Albit R Paoli1, Heather T Gold1, Siddharth A Mahure1, David H Mai1, Christoph A Agten2, Andrew S Rokito1, Mandeep S Virk3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Joint Diseases, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A. 2. Department of Radiology, Balgrist University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Joint Diseases, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.. Electronic address: Mandeep.Virk@nyumc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management, primary SLAP repair, and primary biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic isolated type II SLAP tear. METHODS: A microsimulation Markov model was constructed to compare 3 strategies for middle-aged patients with symptomatic type II SLAP tears: SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, or nonoperative management. A failed 6-month trial of nonoperative treatment was assumed. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2017 U.S. dollars using a societal perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Model results were compared with estimates from the published literature and were subjected to sensitivity analyses to evaluate robustness. RESULTS: Primary biceps tenodesis compared with SLAP repair conferred an increased effectiveness of 0.06 QALY with cost savings of $1,766. Compared with nonoperative treatment, both biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair were cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values of $3,344/QALY gained and $4,289/QALY gained, respectively). Sensitivity analysis showed that biceps tenodesis was the preferred strategy in most simulations (52%); however, for SLAP repair to become cost-effective over biceps tenodesis, its probability of failure would have to be lower than 2.7% or the cost of biceps tenodesis would have to be higher than $14,644. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment, primary biceps tenodesis is the most cost-effective treatment strategy for type II SLAP tears in middle-aged patients. Primary biceps tenodesis offers increased effectiveness when compared with both primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment and lower costs than primary SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic decision analysis.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management, primary SLAP repair, and primary biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic isolated type II SLAP tear. METHODS: A microsimulation Markov model was constructed to compare 3 strategies for middle-aged patients with symptomatic type II SLAP tears: SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, or nonoperative management. A failed 6-month trial of nonoperative treatment was assumed. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2017 U.S. dollars using a societal perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Model results were compared with estimates from the published literature and were subjected to sensitivity analyses to evaluate robustness. RESULTS:Primary biceps tenodesis compared with SLAP repair conferred an increased effectiveness of 0.06 QALY with cost savings of $1,766. Compared with nonoperative treatment, both biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair were cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values of $3,344/QALY gained and $4,289/QALY gained, respectively). Sensitivity analysis showed that biceps tenodesis was the preferred strategy in most simulations (52%); however, for SLAP repair to become cost-effective over biceps tenodesis, its probability of failure would have to be lower than 2.7% or the cost of biceps tenodesis would have to be higher than $14,644. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment, primary biceps tenodesis is the most cost-effective treatment strategy for type II SLAP tears in middle-aged patients. Primary biceps tenodesis offers increased effectiveness when compared with both primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment and lower costs than primary SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic decision analysis.
Authors: Jeffrey Rosenthal; My-Linh Nguyen; Spero Karas; Michael Gottschalk; Charles Daly; Eric Wagner; Adam D Singer Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Gregory L Cvetanovich; Anirudh K Gowd; Avinesh Agarwalla; Brian Forsythe; Anthony A Romeo; Nikhil N Verma Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-03-22