Cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy for traumatic meniscal tears in patients aged under 45 years.

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy plus optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in young patients aged under 45 years with traumatic meniscal tears. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial in patients aged 18 to 45 years, with a recent onset, traumatic, MRI-verified, isolated meniscal tear without knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomized to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or standardized physical therapy with an optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy after three months of follow-up. We performed a cost-utility analysis on the randomization groups to compare both treatments over a 24-month follow-up period. Cost utility was calculated as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared to physical therapy. Calculations were performed from a healthcare system perspective and a societal perspective. Results: A total of 100 patients were included: 49 were randomized to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and 51 to physical therapy. In the physical therapy group, 21 patients (41%) received delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy during follow-up. Over 24 months, patients in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group had a mean 0.005 QALYs lower quality of life (95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.14). The cost-utility ratio was €-160,000/QALY from the healthcare perspective and €-223,372/QALY from the societal perspective, indicating that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy incurs additional costs without any added health benefit. Conclusion: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is unlikely to be cost-effective in treating young patients with isolated traumatic meniscal tears compared to physical therapy as a primary health intervention. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy leads to a similar quality of life, but higher costs, compared to physical therapy plus optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy.

The value of reducing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in the treatment of degenerative meniscus tears: a budget impact analysis.

AIMS: Numerous studies have shown that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is not (cost-) effective in patients with symptoms attributed to a degenerative meniscus tear. We aimed to assess the budget impact of reducing APM in routine clinical practice in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient-level state transition model was developed to simulate patients recently diagnosed with a degenerative meniscus tear. Three strategies were compared: "current guideline" (i.e., postpone surgery to at least 3 months after diagnosis), "APM at any time" (i.e., APM available directly after diagnosis), and "nonsurgical" (i.e., APM no longer performed). Total societal costs over 5 years were calculated to determine the budget impact. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty. RESULTS: The average cost per patient over 5 years were EUR 5,077, EUR 4,577, and EUR 4,218, for the "APM at any time," "current guideline," and "nonsurgical" strategy, respectively. Removing APM from the treatment mix (i.e., 30,000 patients per year) in the Netherlands, resulted in a reduction in health care expenditures of EUR 54 million (95 percent confidence interval [CI] EUR 38 million-EUR 70 million) compared to the "current guideline strategy" and EUR 129 million (95 percent CI EUR 102 million-EUR 156 million) compared to the "APM at any time" strategy. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty did not alter our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial costs can be saved when APM is no longer performed to treat symptoms attributed to degenerative meniscus tears in the Netherlands. It is therefore recommended to further reduce the use of APM to treat degenerative meniscus tears.

Comparing Meniscectomy and Meniscal Repair: A Matched Cohort Analysis Utilizing a National Insurance Database.

BACKGROUND: Meniscal repair leads to improved patient outcomes compared with meniscectomy in small case series. PURPOSE: To compare the reoperation rates, 30-day complication rates, and cost differences between meniscectomy and meniscal repair in a large insurance database. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A national insurance database was queried for patients who underwent meniscectomy (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 29880 or 29881) or meniscal repair (CPT code 29882 or 29883) in the outpatient setting and who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients without confirmed laterality and patients who underwent concomitant ligament reconstruction were excluded. Reoperation was defined by ipsilateral knee procedure after the index surgery. The 30-day postoperative complication rates were assessed using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The cost of the procedures per patient was calculated. Propensity score matching was utilized to create matched cohorts with similar characteristics. Statistical comparisons of cohort characteristics, reoperations, postoperative complications, and payments were made. All P values were reported with significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 27,580 patients (22,064 meniscectomy and 5516 meniscal repair; mean age, 29.9 ± 15.1 years; 41.2% female) were included in this study with a mean follow-up of 45.6 ± 21.0 months. The matched groups were similar with regard to characteristics and comorbidities. There were significantly more patients who required reoperation after index meniscectomy compared with meniscal repair postoperatively (5.3% vs 2.1%; P < .001). Patients undergoing meniscectomy were also significantly more likely to undergo any ipsilateral meniscal surgery (P < .001), meniscal transplantation (P = .005), or total knee arthroplasty (P = .001) postoperatively. There was a significantly higher overall 30-day complication rate after meniscal repair (1.2%) compared with meniscectomy (0.82%; P = .011). The total day-of-surgery payments was significantly higher in the repair group compared with the meniscectomy group ($7094 vs $5423; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Meniscal repair leads to significantly lower rates of reoperation and higher rates of early complications with a higher total cost compared with meniscectomy in a large database study.

Increased rates of knee arthroplasty and cost of patients with meniscal tears treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus non-operative management.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), one of the most common surgeries performed by orthopaedic surgeons, and the associated rate of progression to knee arthroplasty (KA) compared to patients treated non-operatively after diagnosis of meniscal tear. METHODS: Utilizing data mining software (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO), a national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopaedic patients was queried for patients diagnosed with a meniscal tear. Patients were classified by treatment: non-operative and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and were followed after initial diagnosis for cost and progression to knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: There were 176,407 subjects in the non-op group and 114,194 subjects in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy generated more cost than non-operative ($3842.57 versus $411.05, P < 0.001). Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy demonstrated greater propensity to need future knee arthroplasty (11.4% at 676 days) than those treated non-operatively (9.5% at 402 days) (P < 0.001). Female patients demonstrated a higher rate of progression to knee arthroplasty in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and non-operative groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared to non-operative treatment for meniscal tears, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is more expensive and does not appear to decrease the rate of progression to knee arthroplasty. Patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy yielded on average a delay of only 9 months (274 days) before undergoing knee arthroplasty. Female patients experienced a significantly higher rate of progression to knee arthroplasty. The authors recognize the limitations of this type of study including its retrospective nature, reliance upon accurate coding and billing information, and the inability to determine whether symptoms including mechanical locking played a role in the decision to perform an APM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Meniscal allograft transplantation after meniscectomy: clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) after meniscal injury and subsequent meniscectomy. METHODS: Systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: There is considerable evidence from observational studies, of improvement in symptoms after meniscal allograft transplantation, but we found only one small pilot trial with a randomised comparison with a control group that received non-surgical care. MAT has not yet been proven to be chondroprotective. Cost-effectiveness analysis is not possible due to a lack of data on the effectiveness of MAT compared to non-surgical care. CONCLUSION: The benefits of MAT include symptomatic relief and restoration of at least some previous activities, which will be reflected in utility values and hence in quality-adjusted life years, and in the longer term, prevention or delay of osteoarthritis, and avoidance or postponement of some knee replacements, with resulting savings. It is likely to be cost-effective, but this cannot be proven on the basis of present evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Meniscus Root Repair vs Meniscectomy or Nonoperative Management to Prevent Knee Osteoarthritis After Medial Meniscus Root Tears: Clinical and Economic Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Medial meniscus root tears are a common knee injury and can lead to accelerated osteoarthritis, which might ultimately result in a total knee replacement. PURPOSE: To compare meniscus repair, meniscectomy, and nonoperative treatment approaches among middle-aged patients in terms of osteoarthritis development, total knee replacement rates (clinical effectiveness), and cost-effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted. Progression to osteoarthritis was pooled and meta-analyzed. A Markov model projected strategy-specific costs and disutilities in a cohort of 55-year-old patients presenting with a meniscus root tear without osteoarthritis at baseline. Failure rates of repair and meniscectomy procedures and disutilities associated with osteoarthritis, total knee replacement, and revision total knee replacement were accounted for. Utilities, costs, and event rates were based on literature and public databases. Analyses considered a time frame between 5 years and lifetime and explored the effects of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Over 10 years, meniscus repair, meniscectomy, and nonoperative treatment led to 53.0%, 99.3%, and 95.1% rates of osteoarthritis and 33.5%, 51.5%, and 45.5% rates of total knee replacement, respectively. Meta-analysis confirmed lower osteoarthritis and total knee replacement rates for meniscus repair versus meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment. Discounted 10-year costs were $22,590 for meniscus repair, as opposed to $31,528 and $25,006 for meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment, respectively; projected quality-adjusted life years were 6.892, 6.533, and 6.693, respectively, yielding meniscus repair to be an economically dominant strategy. Repair was either cost-effective or dominant when compared with meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment across a broad range of assumptions starting from 5 years after surgery. CONCLUSION: Repair of medial meniscus root tears, as compared with total meniscectomy and nonsurgical treatment, leads to less osteoarthritis and is a cost-saving intervention. While small confirmatory randomized clinical head-to-head trials are warranted, the presented evidence seems to point relatively clearly toward adopting meniscus repair as the preferred initial intervention for medial meniscus root tears.