ArticleThe American journal of sports medicine2026
Cost-effectiveness of Adding Remplissage to Bankart Repair for On-track Hill-Sachs Lesions: A Markov Decision Analysis.
Article in The American 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemplissage decreases recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability but has historically been reserved for off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. The addition of remplissage for patients with on-track lesions remains controversial because of concerns about added operative costs and potential loss of range of motion. The cost-effectiveness of remplissage in patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions has not been established. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage versus isolated Bankart repair in patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions. STUDY
designEconomic decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3.
methodsA Markov decision model simulated a 10-year period from a societal perspective. There were 2 treatment strategies compared: isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair (IBR) and arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (BR+R). Health states included stable shoulder, recurrent instability, stable shoulder after revision, and persistent instability. Transition probabilities were derived from random-effects meta-analysis of recurrence rates at a median 34.7-month follow-up. Costs (in 2025 United States dollars) included direct medical costs and indirect costs related to productivity loss. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% annually. Outcomes included total costs, QALYs, net monetary benefit (NMB), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with Monte Carlo microsimulation was conducted with 1000 simulated patients and 10,000 PSA iterations. One-way sensitivity analysis evaluated the influence of individual parameters. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY.
resultsOver a 10-year time horizon, BR+R yielded 8.59 QALYs at a cost of $24,980, whereas IBR yielded 8.18 QALYs at a cost of $23,333. BR+R was cost-effective in 99.89% and 99.99% of simulations at WTP thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to recurrence probabilities.
conclusionFor patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions and subcritical glenoid bone loss, Bankart repair with remplissage was cost-effective compared with isolated Bankart repair, driven by reductions in recurrence and revision surgery. These findings support the consideration of remplissage in patients with on-track lesions, particularly those at a higher risk for recurrence.
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.