ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Which treatment strategy for irreparable rotator cuff tears is most cost-effective? A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis comparing superior capsular reconstruction, lower trapezius tendon transfer, subacromial balloon spacer implantation and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of total shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review of the evidence.International orthopaedics · 2026Pooled it
- Recent Updates on Allograft Selection for Reconstruction of Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Review
- Limited Clinical Benefit of the Subacromial Balloon Spacer in Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness.JBJS reviews · 2026Review
- The subacromial balloon spacer: Adhering to indications and clinical outcomes.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- Which treatment strategy for irreparable rotator cuff tears is most cost-effective? A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis comparing superior capsular reconstruction, lower trapezius tendon transfer, subacromial balloon spacer implantation and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Treatment options for irreparable rotator cuff tears (IRCTs) remain controversial and include superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTTT), subacromial balloon spacer (SABS), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Despite reports of positive treatment responses with all approaches, the relative clinical benefit in the context of associated cost has not been well delineated. The purpose of this study was to determine the most cost-effective treatment strategy among SCR, LTTT, SABS, and RSA for patients with massive IRCTs. Methods: A Markov Chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 simulated patients undergoing either SCR, LTTT, SABS, or RSA for massive IRCTs. Upfront costs, health utility values, and reoperation rates including revisions and conversion to RSA were derived from the published literature. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Mean total costs of SCR, RSA, LTTT, and SABS were $30,540 ± 5,770, $26,896 ± 5,622, $25,819 ± 4,325, and $16,412 ± 2,583, respectively. On average, total QALYs from SCR, RSA, LTTT, and SABS were 6.17 ± 0.53, 3.78 ± 0.38, 5.33 ± 0.49, and 5.59 ± 0.48. Overall, SCR was determined the preferred, most cost-effective strategy in 60% of patients included in the microsimulation model, with SABS the optimal strategy in 31% of cases and LTTT the optimal strategy in 9% of cases. Conclusion: SCR was found to be the most cost-effective treatment option for IRCTs based on the current microsimulation and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, although LTTT and SABS were also found to be cost-effective in select patients. Given that this statistical model does not consider the unique experiences of individual patients, shared decision-making remains an important component in determining the optimal treatment strategy for IRCTs. Level of Evidence: Level III, economic decision model.
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.