Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24441732›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2015

Computer-assisted navigation in ACL reconstruction is attractive but not yet cost efficient.

Jennifer Margier, Sandra David Tchouda, Jean-Jacques Banihachemi, Jean-Luc Bosson, Stéphane Plaweski

Abstract readControlled Clinical TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Video-based computer navigation in knee arthroscopy for patient-specific ACL reconstruction.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019
    Article
  5. Increased revision rate with posterior tibial tunnel placement after using the 70-degree tibial guide in ACL reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Article
  6. Current use of navigation system in ACL surgery: a historical review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2016
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer MargierCellule d'évaluation médico-économique des innovations, Pavillon Taillefer, CHU de Grenoble, 38043, Grenoble, France, jmargier@chu-grenoble.fr.
Sandra David Tchouda
Jean-Jacques Banihachemi
Jean-Luc Bosson
Stéphane Plaweski
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble · FRLaboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble · FRTranslational Innovation in Medicine and Complexity · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeConventional reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has a high success rate. Computer-assisted navigation systems (CANSs) have been developed to further improve the accuracy of tunnel positioning. What is the economic impact from the hospital perspective?

methodsPatients having a first ACL reconstruction procedure were included in a prospective multicentre open controlled study comparing two groups: CANS versus conventional surgery. The primary clinical efficacy criterion was the objective International Knee Documentation Committee score at 1-2-year follow-up. Costs were collected retrospectively nationwide.

resultsNo significant differences were found for the clinical effectiveness between conventional surgery (100 patients) and CANS (114 patients) at follow-up: ORadjusted 1.01 [0.36-2.84] (n.s). Junior surgeons achieved a significant mean decrease in operating time during the study period: 30 % in the CANS group compared with 10 % in the control group (p < 0.01). The average cost of surgery was 704<euro> for the control group and 1,158<euro> for the CANS group (p < 0.01). The cost of the operating room accounts for >70 % of the total cost. The surgeon's status and the technical CANS learning effect influenced this cost. The cost differential between the two groups decreased with 'CANS' expertise: 238<euro> and 271<euro> in 'expert' centres versus 427<euro> to 731<euro> in other centres.

conclusionWhile our study demonstrates the feasibility and the potential interest of CANS for training in ACL reconstruction, from a hospital perspective it is not cost efficient at present. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analysis-developing an economic or decision model, Level II.

Indexed as

AdultAnterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleFranceHospitals, TeachingHumansKnee JointMaleProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSurgery, Computer-AssistedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24441732
OpenAlexW2088613879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.