Lateral extra-articular tenodesis may be more cost-effective than independent anterolateral ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and economic analysis

{"title":"Lateral extra-articular tenodesis may be more cost-effective than independent anterolateral ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and economic analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jisako.2024.04.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Importance</h3><p>Anterolateral augmentation during primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) may lower rates of ACL graft failure. However, differences in costs between two techniques, lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR), are unclear.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To perform a systematic review and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LET versus ALLR in the setting of primary ACLR. The hypothesis was that LET is more cost-effective than ALLR.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence review</h3><p>A systematic review was conducted on studies in which patients underwent primary ACLR with a concomitant LET or ALLR with minimum 24 months follow-up published between January 2013 and July 2023. Primary outcomes included ACL graft failure rates and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Survey-Quality of Life (KOOS-QoL) subscale scores, which were used to determine health utilities measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A decision tree model with one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses compared the cost of primary ACLR with a concomitant LET, independent autograft ALLR, or independent allograft ALLR. Costs were estimated using a combination of QALYs, institution prices, literature references, and a survey sent to 49 internationally recognized high-volume knee surgeons.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>A total of 2505 knees undergoing primary ACLR with concomitant LET (n=1162) or ALLR (n=1343) were identified from 22 studies. There were 77 total ACL graft failures with comparable failure rates between patients receiving LET versus ALLR (2.9% vs. 3.2%, P=0.690). The average QALYs gained was slightly higher for those who received LET (0.77) compared to ALLR (0.75). Survey results revealed a 5 minute longer median self-reported operative time for ALLR (20 ​min) than LET (15 ​min). The estimated costs for LET, autograft ALLR, and allograft ALLR were $1,015, $1,295, and $3,068, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and relevance</h3><p>Anterolateral augmentation during primary ACLR with LET is more cost-effective than independent autograft and allograft ALLR given the lower costs and comparable clinical outcomes. Surgeons may utilize this information when determining the optimal approach to anterolateral augmentation during primary ACLR, although differences in preferred technique and health care systems may influence operative efficiency and material costs.</p></div><div><h3>Level of evidence</h3><p>Systematic review; Level of evidence, IV.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2059775424000749/pdfft?md5=e3d7843ee88c1e187c503b9d4477aeac&pid=1-s2.0-S2059775424000749-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2059775424000749","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance

Anterolateral augmentation during primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) may lower rates of ACL graft failure. However, differences in costs between two techniques, lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR), are unclear.

Objective

To perform a systematic review and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LET versus ALLR in the setting of primary ACLR. The hypothesis was that LET is more cost-effective than ALLR.

Evidence review

A systematic review was conducted on studies in which patients underwent primary ACLR with a concomitant LET or ALLR with minimum 24 months follow-up published between January 2013 and July 2023. Primary outcomes included ACL graft failure rates and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Survey-Quality of Life (KOOS-QoL) subscale scores, which were used to determine health utilities measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A decision tree model with one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses compared the cost of primary ACLR with a concomitant LET, independent autograft ALLR, or independent allograft ALLR. Costs were estimated using a combination of QALYs, institution prices, literature references, and a survey sent to 49 internationally recognized high-volume knee surgeons.

Findings

A total of 2505 knees undergoing primary ACLR with concomitant LET (n=1162) or ALLR (n=1343) were identified from 22 studies. There were 77 total ACL graft failures with comparable failure rates between patients receiving LET versus ALLR (2.9% vs. 3.2%, P=0.690). The average QALYs gained was slightly higher for those who received LET (0.77) compared to ALLR (0.75). Survey results revealed a 5 minute longer median self-reported operative time for ALLR (20 ​min) than LET (15 ​min). The estimated costs for LET, autograft ALLR, and allograft ALLR were $1,015, $1,295, and $3,068, respectively.

Conclusions and relevance

Anterolateral augmentation during primary ACLR with LET is more cost-effective than independent autograft and allograft ALLR given the lower costs and comparable clinical outcomes. Surgeons may utilize this information when determining the optimal approach to anterolateral augmentation during primary ACLR, although differences in preferred technique and health care systems may influence operative efficiency and material costs.

Level of evidence

Systematic review; Level of evidence, IV.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与独立的前外侧韧带重建术相比,外侧关节外韧带切除术可能更具成本效益:系统回顾和经济分析
在初级前交叉韧带(ACL)重建术(ACLR)中进行前外侧增强可降低前交叉韧带移植失败率。然而,外侧关节外韧带切除术(LET)和前外侧韧带重建术(ALLR)这两种技术的成本差异尚不明确。在初次前交叉韧带重建中,对 LET 与 ALLR 进行比较,并进行系统回顾和后续成本效益分析。假设 LET 比 ALLR 更具成本效益。我们对 2013 年 1 月至 2023 年 7 月期间发表的、患者在接受初级 ACLR 的同时接受 LET 或 ALLR 且随访至少 24 个月的研究进行了系统性回顾。主要结果包括前交叉韧带移植失败率和膝关节损伤与骨关节炎结果调查--生活质量(KOOS-QoL)分量表评分,这些评分用于确定以获得的质量调整生命年(QALYs)来衡量的健康效用。通过决策树模型及单向和双向敏感性分析,比较了初次 ACLR 与同期 LET、独立自体 ALLR 或独立异体 ALLR 的成本。成本估算综合使用了 QALYs、机构价格、文献参考以及对 49 名国际公认的高产量膝关节外科医生进行的调查。22项研究共确定了2505个膝关节接受了前交叉韧带置换术,并同时进行了LET(人数=1162)或ALLR(人数=1343)。共有77例前交叉韧带移植失败,接受LET与ALLR的患者失败率相当(2.9% vs. 3.2%,P=0.690)。与ALLR(0.75)相比,接受LET(0.77)的患者平均QALYs收益略高。调查结果显示,ALLR(20 分钟)比 LET(15 分钟)的自我报告手术时间中位数多 5 分钟。LET、自体移植 ALLR 和异体移植 ALLR 的估计费用分别为 1,015 美元、1,295 美元和 3,068 美元。与独立的自体移植物和异体移植物 ALLR 相比,使用 LET 进行初级前交叉韧带重建时的前外侧增量手术成本更低,临床效果也相当。尽管首选技术和医疗保健系统的差异可能会影响手术效率和材料成本,但外科医生在确定前交叉韧带初次置换术中的前外侧增量最佳方法时可以利用这一信息。系统综述;证据级别,IV。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
61
审稿时长
108 days
期刊最新文献
Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Surgical Intervention in Femoroacetabular Impingement Amongst the Asian Population: A Meta-analysis. Ligamentous Ankle Injuries in Relation to the Morphology of the Incisura Fibularis: A Systematic Review. Acute compartment syndrome of the leg following peroneus longus tendon graft harvesting: case report. MCL pie crusting for concomitant medial meniscal surgery does not appear to adversely influence primary ACL reconstruction functional outcomes. Oblique or short incisions reduce the risk of saphenous nerve damage during hamstrings harvesting. A model for mapping nerve pathways at the harvest site.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1