Ryan Lopez, Benjamin Zmistowski, Benjamin A Hendy, Cassandra Sanko, Alexis Williams, Charles L Getz, Joseph A Abboud, Surena Namdari
{"title":"Is Arthroscopic Latarjet a Cost-Effective Procedure? A Decision Analysis.","authors":"Ryan Lopez, Benjamin Zmistowski, Benjamin A Hendy, Cassandra Sanko, Alexis Williams, Charles L Getz, Joseph A Abboud, Surena Namdari","doi":"10.22038/ABJS.2023.73800.3430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Arthroscopic Latarjet for glenohumeral stabilization has emerged as an alternative to the open approach; however, the evidence to date has questioned if this technique delivers improved outcomes. This analysis provides an assessment of the cost and utility associated with arthroscopic versus open Latarjet.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The cost-effectiveness of Latarjet stabilization was modeled over a ten-year period. Institutional cases were reviewed for equipment utilization. Cost data from ambulatory surgical centers was obtained for each piece of equipment used intraoperatively. Based upon prior analyses, the operating room cost was assigned a value of $36.14 per minute. To determine effectiveness, a utility score was derived based upon prior analysis of shoulder stabilization using the EuroQol (EQ) 5D. For reoperations, a utility score of 0.01 was assigned for a single year for revision surgeries for instability and 0.5 for minor procedures. Probability of surgical outcomes and operative time for arthroscopic and open Latarjet were taken from prior studies comparing outcomes of these procedures. Decision-tree analysis utilizing these values was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based upon equipment and operating room costs, arthroscopic Latarjet was found to cost $2,796.87 more than the equivalent open procedure. Analysis of the utility of these procedures were 1.330 and 1.338 quality adjusted life years obtained over the modeled period for arthroscopic versus open Latarjet, respectively. For arthroscopic Latarjet to be cost-equivalent to open Latarjet, surgical time would need to be reduced to 41.5 minutes or the surgical equipment would need to be provided at no expense, while maintaining the same success rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With nearly identical utility scores favoring open surgery, the added cost associated with arthroscopic Latarjet cannot be supported with available cost and utility data. To provide value, additional benefits such as decreased post-operative narcotic utilization, decreased blood loss, or lower complications of the arthroscopic approach must be demonstrated.</p>","PeriodicalId":46704,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10838582/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2023.73800.3430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Arthroscopic Latarjet for glenohumeral stabilization has emerged as an alternative to the open approach; however, the evidence to date has questioned if this technique delivers improved outcomes. This analysis provides an assessment of the cost and utility associated with arthroscopic versus open Latarjet.
Methods: The cost-effectiveness of Latarjet stabilization was modeled over a ten-year period. Institutional cases were reviewed for equipment utilization. Cost data from ambulatory surgical centers was obtained for each piece of equipment used intraoperatively. Based upon prior analyses, the operating room cost was assigned a value of $36.14 per minute. To determine effectiveness, a utility score was derived based upon prior analysis of shoulder stabilization using the EuroQol (EQ) 5D. For reoperations, a utility score of 0.01 was assigned for a single year for revision surgeries for instability and 0.5 for minor procedures. Probability of surgical outcomes and operative time for arthroscopic and open Latarjet were taken from prior studies comparing outcomes of these procedures. Decision-tree analysis utilizing these values was performed.
Results: Based upon equipment and operating room costs, arthroscopic Latarjet was found to cost $2,796.87 more than the equivalent open procedure. Analysis of the utility of these procedures were 1.330 and 1.338 quality adjusted life years obtained over the modeled period for arthroscopic versus open Latarjet, respectively. For arthroscopic Latarjet to be cost-equivalent to open Latarjet, surgical time would need to be reduced to 41.5 minutes or the surgical equipment would need to be provided at no expense, while maintaining the same success rates.
Conclusion: With nearly identical utility scores favoring open surgery, the added cost associated with arthroscopic Latarjet cannot be supported with available cost and utility data. To provide value, additional benefits such as decreased post-operative narcotic utilization, decreased blood loss, or lower complications of the arthroscopic approach must be demonstrated.
期刊介绍:
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) aims to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of Orthopedic Sciences. The journal accepts scientific papers including original research, review article, short communication, case report, and letter to the editor in all fields of bone, joint, musculoskeletal surgery and related researches. The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) will publish papers in all aspects of today`s modern orthopedic sciences including: Arthroscopy, Arthroplasty, Sport Medicine, Reconstruction, Hand and Upper Extremity, Pediatric Orthopedics, Spine, Trauma, Foot and Ankle, Tumor, Joint Rheumatic Disease, Skeletal Imaging, Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation, Orthopedic Basic Sciences (Biomechanics, Biotechnology, Biomaterial..).