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.

Protocol for a multicenter study on effectiveness and economics of the Back At work After Surgery (BAAS): a clinical pathway for knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing return to work (RTW) after knee arthroplasty (KA) is becoming increasingly important due to a growing incidence of KA and poor RTW outcomes after KA. We developed the Back At work After Surgery (BAAS) clinical pathway for optimized RTW after KA. Since the effectiveness and cost analysis of the BAAS clinical pathway are still unknown, analysis on effectiveness and costs of BAAS is imperative. METHOD: This protocol paper has been written in line with the standards of Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trails. To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for RTW, we will perform a multicenter prospective cohort study with patients who decided to receive a total KA (TKA) or an unicompartmental KA (UKA). To evaluate the effectiveness of BAAS regarding RTW, a comparison to usual care will be made using individual patient data on RTW from prospectively performed cohort studies in the Netherlands. DISCUSSION: One of the strengths of this study is that the feasibility for the BAAS clinical pathway was tested at first hand. Also, we will use validated questionnaires and functional tests to assess the patient's recovery using robust outcomes. Moreover, the intervention was performed in two hospitals serving the targeted patient group and to reduce selection bias and improve generalizability. The limitations of this study protocol are that the lead author has an active role as a medical case manager (MCM) in one of the hospitals. Additionally, we will use the data from other prospective Dutch cohort studies to compare our findings regarding RTW to usual care. Since we will not perform an RCT, we will use propensity analysis to reduce the bias due to possible differences between these cohorts. TRAIL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrails.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05690347 , date of first registration: 19-01-2023).

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy for traumatic meniscal tears in a young study population: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy in young patients with traumatic meniscal tears. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, open-labelled, randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18-45 years, with a recent onset, traumatic, MRI-verified, isolated meniscal tear without knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomised to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or standardised physical therapy with an optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy after 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (best 100, worst 0) at 24 months, which measures patients' perception of symptoms, knee function and ability to participate in sports activities. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, 100 patients were included (mean age 35.1 (SD 8.1), 76% male, 34 competitive or elite athletes). Forty-nine were randomised to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and 51 to physical therapy. In the physical therapy group, 21 patients (41%) received delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy during the follow-up period. In both groups, improvement in IKDC scores was clinically relevant during follow-up compared with baseline scores. At 24 months mean (95% CI) IKDC scores were 78 (71 to 84) out of 100 points in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group and 78 (71 to 84) in the physical therapy group with a between group difference of 0.1 (95% CI -7.6 to 7.7) points out of 100. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving young patients with isolated traumatic meniscal tears, early arthroscopic partial meniscectomy was not superior to a strategy of physical therapy with optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy at 24-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.trialregister.nl/trials.

ACL reconstruction for all is not cost-effective after acute ACL rupture.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-utility analysis for two commonly used treatment strategies for patients after ACL rupture; early ACL reconstruction (index) versus rehabilitation plus an optional reconstruction in case of persistent instability (comparator). METHODS: Patients aged between 18 and 65 years of age with a recent ACL rupture (<2 months) were randomised between either an early ACL reconstruction (index) or a rehabilitation plus an optional reconstruction in case of persistent instability (comparator) after 3 months of rehabilitation. A cost-utility analysis was performed to compare both treatments over a 2-year follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, using two perspectives: the healthcare system perspective and societal perspective. The uncertainty for costs and health effects was assessed by means of non-parametric bootstrapping. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were included in the study, of which 85 were randomised to the early ACL reconstruction (index) group and 82 to the rehabilitation and optional reconstruction group (comparator). From the healthcare perspective it takes 48 460 € and from a societal perspective 78 179 €, to gain a QALY when performing early surgery compared with rehabilitation plus an optional reconstruction. This is unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Routine early ACL reconstruction (index) is not considered cost-effective as compared with rehabilitation plus optional reconstruction for a standard ACL population (comparator) given the maximum willingness to pay of 20 000 €/QALY. Early recognition of the patients that have better outcome of early ACL reconstruction might make rehabilitation and optional reconstruction even more cost-effective.

Early surgical reconstruction versus rehabilitation with elective delayed reconstruction for patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture: COMPARE randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a clinically relevant difference exists in patients' perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sports over a period of two years after rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) between two commonly used treatment regimens. DESIGN: Open labelled, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial (COMPARE). SETTING: Six hospitals in the Netherlands, between May 2011 and April 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 to 65 with an acute rupture of the ACL, recruited from six hospitals. Patients were evaluated at three, six, nine, 12, and 24 months. INTERVENTIONS: 85 patients were randomised to early ACL reconstruction and 82 to rehabilitation followed by optional delayed ACL reconstruction after a three month period (primary non-operative treatment). MAIN OUTCOMES: Patients' perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sporting activities were assessed with the International Knee Documentation Committee score (optimum score 100) at each time point over 24 months. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and April 2016, 167 patients were enrolled in the study and randomised to one of two treatments (mean age 31.3; 67 (40.%) women), and 163 (98%) completed the trial. In the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group, 41 (50%) patients underwent reconstruction during follow-up. After 24 months, the early ACL reconstruction group had a significantly better (P=0.026) but not clinically relevant International Knee Documentation Committee score (84.7 v 79.4 (difference between groups 5.3, 95% confidence interval 0.6 to 9.9). After three months of follow-up, the International Knee Documentation Committee score was significantly better (P=0.002) for the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group (difference between groups -9.3, -14.6 to -4.0). After nine months of follow-up, the difference in the International Knee Documentation Committee score changed in favour of the early ACL reconstruction group. After 12 months, differences between the groups were smaller. In the early ACL reconstruction group, four re-ruptures and three ruptures of the contralateral ACL occurred during follow-up versus two re-ruptures and one rupture of the contralateral ACL in the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute rupture of the ACL, those who underwent early surgical reconstruction, compared with rehabilitation followed by elective surgical reconstruction, had improved perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sports at the two year follow-up. This finding was significant (P=0.026) but the clinical importance is unclear. Interpretation of the results of the study should consider that 50% of the patients randomised to the rehabilitation group did not need surgical reconstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL 2618.

Functional Outcomes of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscal Tears Using a Patient-Specific Score: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the treatment effects of partial meniscectomy and physical therapy differ when focusing on activities most valued by patients with degenerative meniscal tears. PURPOSE: To compare partial meniscectomy with physical therapy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear, focusing on patients' most important functional limitations as the outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: This study is part of the Cost-effectiveness of Early Surgery versus Conservative Treatment with Optional Delayed Meniscectomy for Patients over 45 years with non-obstructive meniscal tears (ESCAPE) trial, a multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 9 orthopaedic hospital departments in the Netherlands. The ESCAPE trial included 321 patients aged between 45 and 70 years with a symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed meniscal tear. Exclusion criteria were severe osteoarthritis, body mass index >35 kg/m2, locking of the knee, and prior knee surgery or knee instability due to an anterior or posterior cruciate ligament rupture. This study compared partial meniscectomy with physical therapy consisting of a supervised incremental exercise protocol of 16 sessions over 8 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Dutch-language equivalent of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), a secondary outcome measure of the ESCAPE trial. We used crude and adjusted linear mixed-model analyses to reveal the between-group differences over 24 months. We calculated the minimal important change for the PSFS using an anchor-based method. RESULTS: After 24 months, 286 patients completed the follow-up. The partial meniscectomy group (n = 139) improved on the PSFS by a mean of 4.8 ± 2.6 points (from 6.8 ± 1.9 to 2.0 ± 2.2), and the physical therapy group (n = 147) improved by a mean of 4.0 ± 3.1 points (from 6.7 ± 2.0 to 2.7 ± 2.5). The crude overall between-group difference showed a -0.6-point difference (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2; P = .004) in favor of the partial meniscectomy group. This improvement was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful, as the calculated minimal important change was 2.5 points on an 11-point scale. CONCLUSION: Both interventions were associated with a clinically meaningful improvement regarding patients' most important functional limitations. Although partial meniscectomy was associated with a statistically larger improvement at some follow-up time points, the difference compared with physical therapy was small and clinically not meaningful at any follow-up time point. REGISTRATION: NCT01850719 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) and NTR3908 (the Netherlands Trial Register).