ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2024
Is Arthroscopic Latarjet a Cost-Effective Procedure? A Decision Analysis.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Arthroscopic Latarjet for glenohumeral stabilization has emerged as an alternative to the open approach; however, the evidence to date has questioned if this technique delivers improved outcomes. This analysis provides an assessment of the cost and utility associated with arthroscopic versus open Latarjet. Methods: The cost-effectiveness of Latarjet stabilization was modeled over a ten-year period. Institutional cases were reviewed for equipment utilization. Cost data from ambulatory surgical centers was obtained for each piece of equipment used intraoperatively. Based upon prior analyses, the operating room cost was assigned a value of $36.14 per minute. To determine effectiveness, a utility score was derived based upon prior analysis of shoulder stabilization using the EuroQol (EQ) 5D. For reoperations, a utility score of 0.01 was assigned for a single year for revision surgeries for instability and 0.5 for minor procedures. Probability of surgical outcomes and operative time for arthroscopic and open Latarjet were taken from prior studies comparing outcomes of these procedures. Decision-tree analysis utilizing these values was performed. Results: Based upon equipment and operating room costs, arthroscopic Latarjet was found to cost $2,796.87 more than the equivalent open procedure. Analysis of the utility of these procedures were 1.330 and 1.338 quality adjusted life years obtained over the modeled period for arthroscopic versus open Latarjet, respectively. For arthroscopic Latarjet to be cost-equivalent to open Latarjet, surgical time would need to be reduced to 41.5 minutes or the surgical equipment would need to be provided at no expense, while maintaining the same success rates. Conclusion: With nearly identical utility scores favoring open surgery, the added cost associated with arthroscopic Latarjet cannot be supported with available cost and utility data. To provide value, additional benefits such as decreased post-operative narcotic utilization, decreased blood loss, or lower complications of the arthroscopic approach must be demonstrated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.