No Significant Difference in Cost or Outcomes at 1-Year Minimum Follow-Up After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Comparing 1.9 mm Distal Chip-on-Tip Needlescope Versus 4 mm Glass Rod Lens Arthroscope: Both Treatments Are Highly Cost-Effective.

Purpose: To evaluate cost, outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy comparing visualization using a 1.9 mm distal chip-on-tip needlescope versus a standard 4 mm glass rod lens arthroscope. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data (from a larger randomized controlled trial) on patients having partial meniscectomy performed by 1 surgeon at 1 facility between February 2023 and February 2025. International Knee Documentation Committee and visual analog scale pain scores at 1-year minimum follow-up, costs, cost-effectiveness (cost/quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost of 1 additional year of life in perfect health) were collected. Sensitivity analyses were assessed for potential variations in cost or effectiveness. Results: Twenty-four patients are included in each group; mean follow-up is 26 months (range 12-36). Comparing needle versus standard, mean age (years) is 50 versus 46.5 ( Conclusions: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy comparing 1.9 mm distal chip-on-tip needlescope versus 4 mm glass rod lens arthroscope results in no significant differences in cost or outcomes at 1-year minimum follow-up. Both treatments are highly cost-effective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for needlescope compared with arthroscope, $367.71, is more than 2 orders of magnitude lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Level of Evidence: Level IV, economic: input data from Level III study and uncertainty as examined by univariate sensitivity analysis.