Health-economic evaluation of meniscus tear treatments: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the overall evidence of published health-economic evaluation studies on meniscus tear treatment. METHODS: Our systematic review focuses on health-economic evaluation studies of meniscus tear treatment interventions found in PubMed and Embase databases. A qualitative, descriptive approach was used to analyze the studies' results and systematically report them following PRISMA guidelines. The health-economic evaluation method for each included study was categorized following one of the four approaches: partial economic evaluation (PEE), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Comparisons of input variables and outcomes were made, if applicable. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included; of these, six studies performed PEE, seven studies CUA, two studies CEA, and one study combined CBA, CUA, and CEA. The following economic comparisons were analyzed and showed the respective comparative outcomes: (1) meniscus repair was more cost-effective than arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (meniscectomy) for reparable meniscus tear; (2) non-operative treatment or physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy for degenerative meniscus tear; (3) physical therapy with delayed meniscectomy was more cost-effective than early meniscectomy for meniscus tear with knee osteoarthritis; (4) meniscectomy without physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy with physical therapy; (5) meniscectomy was more cost-effective than either meniscus allograft transplantation or meniscus scaffold procedure; (6) the conventional arthroscopic instrument cost was lower than laser-assisted arthroscopy in meniscectomy procedures. CONCLUSION: Results from this review suggest that meniscus repair is the most cost-effective intervention for reparable meniscus tears. Physical therapy followed by delayed meniscectomy is the most cost-effective intervention for degenerative meniscus tears. Meniscus scaffold should be avoided, especially when implemented on a large scale. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of level IV studies.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Measurement Properties of the Indonesian Kujala Score for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Patients.

Introduction: There is an overwhelming need for worldwide applicable subjective grading systems for patients' anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. The scoring system should be validated for their use in advance related measurements. For the Indonesian language speaking population, only the Kujala Patellofemoral Score (KPS) questionnaire has been translated and validated into the Indonesian language for diseases related to knee pain, but none for ACL tears. The present study aims at cross-cultural adaption to measure the validity and reliability of the Kujala patellofemoral score Indonesian version (KPS-I) specifically for ACL tear patients. Material and methods: The responses of 106 ACL tear patients on two questionnaires comprising the KPS-I and Short Form (SF)-36 were examined by determining the validity and reliability. We conducted the validity construct and content, so the reliability was evaluated by test-retest reliability, internal consistency and measurement error. In addition, the research utilised the Bland and Altman method to explore absolute agreement. Results: The construct and content validity were good, where all hypotheses were confirmed, and the floor or ceiling effect did not occur. The reliability proved excellent between test and retest (ICC=0.99). An internal consistency showed a good Cronbach α of 0.86. The standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change at the individual (MDCind), and minimal detectable change at the group (MDCgrp) were determined to be 2.1, 5.8, and 0.7, respectively. The application of the Bland and Altman plot method revealed no bias in this study. Conclusion: The validation procedure shows that the KPS-I is a good evaluation instrument for Indonesian patients with ACL tear. However, it is suggested that this score be used for follow-up of patients after ACL reconstruction procedure, especially with anterior knee pain related to the original objective of the Kujala score.