Le Fort III in Syndromic Craniosynostosis: Cost Comparison of Distraction Osteogenesis Versus Single-Stage Internal Fixation Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In syndromic craniosynostosis, the Le Fort III osteotomy is used to correct dental/skeletal imbalance, improve exorbitism, and increase the airway. The purpose of this study is to perform a cost comparison between the standard technique of single-stage rigid internal fixation and distraction osteogenesis (DO) in the Le Fort III osteotomy in this patient population. Method: Hospital cost accounting databases were queried for patients undergoing single-stage advancement (SS) or DO from 2007 to 2016. Nominal cost data were adjusted using the Bank of Canada Consumer Price Index. Reported costs represented the full length of stay for all utilization per patient. Demographic information and cost data for single-stage osteotomy and DO were compared. Results: Total costs for single-stage (n = 8) were higher than distraction (n = 6; mean $CAD57 825 vs $38 268, P < .05). Intensive care unit (ICU) costs for single-stage were significantly higher than distraction (mean, $17 746 vs $5585, P < .005). Distraction cases had higher operating room (OR) costs than single stage, but the difference was not significant (mean, $12 540 vs $9696). Length of stay was significantly longer for SS patients (mean, 11 days vs 7 days, P < .05). Conclusions: This single-institution retrospective cost analysis indicates standard SS rigid internal fixation Le Fort III is more costly than DO. Despite higher OR costs, prolonged ICU and hospital stay was the primary reason behind this difference. This information may be of benefit when advocating for new technology perceived as high cost.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".