Relationship Between Implant Use, Operative Time, and Costs Associated With Distal Biceps Tendon Reattachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The suture anchor and transosseous drill hole techniques for reattachment of the distal biceps tendon to the radius have been found to have similar clinical and biomechanical outcomes. However, a comparison of the cost effectiveness of these techniques is lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of suture anchors decreases operative time enough to offset the additional cost of the implants. The records of all patients undergoing a distal biceps tendon reattachment were reviewed to determine the method of fixation, operative time, and associated surgical costs. Two surgeons used a technique of fixing the tendon directly to the bone (transosseous group), whereas 3 surgeons used suture anchors. Given the standard nature of the surgical procedure (other than the fixation technique), only the costs that differed between the 2 groups were included. Surgical center costs were obtained from the local outpatient surgical center in 2011 US dollars. Five surgeons treated 70 men (mean age, 45.9±9.2 years). Mean time from injury to surgery was 14 days. Mean operative times for the transosseous and suture anchor groups were 97.6±14.9 and 95.8±25.8 minutes, respectively (P=.74). Two anchors were used in 79% of the anchor cases. The use of anchors cost $474.33 more per patient. However, this value is sensitive to the cost of the individual anchors, intersurgeon variation in operative time, and per-minute value of saved operative time. No operative time was saved with the use of suture anchors. This cost comparison framework can be used to evaluate the balance in surgical resource use due to implant cost vs savings in operative time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".