A Nationwide Analysis of Complications, Reoperations and Cost of Wide-Awake Flexor Tendon Repairs

Alexander J Kammien,Albert L Rancu,Samuel Kim,Neil Parikh,Jonathan N Grauer,David L Colen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011651
2024-07-19
Abstract:Introduction: Some papers suggest that wide-awake flexor tendon repair (FTR) may reduce rates of postoperative tendon gapping and rupture due to improved intraoperative testing of the repair. The current study is a nationwide cohort study comparing FTRs performed wide-awake and with traditional anesthesia. Methods: Patients undergoing zone II FTR between 2010-2022 were identified in PearlDiver. Exclusion criteria were other tendon repairs, concomitant treatment for vascular injury, fracture, dislocation or amputation, inpatient or office surgery, age <18 years and <1 year of follow-up. Patients were stratified by anesthesia technique: traditional anesthesia (general anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care, regional blocks) or wide-awake. Patients were matched based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) score, geographical region, insurance coverage, number of tendon repairs and presence of concomitant nerve repair. 30-day wound complications, emergency department visits and readmissions and 1-year reoperations were identified. Total reimbursement for surgery was determined. Results: Each matched cohort included 2,563 patients. Wide-awake patients had fewer 30-day emergency department visits (2.7% vs 4.8%). There were no differences in 30-day wound complications or readmissions. There was no difference in 1-year reoperations for rupture or for stiffness. Multivariable linear regression identified wide-awake surgery to be a significantly associated with lower total reimbursement. Conclusions: Performing digital FTR using wide-awake techniques can reduce costs, but the hypothesis that wide-awake repairs may reduce rates of tendon rupture was not supported by the current study.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?