Advertisement

Der Unfallchirurg

, 114:938 | Cite as

Ambulante Versorgung operativer Spunggelenkfrakturen an einem US-Traumazentrum

Ein valides Modell im DRG-Zeitalter?
  • S. Weckbach
  • M.A. Flierl
  • M. Huber-Lang
  • F. Gebhard
  • P.F. StahelEmail author
In der Diskussion

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

In Deutschland werden Patienten mit operativ zu versorgender Fraktur des oberen Sprunggelenks (OSG) überwiegend stationär behandelt, basierend auf der Prämisse, dass die stationäre Überwachung der Weichteilverhältnisse zu einer Reduktion postoperativer Komplikationen führt. Die vorliegende Studie überprüft die Hypothese, dass die ambulante Versorgung operativer Sprunggelenkverletzungen nicht mit einer erhöhten Komplikationsrate einhergeht.

Methodik

Es handelt sich um eine retrospektive Analyse einer prospektiven Datenbank in einem 5-Jahres-Zeitraum (01.01.2005–31.12.2009) an einem akademischen Level-1-Traumazentrum in USA mit institutionellem Protokoll der generell ambulanten Versorgung isolierter Frakturen des OSG. Alle Frakturen wurden nach dem AO/OTA-System klassifiziert. Das Ziel der Studie war die Analyse der Rate postoperativer Komplikationen und notwendiger Revisionseingriffe bei ambulant versorgten vs. stationär behandelten Patienten.

Ergebnisse

Von 810 prospektiv erfassten Patienten mit OSG-Verletzungen erfüllten 476 die Einschlusskriterien. Davon wurden 256 (53,8%) Patienten ambulant behandelt. Die mittlere Verweildauer der stationär aufgenommenen Patienten betrug 1,5±0,8 (1–5) Tage. Die Alterverteilung in beiden Gruppen lag in einem ähnlichen Bereich (39±14,1 stationär vs. 35±12,8 Jahre ambulant), und der Schweregrad der Verletzungen nach der AO/OTA-Klassifikation war in beiden Gruppen vergleichbar. Die Rate der postoperativen Komplikationen (9,1% vs. 3,1%) und der notwendigen chirurgischen Revisionseingriffe (3,6% vs. 1,2%) war signifikant erhöht in der Gruppe der stationär versorgten Sprunggelenkfrakturen, im Vergleich zu den ambulanten Operationen (p<0,05).

Schlussfolgerung

Die ambulante operative Versorgung von isolierten Frakturen des OSG stellt ein sicheres und effizientes Konzept dar, welches nicht mit einer erhöhten Komplikationsrate einhergeht. Die Implementation dieses Modells sollte im Zeitalter der fallpauschalenbasierten Vergütung von Krankenhausleistungen prinzipiell in Betracht gezogen werden. Allerdings sind kulturelle Unterschiede in der häuslichen Versorgungssituation der Patienten zu bedenken.

Schlüsselwörter

Sprunggelenkfraktur Ambulante chirurgische Versorgung Komplikationsrate Revisionseingriffe Fallpauschalierte Vergütung 

Surgical treatment of ankle fractures as an outpatient procedure

A safe and resource-efficient concept?

Abstract

Background

In many European countries, patients requiring surgical treatment of ankle fractures are generally hospitalized for an average of 8–11 days. This anecdotal concept is largely based on the premise that the inpatient monitoring of soft tissue conditions may lead to a decreased complication rate. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that the surgical care of isolated ankle fractures as an outpatient procedure represents a safe and feasible concept which is not associated with an increased complication rate.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed of a prospective database during a 5-year period (01/01/2005–12/31/2009) at a US academic level 1 trauma center with an institutional protocol of outpatient surgery for isolated ankle fractures. All fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA system. Outcome parameters consisted of the rate of postoperative complications and frequency of unplanned surgical revisions outpatient isolated versus inpatient isolated with surgical fixation of ankle isolated fractures.

Results

Among 810 consecutive patients with ankle fractures during the study period, 476 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 256 patients (53.8%) were treated as outpatients. The average length of stay of patients who were admitted as inpatients was 1.5±0.8 days (range 1–5 days). The age distribution was in a similar range for inpatients and outpatients (39±14.1 vs 35±12.8 years), and the injury severity based on the AO/OTA fracture classification revealed a similar distribution of fracture patterns in both groups. The rate of postoperative complications (9.1 vs 3.1%) and of unplanned surgical revisions (3.6 vs 1.2%) was significantly increased in the hospitalized group, compared to patients with ambulatory surgery (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The surgical treatment of isolated ankle fractures as an outpatient procedure represents a safe and resource-efficient concept which is not associated with an increased complication rate. Cultural differences in the domestic environment of individual patients may have to be taken into consideration.

Keywords

Ankle fracture Outpatient surgery Complications Patient safety Diagnosis-related groups 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Böhm B, Begrow B, Stock W (1990) Frühkomplikationen und Letalität nach operativer Behandlung von Frakturen des oberen Sprunggelenks. Zentralbl Chir 115:1023–1029PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bray TJ, Endicott M, Capra SE (1989) Treatment of open ankle fractures. Immediate internal fixation versus closed immobilization and delayed fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 47–52Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carragee EJ, Csongradi JJ (1993) Increased rates of complications in patients with severe ankle fractures following interinstitutional transfers. J Trauma 35:767–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carragee EJ, Csongradi JJ, Bleck EE (1991) Early complications in the operative treatment of ankle fractures. Influence of delay before operation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:79–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charbonnet P, Ott V, Schiffer E et al (2010) Outpatient surgery: an unstoppable evolution. Rev Med Suisse 6:1302–1305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaudhry S, Egol KA (2011) Ankle injuries and fractures in the obese patient. Orthop Clin North Am 42:45–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Court-Brown CM, McBirnie J, Wilson G (1998) Adult ankle fractures – an increasing problem? Acta Orthop Scand 69:43–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hong-Chuan W, Shi-Lian K, Heng-Sheng S et al (2010) Immediate internal fixation of open ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int 31:959–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jelinek JA, Ported DA (2009) Management of unstable ankle fractures and syndesmosis injuries in athletes. Foot Ankle Int 14:277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joshi D, Singh D, Ansari J et al (2006) Immediate open reduction and internal fixation in open ankle fractures. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96:120–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S et al (2002) Increasing number and incidence of low-trauma ankle fractures in elderly people: Finnish statistics during 1970–2000 and projections for the future. Bone 31:430–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd JM, Martin R, Rajagopolan S et al (2010) An innovative and cost-effective way of managing ankle fractures prior to surgery – home therapy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92:615–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mak KH, Chan KM, Leung PC (1985) Ankle fracture treated with the AO principle – an experience with 116 cases. Injury 16:265–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J et al (2007) Fracture and dislocation classification compendium – 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 21:1–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murray AM, McDonald SE, Archbold P et al (2010) Cost description of inpatient treatment for ankle fracture. Injury 41(8):827–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pedrini G, Cardi M, Landini A et al (2011) Management of severe open ankle-foot trauma by a simple external fixation technique: an alternative during war and in resource-poor and low-technology environments. J Orthop Trauma 25:180–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pietzik P, Qureshi I, Langdon J et al (2006) Cost benefit with early operative fixation of unstable ankle fractures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 88:405–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rammelt S, Grass R, Zwipp H (2008) Sprunggelenkfrakturen. Unfallchirurg 111:421–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rammelt S, Zwipp H, Grass R (2008) Sprunggelenkfrakturen: operative Technik. Unfallchirurg 111:439–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richman DC (2010) Ambulatory surgery: how much testing do we need? Anesthesiol Clin 28:185–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scott AM (2010) Diagnosis and treatment of ankle fractures. Radiol Technol 81:457–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taheri PA, Butz DA, Greenfield LJ (2000) Length of stay has minimal impact on the cost of hospital admission. J Am Coll Surg 191:123–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Westacott DJ, Abosala AA, Kurdy NM (2010) The factors associated with prolonged inpatient stay after surgical fixation of acute ankle fractures. J Foot Ankle Surg 49:259–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wukich DK, Joseph A, Ryan M et al (2011) Outcomes of ankle fractures in patients with uncomplicated versus complicated diabetes. Foot Ankle Int 32:120–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhu Y, Xu XY, Liu JH (2010) Surgical treatment of ankle fracture in the elderly. Zhongguo Gu Shang 23:828–831PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Weckbach
    • 1
    • 2
  • M.A. Flierl
    • 1
  • M. Huber-Lang
    • 2
  • F. Gebhard
    • 2
  • P.F. Stahel
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Denver Health Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Colorado Denver, School of Medicine DenverUSA
  2. 2.Klinik für Unfall-, Hand-, plastische und WiederherstellungschirurgieUniversitätsklinik UlmUlmDeutschland
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgerySchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations