Eric C Makhni1, Nayan Lamba2, Eric Swart3, Michael E Steinhaus4, Christopher S Ahmad5, Anthony A Romeo6, Nikhil N Verma6. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.. Electronic address: ericmakhnimd@gmail.com. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 3. Department of Orthopedic Trauma, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.A. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, New York, U.S.A. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, New York, U.S.A. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair. METHODS: An expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature. RESULTS: Compared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive ($13,672 v $15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Latarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, expected value decision analysis.
PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair. METHODS: An expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature. RESULTS: Compared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive ($13,672 v $15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Latarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, expected value decision analysis.
Authors: Bhavik H Patel; Yining Lu; Avinesh Agarwalla; Richard N Puzzitiello; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Jorge Chahla; Brian Forsythe Journal: HSS J Date: 2020-09-10
Authors: Peter N Chalmers; William Uffman; Garrett Christensen; Patrick Greis; Stephen Aoki; Richard Nelson; Minkyoung Yoo; Robert Z Tashjian Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-03-16
Authors: Brian C Lau; Tyler R Johnston; Bonnie P Gregory; Lorena Bejarano Pineda; Mark Wu; Amanda N Fletcher; Jessica H Hu; Leila Ledbetter; Jonathan C Riboh Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-05-29
Authors: Betina B Hinckel; Charles A Baumann; Leandro Ejnisman; Leonardo M Cavinatto; Alexander Martusiewicz; Miho J Tanaka; Marc Tompkins; Seth L Sherman; Jorge A Chahla; Rachel Frank; Guilherme L Yamamoto; James Bicos; Liza Arendt; Donald Fithian; Jack Farr Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2020-10-01
Authors: Brian C Lau; Lorena Bejarano Pineda; Tyler R Johnston; Bonnie P Gregory; Mark Wu; Amanda N Fletcher; Leila Ledbetter; Jonathan C Riboh Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-03-04
Authors: William J Uffmann; Garrett V Christensen; Minkyoung Yoo; Richard E Nelson; Patrick E Greis; Robert T Burks; Robert Z Tashjian; Peter N Chalmers Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-11-21