Background

Rigid sternal fixation (RSF) has been shown to reduce sternal wound complications in high-risk patients. However, the higher initial cost continues to deter its use. This study evaluates the cost of caring for high-risk sternotomy patients who underwent RSF compared with those who underwent sternal closure with a modified wire technique (MWT).

Methods

A retrospective single institution review of high-risk patients who underwent MWT (n = 45) and RSF (n = 30) for primary sternal closure from 2006 to 2009 was conducted. Total hospital cost, revenue, and net cost associated with surgery and subsequent care were analyzed.

Results

Overall rates of wound dehiscence and wound infections (superficial and deep) were higher in MWT patients (n = 14, 13, and 7, respectively) than RSF patients (n = 3, 2, and 0, respectively; P < 0.05). Modified wire technique patients also required more operations (mean ± SEM: 0.4 ± 0.1 vs 0.1 ± 0.1; P = 0.045), and had longer follow-up time (55.0 ± 9.1 vs 13.4 ± 10.5 days; P = 0.004). Overall, the hospital suffered a greater loss caring for MWT patients (US $18,903 ± 2,160) than RSF patients (US $8,935 ± 2,647). Modified wire technique patients who developed a complication had higher costs associated with their operative hospitalization, outpatient care, and home health than RSF patients (total net loss: US $41,436 ± 7327 vs US $10,612 ± 4,258; P = 0.034).

Conclusions

In high-risk patients, RSF is associated with lower rates of infections, including the "never event" mediastinitis, compared with MWT. Moreover, despite the initial higher cost, RSF affords an overall lower cost of care compared with MWT in patients at high-risk for developing sternal complications.

Background

The modified frailty index (mFI) is an important method to risk-stratify surgical patients and has been validated for general surgery and selected surgical subspecialties. However, there are currently no data assessing the efficacy of the mFI to predict acute morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery for retroperitoneal sarcoma.

Methods

Using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2007 to 2012, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients with a diagnosis of primary malignant retroperitoneal neoplasm who underwent surgical resection. The mFI was calculated according to standard published methods. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses including χ² and logistic regression were used to identify predictors of 30-d overall morbidity, 30-d severe morbidity (Clavien III/IV), and 30-d mortality.

Results

We identified 846 patients with the diagnosis of primary malignant retroperitoneal neoplasm who underwent surgical resection. The distribution mFI scores was 0 (48.5%) or 1 (36.3%), with only 4.5% of patients presenting with a score ≥3. Rates of 30-d overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality were 22.6%, 12.9%, and 1.2%, respectively. Only selected mFI scores were associated with serious morbidity and overall morbidity on multivariate analysis (P < 0.05), and mFI did not predict 30-d mortality (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Our data demonstrate that the majority of patients undergoing retroperitoneal sarcoma resections have few, if any, comorbidities. The mFI was a limited predictor of overall and serious complications and was not a significant predictor of mortality. Better discriminators of preoperative risk stratification may be needed for this patient population.