Clinical outcomes and direct cost analysis of rotator cuff repair surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes in patients who underwent surgical treatment for rotator cuff tears using open and arthroscopic techniques, and to evaluate the direct costs involved. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study with analysis of the data of patients who were referred to two private hospitals in Sao Paulo, Brazil for surgical repair of the rotator cuff from January 2018 to September 2019. Clinical outcomes were assessed using functional scores (SPADI and QuickDASH) and a quality of life questionnaire (EuroQoL). Procedure costs were calculated relative to each hospital's costliest procedure. RESULTS: Data from 362 patients were analyzed. The mean patient age was 57 years (SD= 10.46), with a slight male predominance (53.9%). Arthroscopic procedures were more common than open procedures (95.6% versus 4.4%). Significant clinical improvement was reported in 84.8% of the patients. The factors associated with increased surgery costs were arthroscopic technique (increase of 29.2%), age (increase of 0.6% per year), and length of stay (increase of 18.9% per day of hospitalization). CONCLUSION: Rotator cuff repair surgery is a highly effective procedure, associated with favorable clinical outcomes and improvement in life quality, and low rates of complications. Arthroscopic surgery tends to be costlier than open surgery.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers Reduce Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for Isolated Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair, but Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenditures Are Increasing at a Faster Rate Than Total Healthcare Utilization Reimbursement From Payers.

PURPOSE: To categorize and trend annual out-of-pocket expenditures for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) patients relative to total healthcare utilization (THU) reimbursement and compare drivers of patient out-of-pocket expenditures (POPE) in a granular fashion via analyses by insurance type and surgical setting. METHODS: Patients who underwent outpatient arthroscopic RCR in the United States from 2013 to 2018 were identified from the IBM MarketScan Database. Primary outcome variables were total POPE and THU reimbursement, which were calculated for all claims in the 9-month perioperative period. Trends in outcome variables over time and differences across insurance types were analyzed. Multivariable analysis was performed to investigate drivers of POPE. RESULTS: A total of 52,330 arthroscopic RCR patients were identified. Between 2013 and 2018, median POPE increased by 47.5% ($917 to $1,353), and median THU increased by 9.3% ($11,964 to $13,076). Patients with high deductible insurance plans paid $1,910 toward their THU, 52.5% more than patients with preferred provider plans ($1,253, P = .001) and 280.5% more than patients with managed care plans ($502, P = .001). All components of POPE increased over the study period, with the largest observed increase being POPE for the immediate procedure (P = .001). On multivariable analysis, out-of-network facility, out-of-network surgeon, and high-deductible insurance most significantly increased POPE. CONCLUSIONS: POPE for arthroscopic RCR increased at a higher rate than THU over the study period, demonstrating that patients are paying an increasing proportion of RCR costs. A large percentage of this increase comes from increasing POPE for the immediate procedure. Out-of-network facility status increased POPE 3 times more than out-of-network surgeon status, and future cost-optimization strategies should focus on facility-specific reimbursements in particular. Last, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) significantly reduced POPE, so performing arthroscopic RCRs at ASCs is beneficial to cost-minimization efforts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights that although payers have increased reimbursement for RCR, patient out-of-pocket expenditures have increased at a much higher rate. Furthermore, this study elucidates trends in and drivers of patient out-of-pocket payments for RCR, providing evidence for development of cost-optimization strategies and counseling of patients undergoing RCR.

Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy for a Degenerative Meniscus Tear Is Not Cost Effective Compared With Placebo Surgery: An Economic Evaluation Based on the FIDELITY Trial Data.

BACKGROUND: In patients with a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus, recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown no treatment benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) over conservative treatment or placebo surgery. Yet, advocates of APM still argue that APM is cost effective. Giving advocates of APM their due, we note that there is evidence from the treatment of other musculoskeletal complaints to suggest that a treatment may prove cost effective even in the absence of improvements in efficacy outcomes, as it may lead to other benefits, such as diminished productivity loss and reduced costs, and so the question of cost effectiveness needs to be answered for APM. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does APM result in lower postoperative costs compared with placebo surgery? (2) Is APM cost-effective compared with placebo surgery? METHODS: One hundred forty-six adults aged 35 to 65 years with knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria were randomized to APM (n = 70) or placebo surgery (n = 76). In the APM and placebo surgery groups, mean age was 52 ± 7 years and 52 ± 7 years, and 60% (42 of 70) and 62% (47 of 76) of participants were men, respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics. In both groups, a standard diagnostic arthroscopy was first performed. Thereafter, in the APM group, the torn meniscus was trimmed to solid meniscus tissue, whereas in the placebo surgery group, APM was carefully mimicked but no resection of meniscal tissue was performed; as such, surgical costs were the same in both arms and were not included in the analyses. All patients received identical postoperative care including a graduated home-based exercise program. At the 2-year follow-up, two patients were lost to follow-up, both in the placebo surgery group. Cost effectiveness over the 2-year trial period was computed as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), using both the societal (primary) and healthcare system (secondary) perspectives. To be able to consider APM cost effective, the CEA analysis should yield a positive INMB value. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to assess uncertainty. Several one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: APM did not deliver lower postoperative costs, nor did it convincingly improve quality of life scores when compared with placebo surgery. From a societal perspective, APM was associated with € 971 (95% CI -2013 to 4017) higher costs and 0.015 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.041) improved QALYs over 2-year follow-up compared with placebo surgery. Both differences were statistically inconclusive (a wide 95% CI that crossed the line of no difference). Using the conventional willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 35,000 per QALY, APM resulted in a negative INMB of € -460 (95% CI -3757 to 2698). In our analysis, APM would result in a positive INMB only when the WTP threshold rises to about € 65,000 per QALY. The wide 95% CIs suggests uncertain cost effectiveness irrespective of chosen WTP threshold. CONCLUSION: The results of this study lend further support to clinical practice guidelines recommending against the use of APM in patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. Given the robustness of existing evidence demonstrating no benefit or cost effectiveness of APM over nonsurgical treatment or placebo surgery, future research is unlikely to alter this conclusion.Level of Evidence Level III, economic analysis.

Ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery yields cost savings and improved health outcomes.

PURPOSE: This study measured the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs and conducted a cost-utility analysis and budget impact analysis of ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery compared with inpatient knee arthroscopic surgery in Thailand from a societal perspective. METHODS: Health outcomes were measured in units of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) based on the Thai version of the EQ-5D-5L Health Questionnaire, and costs were obtained from an electronic database at a tertiary care hospital (Ramathibodi Hospital). A cost-utility analysis was performed to evaluate ambulatory and inpatient surgery using the societal perspective and a 2-week time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was applied to examine the costs and QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the robustness of the model. Budget impact analysis was performed considering over 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 161 knee arthroscopic patients were included and divided into two groups: ambulatory surgery (58 patients) and inpatient surgery (103 patients). The total cost of the inpatient surgery was 2235 United States dollars (USD), while the ambulatory surgery cost was 2002 USD. The QALYs of inpatient surgery and ambulatory surgery were 0.79 and 0.81, respectively, resulting in the ambulatory surgery becoming a dominant strategy (cost reduction of 233 USD with an increase of 0.02 QALY) over the inpatient surgery. The ambulatory surgery led to net savings of 4.5 million USD over 5 years. Medical supply costs are one of the most influential factors affecting the change in results. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery emerged as a cost-saving strategy over inpatient surgery, driven by lower treatment costs and enhanced HRQoL. Budget impact analysis indicated net savings over 5 years, supporting the feasibility of adopting ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery. Our findings were advocated for its application across diverse hospitals and informed policymakers to improve reimbursement systems in low- to middle-income countries and Thailand. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Declining Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Physician Fees: An Unsustainable Trend in Hip Arthroscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Although hip arthroscopy continues to be one of the most used arthroscopic procedures, no focused, comprehensive evaluation of reimbursement trends has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to analyze the temporal Medicare reimbursement trends for hip arthroscopy procedures. METHODS: From 2011 to 2021, the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes related to hip arthroscopy (29860 to 29863, 29914 to 29916). All monetary data were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The compound annual growth rate and total percentage change were calculated. Mann-Kendall trend tests were used to evaluate the reimbursement trends. RESULTS: Based on the unadjusted values, a significant increase in physician fee was observed from 2011 to 2021 for CPT codes 29861 (removal of loose or foreign bodies; % change: 3.49, P = 0.03) and 29862 (chondroplasty, abrasion arthroplasty, labral resection; % change: 3.19, P = 0.03). The remaining CPT codes experienced no notable changes in reimbursement based on the unadjusted values. After adjusting for inflation, all seven of the hip arthroscopy CPT codes were observed to experience a notable decline in Medicare reimbursement. Hip arthroscopy with acetabuloplasty (CPT: 29915) and labral repair (CPT: 29916) exhibited the greatest reduction in reimbursement with a decrease in physician fee of 24.69% ( P < 0.001) and 24.64% ( P < 0.001), respectively, over the study period. DISCUSSION: Medicare reimbursement for all seven of the commonly used hip arthroscopy services did not keep up with inflation, demonstrating marked reductions from 2011 to 2021. Specifically, the inflation-adjusted reimbursements decreased between 19.23% and 24.69% between 2011 and 2021.

Editorial Commentary: Bioinductive Collagen Implants Reduce Rotator Cuff Retear, yet Cost-Effectiveness and Improvement in Clinical Outcomes Are Unclear.

The estimated health care costs of failed arthroscopic rotator cuff retears (RCRs) performed in the United States represent a huge economic burden of greater than $400 million per 2-year period. Unfortunately, retear rates do not appear to have improved significantly since the 1980s, despite advances in surgical technology and the biomechanics of repair. The failure of these advances to translate into improved clinical results suggests that the limiting step in reducing retear rates is biology rather than the biomechanics of repair. Bioinductive collagen implants (BCIs) are an emerging and potentially useful option for biological augmentation. Recent meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies demonstrates that biological augmentation significantly lowers the risk of retear. Retrieval studies from human RCR subjects who underwent treatment with BCI demonstrate cellular incorporation, tissue formation, and maturation, providing a logical basis for a reduction in retear rates as well as small increases in tendon thickness at the footprint. Although BCIs show potential as a possible game-changing solution for reducing failure rates of RCR, concerns remain regarding cost-effectiveness analyses and demonstration of functional outcome improvement.

Editorial Commentary: Improved Operating Room Efficiency Is the Best Way to Control Orthopaedic Costs.

Current procedural terminology codes and assigned relative value units associated with arthroscopic hip surgery lag behind other joints in accurately describing, and often undervaluing, what surgery entails. Hip arthroscopy is expensive, and, to address inequity, procedural cost drivers require review. Consumable implants and operating room (OR) time drive the costs associated with the procedure. Hospitals, healthcare payors, patients, and surgeons all benefit from increasing OR efficiency and reducing equipment cost. However, the patient loses if financial strategy supersedes care delivery, and it is wrong to cut necessary use of consumables to save money. Fewer anchors is not the answer (yet we should use reusable, nonimplantable supplies when feasible). The greater opportunity to lower costs is improved OR efficiency, requiring a team approach with buy-in from perioperative, anesthesia, surgical staff, and administrators. OR time is a consistent driver of cost across every type of orthopaedic surgery. Studies evaluating strategies for OR efficiency in hip arthroscopy will benefit the field. By leading this effort, surgeons could be best positioned to address inadequate relative value units.

In-Hospital Complications following Arthrotomy versus Arthroscopy for Septic Knee Arthritis: A Cohort-Matched Comparison.

There is a paucity of literature comparing the relative merits of open arthrotomy versus arthroscopy for the surgical treatment of septic knee arthritis. The primary goal of this study is to compare the risk of perioperative complications between these two surgical techniques. To this end, 560 patients treated for septic arthritis of the native knee with arthroscopy were statistically matched 1:1 with 560 patients treated with open arthrotomy. The outcome measures included major complications, minor complications, mortality, inpatient hospital charges, and length of stay (LOS). Major complications were defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, postoperative shock, unplanned ventilation, deep surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, infected postoperative seroma, hospital acquired urinary tract infection, and retained surgical item. Minor complications included phlebitis and thrombophlebitis, postprocedural emphysema, minor surgical site infection, peripheral nerve complication, and intraoperative hemorrhage. Mortality data were extracted from the database using the Uniform Bill patient disposition. Complications were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models, whereas mean costs and LOS were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis H-test. Major complications occurred in 3.8% of the patients in the arthroscopy cohort and 5.4% of the patients in the arthrotomy cohort (p = 0.20). Too few patients in our sample died to report based on National (Nationwide) Impatient Sample (NIS) minimum reporting standards. Rates of minor complications were similar for the arthroscopy and arthrotomy cohorts (12.5 vs. 13.9%; p = 0.48). Multivariate analysis did not reveal any greater risk of minor or major complication between the two procedures. Inpatient hospital cost was similar for arthroscopy ( = $15,917; standard deviation [SD] = 14,424) and arthrotomy ( = $16,020; SD = 18,665; p = 0.42). LOS was also similar for both arthrotomy (6.78 days, SD = 6.75) and arthroscopy (6.24 days, SD = 5.95; p = 0.23). Patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment of septic arthritis of the knee showed no difference in relative risk of perioperative complications, LOS, or hospital cost compared with patients who underwent open arthrotomy.

Cost of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs Is Primarily Driven by Procedure-Level Factors: A Single-Institution Analysis of an Ambulatory Surgery Center.

PURPOSE: To identify intraoperative drivers of cost associated with arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) through analysis of an institutional database. METHODS: This was a single-institution retrospective review of arthroscopic RCRs performed at an ambulatory surgical center between November 2016 and July 2019. Patient-level factors analyzed included age, sex, insurance type (private, Medicare, Medicaid, self-pay, and other government), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (I, II, III, and missing), and Charlson comorbidity index (0, 1, 2, and ≥3). Procedure-level factors included use of biologics (decellularized dermal allograft or bioinductive healing implant), anesthesia type (regional block, monitored anesthesia care, or general), number of anchors and sutures, additional procedures (biceps tenodesis, distal clavicle resection, subacromial decompression), and operative time. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify factors significantly associated with higher or lower charges. RESULTS: A total of 712 arthroscopic RCRs were included. The risk-adjusted operative charges were $19,728 (95% confidence interval $16,543 to $22,913). The above factors predicted nearly 65% of the variability in operative charges. The only patient-level factor significantly associated with lower charges was female sex (- $1,339; P = .002). Procedure-level factors significantly associated with higher charges were use of biologics (+ $17,791; P < .001), concurrent open biceps tenodesis (+ $4,027; P < .001), distal clavicle resection (+ $2,266; P = .039), use of regional block (+ $1,256; P = .004), number of anchors (+ $2,245/anchor; P < .001), and increasing operative time ($26/min). Other factors had no significant association. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural factors are the most significant drivers of operative cost in arthroscopic RCRs, such as quantity and type of implants; additional procedures such as biceps tenodesis and distal clavicle resection; and perioperative conditions such as type of anesthesia and total operating room time. Overall, patient-level factors were not shown to correlate well with operative costs, other than lower charges with female sex. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, economic study.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Medicare Reimbursement to Physicians for Common Arthroscopic Procedures: Adjusted Reimbursement Has Fallen Nearly 30% From 2000 to 2019.

PURPOSE: To analyze and objectively measure the trends in inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates for the 20 most commonly performed orthopaedic arthroscopic surgical procedures from 2000 to 2019. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website was used to find the top 20 most commonly performed arthroscopic procedures using the Public Use File data file for calendar year 2017. By use of the Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool, national reimbursement averages were calculated from 2000-2019 and data were analyzed. Averages were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Current Procedural Terminology codes that did not exist in 2000 were unable to be analyzed in this study. RESULTS: When adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for the 20 most commonly performed arthroscopic procedures from 2000-2019 has decreased substantially (-29.81%). The mean Medicare reimbursement to physicians was $906 in 2000 and $632 in 2019. During this same period, the annual change in the adjusted mean reimbursement rate for all included arthroscopic procedures was -1.8% whereas the average compound annual growth rate was -1.9%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that when adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement to physicians has decreased by nearly 30% during the past 20 years for the most common arthroscopic procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This analysis will give orthopaedic surgeons and hospital administrators a better understanding of the financial trends surrounding one of the fastest-growing techniques in surgery. Additionally, these financial-trend data will be increasingly important as the population in the United States continues to age and new payment models are introduced.

The Cost of Outpatient Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs: Hospital Reimbursement Is on the Rise While Surgeon Payments Remain Unchanged.

PURPOSE: To better understand the relative increases in rotator cuff charges and to analyze national and regional trends between hospital, anesthesiologist, and surgeon charges and reimbursements for contemporary rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) performed in the United States. METHODS: A representative Medicare sample was used to capture hospital, surgeon, and anesthesiologist charges and payments for outpatient RCR from 2005 to 2014. The charges and reimbursements were calculated using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Two ratios were calculated to compare surgeon and hospital charges and reimbursements. The charge multiplier (CM) is the ratio of hospital to surgeon charges, and the payment multiplier (PM) is the ratio of hospital to surgeon reimbursements. Trends were evaluated using national and regional charges, reimbursements, Charlson Comorbidity Index, CM, and PM. RESULTS: In total, 12,617 patients were included in this study. Between 2005 and 2014, hospital charges for RCR significantly increased from $4877 to $11,488 (136% increase; P < .0001), anesthesiologist charges increased from $1319 to $2169 (64% increase; P < .0001), and surgeon charges increased from $7528 to $9979 (33% increase; P < .0001). Reimbursements during the same period significantly increased from $3007 to $6696 (123% increase; P < .0001) for hospitals, from $203 to $239 (17% increase; P = .005) for anesthesiologists. Reimbursements for surgeons remained relatively unchanged (from $1821 to $1885, 3% increase; P = .116). Increases in national CM (P = .003) and PM (P < .0001) were both statistically significant. Charlson Comorbidity Index did not change significantly over the period (P = .1178). CONCLUSIONS: Although outpatient RCR charges increased significantly for hospitals, surgeons, and anesthesiologists, hospital reimbursements increased substantially relative to surgeon and anesthesiologist reimbursements despite stable patient complexity. In 2005, hospitals were reimbursed 65% more than surgeons. By 2014, hospitals were reimbursed 255% more than surgeons, indicating that hospitals disproportionally drove increases in charges and reimbursements over this period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic analysis.

Depression and Anxiety Are Associated With Increased Health Care Costs and Opioid Use for Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: Analysis of a Claims Database.

PURPOSE: To determine if opioid use and health care costs in the year before and following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) differ between those with or without depression or anxiety. METHODS: Using the Truven Health Marketscan database, FAI patients who underwent hip arthroscopy between October 2010 and December 2015 were identified (Current Procedural Terminology codes 29914 [femoroplasty], 29915 [acetabuloplasty], and/or 29916 [labral repair]). Patients were excluded if they had incomplete coverage for 1 year either before or following surgery. The number of patients with 1 or more claims related to depression or anxiety during the year before surgery was quantified (International Statistical Classification Diseases and Related Health-9 codes 296, 298, 300, 309, 311). Health care costs in the year before and following hip arthroscopy were compared between those with or without depression or anxiety. We also compared the number of patients in each group who filled a narcotic pain prescription within 180 days before surgery as well as >60 or >90 days after hip arthroscopy. RESULTS: Depression or anxiety claims were seen in 5,208/14,830 patients (35.1%) before surgery. A significantly greater proportion of those with preoperative depression or anxiety filled opioid-related prescriptions in the 6 months before surgery (36.2% vs 25.6%, P < .0001) and both >60 days (31.3% vs 24.7%, P < .0001) and >90 days after surgery (29.5% vs 23.4%, P < .0001). The group with preoperative depression or anxiety had significantly greater health care costs both before ($8,775 vs $5,674, P < .0001) and following surgery ($5,287 vs $3,908, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Both before and following hip arthroscopy, opioid use and health care costs were significantly greater for FAI patients with comorbid depression or anxiety. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic study.

Open Broström-Gould Repair vs Arthroscopic Anatomical Repair of the Anterior Talofibular Ligament for Chronic Lateral Ankle Instability.

BACKGROUND: The comparative studies on open vs arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) repair are limited. This study aimed to compare the early therapeutic efficacy and cost between the traditional open Broström-Gould repair and all-arthroscopic anatomical repair of the ATFL for chronic lateral ankle instability. METHODS: A total of 27 of patients with chronic lateral ankle instability undergoing repair of the ATFL between January 2013 and June 2015 were retrospectively included with a traditional open surgery (n = 10) group and arthroscopy (n = 17) group. The surgery duration, surgical cost, postoperative complications, and the preoperative/postoperative American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Score (AOFAS) and Karlsson-Peterson score were compared between groups. RESULTS: Compared to the arthroscopy group, the open surgery group had significantly shorter surgery duration and lower surgical cost. However, there was no significant difference in hospitalization duration between groups. At 3 years after operation, the AOFAS and Karlsson scores were significantly improved in both groups. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the AOFAS and Karlsson scores between groups at both preoperative and postoperative assessment. No significant difference was found in the incidence of postoperative complications between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that open Broström-Gould repair and all-arthroscopic anatomical repair of the ATFL have comparable therapeutic efficacy for chronic lateral ankle instability. The arthroscopic surgery had a smaller incision, while the open Broström-Gould had a shorter surgery duration and lower cost. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.

How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis-this paper-we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM. METHODS: We recruited patients aged 45-70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (-€1803; 95% CI -€3008 to -€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

Reference-Based Benefits for Colonoscopy and Arthroscopy: Large Differences in Patient Payments Across Procedures but Similar Behavioral Responses.

This study examines how reference-based benefits (RBB) affect patient out-of-pocket payments across outpatient procedures. The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) implemented RBB asymmetrically for outpatient procedures in 2012, only applying RBB to outpatient procedures performed in a hospital outpatient department (HOPD), and not applying RBB to outpatient procedures performed in a lower cost ambulatory surgery center. Using claims data (2009-2013) on arthroscopy and colonoscopy services, we found that for colonoscopy, CalPERS patients paid an average of 63.9% (p < .01) more for HOPDs than ambulatory surgery centers in 2012. For arthroscopy, no statistically different cost sharing was found on average. However, high-priced HOPDs were 17.3% and 17.9% less likely to be chosen by CalPERS patients in 2012 for colonoscopy and arthroscopy, respectively. These magnitudes increased in 2013 to 25.2% and 24.2% less, respectively. Overall, responsiveness to RBB with regard to the most expensive HOPDs was similar despite varying cost sharing by procedure.

Open versus modified arthroscopic treatment of acute acromioclavicular dislocation using a single tight rope: randomized comparative study of clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness between arthroscopic and open repair using TightRope in acromioclavicular joint dislocation III and IV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation type III and IV were included. Patients were randomly allocated to either of 2 groups: Arthroscopic Repair Group (ARG) and Open Repair Group (ORG). Constant-Murley Score (CMS), visual analog scale (VAS) score, and coracoclavicular (CC) distance were measured preoperatively and 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: CMS increased from 40.68 for the ARG and 40.70 for the ORG preoperatively to 84.18 and 84.45 after 2 years from operation. VAS score decreased from 60.59 for the ARG and 64.50 for the ORG 1 day after surgery to 18.04 and 17.87 respectively after 6 months. CC distance decreased from 29.27 mm in the ARG and 28.16 mm in the ORG preoperatively to 9.86 mm in the ARG and 10.54 mm in the ORG on postoperative day 1. Rewidening of the CC distance occurred after 6 months (13.27 mm for the ARG and 13.62 mm for the ORG) and 1 year postoperatively (15.77 for the ARG and 15.41 for the ORG) but remained stable at final follow-up. There was a significant difference in surgical time (80.00 minutes in the ARG compared to 52.79 minutes in the ORG) and cost of consumables (US$1729.95 in the ARG compared to US$851.87 in the ORG). CONCLUSION: Open and arthroscopic repair of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation yielded good clinical results, yet the arthroscopic technique is more expensive and has a longer surgical time.

Cost-effectiveness and satisfaction following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: does age matter?.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of age on the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 112 patients were prospectively monitored for two years after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Complications and use of healthcare resources were recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to express the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Propensity score-matching was used to compare those aged below and above 65 years of age. Satisfaction was determined using the Net Promoter Score (NPS). Linear regression was used to identify variables that influenced the outcome at two years postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients (82.1%) completed the follow-up. Their mean age was 59.5 years (sd 9.7, 41 to 78). There were significant improvements in the mean DASH (preoperative 47.6 vs one-year 15.3; p < 0.001) and OSS scores (26.5 vs 40.5; p < 0.001). Functional improvements were maintained with no significant change between one and two years postoperatively. The mean preoperative EQ-5D was 0.54 increasing to 0.81 at one year (p < 0.001) and maintained at 0.86, two years postoperatively. There was no significant difference between those aged below or above 65 years of age with regards to postoperative shoulder function or EQ-5D gains. Smoking was the only characteristic that significantly adversely influenced the EQ-5D at two years postoperatively (p = 0.005). A total of 87 were promoters and five were passive, giving a mean NPS of 95 (87/92). The total mean cost per patient was £3646.94 and the mean EQ-5D difference at one year was 0.2691, giving a mean ICER of £13 552.36/QALY. At two years, this decreased further to £5694.78/QALY. This was comparable for those aged below or above 65 years of age (£5209.91 vs £5525.67). Smokers had an ICER that was four times more expensive. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair results in excellent patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness, regardless of age. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:860-866.

The primary cost drivers of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery: a cost-minimization analysis of 40,618 cases.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 250,000 rotator cuff repair (RCR) surgical procedures are performed every year in the United States. Although arthroscopic RCR has been shown to be a cost-effective operation, little is known about what specific factors affect the overall cost of surgery. This study examines the primary cost drivers of RCR surgery in the United States. METHODS: Univariate analysis was performed to determine the patient- and surgeon-specific variables for a multiple linear regression model investigating the cost of RCR surgery. The 2014 State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases were used, yielding 40,618 cases with Current Procedural Terminology code 29827 ("arthroscopic shoulder rotator cuff repair"). RESULTS: The average cost of RCR surgery was $25,353. Patient-specific cost drivers that were significant under multiple linear regression included black race (P < .001), presence of at least 1 comorbidity (P < .001), income quartile (P < .001), male sex (P = .012), and Medicare insurance (P = .035). Surgical factors included operative time (P < .001), use of regional anesthesia (P < .001), quarter of the year (January to March, April to June, July to September, and October to December) (P < .001), concomitant subacromial decompression or distal clavicle excision (P < .001), and number of suture anchors used (P < .001). The largest cost driver was subacromial decompression, adding $4992 when performed alongside the RCR. CONCLUSION: There are several patient-specific variables that can affect the cost of RCR surgery. There are also surgeon-controllable factors that significantly increase cost, most notably subacromial decompression, distal clavicle excision, use of regional anesthesia, and number of suture anchors. Surgeons must consider these factors in an effort to minimize cost, particularly as bundled payments become more common.

Prior Hip Arthroscopy Increases Risk for Perioperative Total Hip Arthroplasty Complications: A Matched-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic hip surgery is becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears. Reports of outcomes of hip arthroscopy converted to total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been limited by small sample sizes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of prior hip arthroscopy on THA complications. METHODS: We queried our institutional database from January 2005 and December 2017 and identified 95 hip arthroscopy conversion THAs. A control cohort of 95 primary THA patients was matched by age, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Patients were excluded if they had undergone open surgery on the ipsilateral hip. Intraoperative complications, estimated blood loss, operative time, postoperative complications, and need for revision were analyzed. Two separate analyses were performed. The first being intraoperative and immediate postoperative complications through 90-day follow-up and a second separate subanalysis of long-term outcomes on patients with minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Average time from hip arthroscopy to THA was 29 months (range 2-153). Compared with primary THA controls, conversion patients had longer OR times (122 vs 103 minutes, P = .003). Conversion patients had a higher risk of any intraoperative complication (P = .043) and any postoperative complication (P = .007), with a higher rate of wound complications seen in conversion patients. There was not an increased risk of transfusion (P = .360), infection (P = 1.000), or periprosthetic fracture between groups (P = .150). When comparing THA approaches independent of primary or conversion surgery, there was no difference in intraoperative or postoperative complications (P = .500 and P = .790, respectively). CONCLUSION: Conversion of prior hip arthroscopy to THA, compared with primary THA, resulted in increased surgical times and increased intraoperative and postoperative complications. Patients should be counseled about the potential increased risks associated with conversion THA after prior hip arthroscopy.