Purpose: The ideal surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability is still under debate. In the healthcare setting, both clinical and economic factors must be considered for optimal resource allocation. From the clinical perspective, the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) is a helpful and validated tool for surgeons, although a gray area between 4 and 6 exists. In fact, patients with an ISIS < 4 and > 6 can be treated effectively with arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet, respectively. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet in patients with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Methods: A decision-tree model was constructed to simulate the clinical scenario of an anterior shoulder dislocation patient with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Based on previously published literature, outcome probabilities and utility values in the form of Western Ontario Instability Score (WOSI) were assigned to each branch of the tree, alongside institutional cost. The primary outcome assessed was an Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the two procedures. Eden-Hybbinette was also considered in the model as a salvage procedure for failed Latarjet. A two-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the most impactful parameters on the ICER upon their variation within a pre-determined interval. Results: Base case cost was 1245.57 € (1220.48–1270.65 €) for arthroscopic Bankart repair, 1623.10 € (1580.82–1665.39 €) for open Latarjet and 2.373.95 € (1940.81–2807.10 €) for Eden-Hybbinette. Base-case ICER was 9570.23 €/WOSI. Sensitivity analysis showed that the most impactful parameters were the utility of arthroscopic Bankart repair, the probability of success of open Latarjet, the probability of undergoing surgery after post-operative recurrence of instability and the utility of Latarjet. Of these, utility of arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet had the most significant impact on the ICER. Conclusion: From a hospital perspective, open Latarjet was more cost-effective than arthroscopic Bankart repair in preventing further shoulder instability in patients with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Despite its several limitations, this is the first study to analyze this subgroup of patients from a European hospital setting from both an economic and clinical perspective. This study can help surgeons and administrations in the decision-making process. Further clinical studies are needed to prospectively analyze both aspects to further delineate the best strategy.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet reconstruction in anterior shoulder instability
Longo U. G.;
2023-01-01
Abstract
Purpose: The ideal surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability is still under debate. In the healthcare setting, both clinical and economic factors must be considered for optimal resource allocation. From the clinical perspective, the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) is a helpful and validated tool for surgeons, although a gray area between 4 and 6 exists. In fact, patients with an ISIS < 4 and > 6 can be treated effectively with arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet, respectively. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet in patients with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Methods: A decision-tree model was constructed to simulate the clinical scenario of an anterior shoulder dislocation patient with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Based on previously published literature, outcome probabilities and utility values in the form of Western Ontario Instability Score (WOSI) were assigned to each branch of the tree, alongside institutional cost. The primary outcome assessed was an Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the two procedures. Eden-Hybbinette was also considered in the model as a salvage procedure for failed Latarjet. A two-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the most impactful parameters on the ICER upon their variation within a pre-determined interval. Results: Base case cost was 1245.57 € (1220.48–1270.65 €) for arthroscopic Bankart repair, 1623.10 € (1580.82–1665.39 €) for open Latarjet and 2.373.95 € (1940.81–2807.10 €) for Eden-Hybbinette. Base-case ICER was 9570.23 €/WOSI. Sensitivity analysis showed that the most impactful parameters were the utility of arthroscopic Bankart repair, the probability of success of open Latarjet, the probability of undergoing surgery after post-operative recurrence of instability and the utility of Latarjet. Of these, utility of arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet had the most significant impact on the ICER. Conclusion: From a hospital perspective, open Latarjet was more cost-effective than arthroscopic Bankart repair in preventing further shoulder instability in patients with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Despite its several limitations, this is the first study to analyze this subgroup of patients from a European hospital setting from both an economic and clinical perspective. This study can help surgeons and administrations in the decision-making process. Further clinical studies are needed to prospectively analyze both aspects to further delineate the best strategy.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
