The cost-effectiveness of single-row compared with double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: Interest in double-row techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has increased over the last several years, presumably because of a combination of literature demonstrating superior biomechanical characteristics and recent improvements in instrumentation and technique. As a result of the increasing focus on value-based health-care delivery, orthopaedic surgeons must understand the cost implications of this practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair compared with traditional single-row repair. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair compared with single-row repair on the basis of the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Two cohorts of patients (one with a tear of <3 cm and the other with a tear of ≥3 cm) were evaluated. Probabilities for retear and persistent symptoms, health utilities for the particular health states, and the direct costs for rotator cuff repair were derived from the orthopaedic literature and institutional data. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for double-row compared with single-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was $571,500 for rotator cuff tears of <3 cm and $460,200 for rotator cuff tears of ≥3 cm. The rate of radiographic or symptomatic retear alone did not influence cost-effectiveness results. If the increase in the cost of double-row repair was less than $287 for small or moderate tears and less than $352 for large or massive tears compared with the cost of single-row repair, then double-row repair would represent a cost-effective surgical alternative. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of currently available data, double-row rotator cuff repair is not cost-effective for any size rotator cuff tears. However, variability in the values for costs and probability of retear can have a profound effect on the results of the model and may create an environment in which double-row repair becomes the more cost-effective surgical option. The identification of the threshold values in this study may help surgeons to determine the most cost-effective treatment.

Biomechanical analysis of bicortical versus unicortical locked plating of mid-clavicular fractures.

OBJECTIVES: Operative fixation of displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures has been shown to improve the functional outcomes and decrease the likelihood of non-union; however, little is known about the need for locking screws versus traditional screws. We, therefore, evaluated the strength of unicortical locked plating versus traditional bicortical non-locking fixation methods. METHODS: Ten matched pairs of fresh, frozen cadaver clavicle specimens were obliquely osteotomized through the mid-shaft to represent the most common fracture pattern. After randomization, the clavicles were repaired using pre-contoured plates with either standard bicortical non-locking screws or unicortical locking screws. The constructs were then potted in cement and tested on a MTS machine using a custom gimble and evaluated for load to failure and axial and rotational stiffness. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the constructs in terms of axial stiffness (locking 688.3 ± 306.2 N/mm, non-locking 674.5 ± 613.0 N/mm; p = 0.77) or load to failure (locking 720.1 ± 232.0 N, non-locking 664.8 ± 167.5 N; p = 0.46). However, rotational stiffness varied significantly (locking 1.70 ± 0.91 N-m/mm, non-locking 2.49 ± 0.78 N-m/mm, p = 0.049) with bicortical non-locking constructs exhibiting higher torque values. CONCLUSIONS: Unicortical fixation using pre-contoured plates and locking screws has a similar biomechanical profile compared to gold standard non-locked bicortical screws in cyclic axial compression and axial load to failure. Non-locking constructs were stiffer under rotational testing. This technique may provide a suitable biomechanical environment for bony healing. This may also improve the safety of clavicle plating by protecting infraclavicular structures from injury during drilling or screw penetration as it obviates the need for bicortical fixation.