Cost Comparison of Intramedullary Screw Fixation Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Plate and Screw Technique for Metacarpal Fractures

Background: Intramedullary screw (IMS) fixation for metacarpal fractures is a relatively new fixation technique in comparison to plate and screw constructs. Our hypothesis evaluated whether IMS fixation for metacarpal fractures results in lower overall health care–associated costs in comparison to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing IMS fixation for metacarpal fractures at a single center during 2018 to 2022 was conducted. Health care–associated costs included primary operative costs (surgical time and implant(s)) and postoperative costs (therapy, splinting, and radiology). Costs were compared with age-matched and fracture pattern–matched controls who underwent ORIF with plate and screw construct. Subgroup analysis of cost outcomes excluding outliers was completed. Results: Eight subjects met the inclusion criteria and matched with an ORIF group. Primary operative costs were significantly higher in the ORIF group (mean difference of $1830, 95% CI: $1006 to $2653) The cost of an IMS at our institution was $584, whereas the average cost for plate and screw construct was $2538 (mean difference of $1953, 95% CI: $1665 to $2243). Total surgical costs were on average $3784 more for the ORIF group (95% CI: $2869 to $4700). There was no significant difference in outpatient follow-up costs (95% CI: −$441 to $3180). Total overall costs were significantly lower for the IMS group (95% CI: $2693 to $6513). Conclusions: Total primary operative costs and overall health care–associated costs for IMS fixation of metacarpal fractures is significantly lower than ORIF. There was no statistical difference in follow-up care costs. To better determine the indirect costs for patients, high-powered prospective studies will be required.