Platelet-Rich Plasma and Marrow Venting May Serve as Cost-Effective Augmentation Techniques for Isolated Meniscal Repair: A Decision-Analytical Markov Model-Based Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 isolated meniscal repair (IMR) treatment strategies: platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-augmented IMR, IMR with a marrow venting procedure (MVP), and IMR without biological augmentation. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the baseline case: a young adult patient meeting the indications for IMR. Health utility values, failure rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing IMR at an outpatient surgery center. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Total costs of IMR with an MVP were $8,250; PRP-augmented IMR, $12,031; and IMR without PRP or an MVP, $13,326. PRP-augmented IMR resulted in an additional 2.16 QALYs, whereas IMR with an MVP produced slightly fewer QALYs, at 2.13. Non-augmented repair produced a modeled gain of 2.02 QALYs. The ICER comparing PRP-augmented IMR versus MVP-augmented IMR was $161,742/QALY, which fell well above the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: IMR with biological augmentation (MVP or PRP) resulted in a higher number of QALYs and lower costs than non-augmented IMR, suggesting that biological augmentation is cost-effective. Total costs of IMR with an MVP were significantly lower than those of PRP-augmented IMR, whereas the number of additional QALYs produced by PRP-augmented IMR was only slightly higher than that produced by IMR with an MVP. As a result, neither treatment dominated over the other. However, because the ICER of PRP-augmented IMR fell well above the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, IMR with an MVP was determined to be the overall cost-effective treatment strategy in the setting of young adult patients with isolated meniscal tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analysis.

The Epidemiology of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections From 2010 to 2020 in a Large US Commercial Insurance Claims Database: A Recent Update.

INTRODUCTION: The popularity of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for the treatment of orthopaedic conditions has grown markedly. We sought to better define the trends in the usage of orthopaedic PRP injections across an insured US population over the past decade. METHODS: The PearlDiver M91Ortho commercial administrative claims database was queried for all patients receiving PRP injections for orthopaedic conditions from 2010 through the first quarter of 2020 (Q1.2020). Trends in PRP use, reimbursement charges, demographics, joints injected, and administering physicians were assessed over time and reported as year-over-year (YOY) changes. RESULTS: Over the study period, 14,096 unique patients had 17,759 orthopaedic PRP injections. The number of PRP injections administered had a YOY increase of 7.1% (144 injections/year, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 89 to 199, Ptrend = 0.0009). A YOY increase of 895% was observed in total nonsurgical charges ($683,974/yr, 95% CI 441,504 to 926,444, Ptrend = 0.0009). The median age of PRP recipients increased (YOY change = +0.6 years, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.8, Ptrend = 0.0005). Injections to the elbow (YOY change = -0.8%, 95% CI -0.10% to [-0.06%], Ptrend = 0.005) and foot/ankle (YOY change = -1.0%, 95% CI -1.4% to [-0.06%], Ptrend = 0.002) decreased, whereas hip (YOY change = +0.4%, 95% CI 0.2% to 0.6%, Ptrend = 0.019), knee (YOY change = +0.9%, 95% CI 0.3% to 1.2%, Ptrend = 0.016), and spine (YOY change = +0.2%, 95% CI 0.0% to 0.4%, Ptrend = 0.033) injections increased. PRP injections given by sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons (YOY change = +0.8%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.2%, Ptrend <0.0001) increased over time, whereas those by general orthopaedic surgeons decreased (YOY change = -0.9, 95% CI -1.2 to [-0.6%], Ptrend = 0.001). CONCLUSION: PRP injections quadrupled in prevalence from 2010 to Q1.2020, with a projected increase in annual usage in this data set of 66% by 2030. As greater evidence-based indications for PRP use are identified, more specialists and insurance providers may consider expanding their involvement in this growing field. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.