ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Addition of Autograft Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures to Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple clinical studies have highlighted the improved outcomes of ACLR in associated with LEAPs. However, such procedures are associated with increased costs and operating room time, thus questioning their cost-effectiveness. Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of augmenting an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with autograft lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAP), either a modified Lemaire or anterolateral ligament reconstruction. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using failure rates for ACLR with and without concomitant autograft LEAPs from existing level 1 and 2 studies. Institutional data were used to estimate costs, including hospital and surgeon fees for ACLR and additional implant costs for LEAP. Utility measures were derived by linear approximation of the European Quality of Life 5 Dimension from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score to evaluate improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), a standardized metric that combines quantity and quality of life into a single value, over 1 year. Cost-effectiveness was determined based on previous literature, with an intervention considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <$50,000/QALY. Three 1-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effect of implant cost, LEAP failure rates, and surgical time on cost-effectiveness. Results: The total cost of an isolated ACLR was estimated at $14,000, increasing to $14,990 with LEAP augmentation. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed an ICER of $25,313/QALY with LEAP augmentation, remaining below the $50,000/QALY cost-effectiveness threshold. Implant costs could rise to $1265 while maintaining cost-effectiveness, given an LEAP operation time (OR) of 15 minutes. Additionally, the failure rate of LEAP-augmented ACLR could increase from 2.9% to 7.7% while still meeting cost-effectiveness criteria. Finally, time sensitivity analysis indicated that for the procedure to remain cost-effective, the maximum allowable additional operative time is 36 minutes, given an OR cost of $46/minute. Conclusion: Although LEAP increases the time and cost of ACLR, it remains a cost-effective strategy for patients who are suitable candidates for augmentation.
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.