title: Cost, operation and hospitalization times in distraction osteogenesis versus sagittal split osteotomy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Distraction osteogenesis in 'common' surgical orthodontics is mentioned as an alternative for conventional sagittal split osteotomy. After a 'learning curve' in the surgical skills of distraction, the two techniques can be compared concerning time and cost aspects.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty-seven patients (male n=28, female n=19, age 11.7-17.9 yr (mean 14.2) with an Angle's class II division 1malocclusion of skeletal mandibular origin were operated on using distraction osteogenesis and were compared with a second group of 21 patients (male n=4, female n=17, age 16-36yr (mean 22.8) who underwent bilateral sagittal split osteotomies in the same period in order to correct the same type of dysgnathia.
  
  
  METHODS
  The first group of 47 patients was treated with intraorally placed bone-born distraction devices to correct mandibular deficiency following a standard protocol, with removal of the third molar tooth germs if present. The second group of 21 patients underwent standard sagittal split osteotomies to correct the mandibular deficiency. The costs of hospitalization, distraction devices and operation time were compared.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In this study, distraction osteogenesis took on average more operative time (mean 37%), but 1 day less hospitalization than the bilateral sagittal split osteotomies. The surgical cost of distraction osteogenesis was 36% higher than the conventional sagittal split osteotomy.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study, correcting Angle's class II deficiencies by means of distraction osteogenesis was shown not to be a time-saving procedure when compared with sagittal split osteotomy. Surgical costs were significantly higher using distraction, mainly due to the price of the distractors. Changes in hospital policies concerning hospital admission of adults and children and European legislation concerning re-usability of surgical instruments may balance the cost of both procedures.
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, The Netherlands. strijenp@zgv.nl
authors.forename: P J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Van Strijen
authors.forename: K H
authors.initials: KH
authors.lastname: Breuning
authors.forename: A G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Becking
authors.forename: F B T
authors.initials: FB
authors.lastname: Perdijk
authors.forename: D B
authors.initials: DB
authors.lastname: Tuinzing
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D017743:Equipment Reuse; D005260:Female; D006760:Hospitalization / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D016268:Internal Fixators; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000191:economics; D008297:Male; D008312:Malocclusion, Angle Class II / Q000601:surgery; D008334:Mandible / Q000601:surgery*; D008964:Molar, Third / Q000601:surgery; D019857:Osteogenesis, Distraction / Q000191:economics / Q000295:instrumentation; D010027:Osteotomy / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D010343:Patient Admission; D013997:Time Factors; D014083:Tooth Germ / Q000601:surgery