An All-Suture–Based Technique for Meniscal Repair Is Cost-Effective in Comparison to Partial Meniscectomy for Horizontal Cleavage Tears

• DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100847
• Publication Date: 2024-02-13T18:37:42Z
• Authors: Seth L. Sherman; Neil Askew; Leo M. Nherera; Richard J. Searle; David C. Flanigan
• Keywords: 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; Sports medicine; Original Article; RC1200-1245

PurposeTo determine the cost-effectiveness of meniscal repair (MR) using an all-suture–based technique when compared to partial meniscectomy (PM) for horizontal cleavage tears (HCTs) from a payor's perspective in United States.MethodsA state-transition model and cost-utility analysis were developed US project treatment costs quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) cohort 35-year-old patients without osteoarthritis at baseline presenting with either lateral or medial HCT. Two outpatient costing perspectives used, namely ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) hospitals. The had 7 health states transition probabilities, costs, utilities obtained existing literature. Cost-effectiveness was assessed willingness-to-pay threshold $100,000/QALY, sensitivity considered effects parameter uncertainty on results. MR failure rates focused technique; however, separate scenario, this study effectiveness data various techniques devices.ResultsMR dominated PM over lifetime horizon, increasing QALYs by 0.43 per patient decreasing cost $12,227 within hospital setting (and $12,570 ASC). continued be dominant age primary varied between 30 60 years. Sensitivity showed that not cost-effective year 1, 2, cost-saving 6 onward both ASC perspectives. Probabilistic found horizon 99% 10,000 iterations base-case analysis.ConclusionsUsing perspective, is intervention HCT.Level EvidenceLevel III, economic analysis. To States. A devices. Using