A Cost-Utility Analysis of Carpal Tunnel Release With Open, Endoscopic, and Ultrasound Guidance Techniques From a Societal Perspective

Purpose

The objective of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR), and carpal tunnel release with ultrasound (CTR-US) guidance. The aim of this study was to determine whether one of the three approaches was dominant from a societal perspective in terms of cost-utility, in order to help inform policy and treatment decision making going forward.

Methods

This study was performed using a decision tree model, with three potential treatment decisions (OCTR, ECTR, and CTR-US). A cost-utility analysis was performed, using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as per previous literature.

Results

The total payer episode costs for OCTR, ECTR, and CTR-US were $4,324, $4,978, and $3,249, respectively. The cost of time off work for each procedure was $4,376.14, $3,650.24, and $622.20, respectively. The overall QALYs gained from each procedure were 0.42, 0.42, and 0.43, respectively (the maximum possible being 0.5 for a 6-month period). Compared with OCTR, ECTR and CTR-US were both less costly from a societal perspective (−$71.90 and −$4,828.94, respectively) and associated with greater QALYs gained (+0.0004 and +0.0143, respectively).

Conclusions

Overall, the key finding of this study is that, from a societal perspective, CTR-US is less costly and provides greater QALY improvement when compared with OCTR and ECTR, and thus, CTR-US is considered a dominant intervention over both OCTR and ECTR.

Type of study/level of evidence

Economic and decision analysis; IIb.