications, blood loss, and length of stay, but were limited by small sample sizes.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThis is a retrospective cohort study that was conducted using the Kids Inpatient Database (KID). All patients diagnosed with craniosynostosis (Q75.0) were identified. The procedures were grouped according to the approach taken, whether it was a traditional, open approach, or a closed, minimally invasive approach. The primary predictor variable was the surgical approach (open vs closed). The outcome variables were the hospital charges (US dollars) and length of stay (days). Statistical analyses were based on the univariate and multivariate linear regression models, and P value less than .05 marked the significance level.\n\n\nRESULTS\nAmong a sample of 2,585 cases, an open approach was employed in 2,353 cases and a closed approach in 232 cases. Race, payer information, hospital region, admission status (elective vs not elective), patient location, and surgical approach (open vs closed) were all significant predictors (P < .15) of increased hospitalization charges. Relative to white patients, being in the other racial class added $10,987 in hospital charges (P < .05). Relative to the Northeast, being a patient in the West added $33,459 in hospital charges (P < .01). Not being admitted electively added $72,572 (P < .01) relative to elective admissions. Finally, open repair added $59,539 (P < .01) in charges relative to closed repair.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe traditional open approach added nearly $60,000 to the cost of the procedure when compared with the closed, endoscopic approach. The scope and invasiveness of the open approach demand greater surgical services, hospital services, supplies, and equipment, ultimately contributing to this increased cost.