关节镜下 Latarjet 是一种具有成本效益的手术吗?决策分析。

IF 1.2 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Ryan Lopez, Benjamin Zmistowski, Benjamin A Hendy, Cassandra Sanko, Alexis Williams, Charles L Getz, Joseph A Abboud, Surena Namdari
{"title":"关节镜下 Latarjet 是一种具有成本效益的手术吗?决策分析。","authors":"Ryan Lopez, Benjamin Zmistowski, Benjamin A Hendy, Cassandra Sanko, Alexis Williams, Charles L Getz, Joseph A Abboud, Surena Namdari","doi":"10.22038/ABJS.2023.73800.3430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":46704,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10838582/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Arthroscopic Latarjet a Cost-Effective Procedure? A Decision Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Lopez, Benjamin Zmistowski, Benjamin A Hendy, Cassandra Sanko, Alexis Williams, Charles L Getz, Joseph A Abboud, Surena Namdari\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/ABJS.2023.73800.3430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10838582/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2023.73800.3430\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2023.73800.3430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:关节镜下 Latarjet 用于稳定盂肱关节已成为开放式方法的一种替代方法;然而,迄今为止的证据对该技术是否能改善疗效提出了质疑。本分析对关节镜与开放式 Latarjet 的相关成本和效用进行了评估:方法:对十年内 Latarjet 稳定术的成本效益进行建模。对机构病例的设备使用情况进行了审查。从非住院手术中心获得了术中使用的每件设备的成本数据。根据之前的分析,手术室成本被定为每分钟 36.14 美元。为了确定有效性,根据之前使用 EuroQol (EQ) 5D 进行的肩部稳定分析,得出了效用评分。对于再手术,不稳定性翻修手术一年的效用分值为 0.01,小手术为 0.5。关节镜和开放式 Latarjet 的手术结果概率和手术时间来自于之前对这些手术结果进行比较的研究。利用这些数值进行决策树分析:根据设备和手术室成本,发现关节镜下 Latarjet 的费用比同等的开放式手术高出 2,796.87 美元。这些手术的效用分析表明,在模型期内,关节镜 Latarjet 与开放式 Latarjet 相比,分别获得了 1.330 和 1.338 个质量调整生命年。要使关节镜下 Latarjet 的成本效益等同于开放式 Latarjet,需要将手术时间缩短至 41.5 分钟,或免费提供手术设备,同时保持相同的成功率:结论:由于几乎相同的效用评分都倾向于开放手术,现有的成本和效用数据无法支持与关节镜 Latarjet 相关的额外成本。要提供价值,必须证明关节镜方法还能带来其他益处,如减少术后麻醉剂的使用、减少失血量或降低并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Arthroscopic Latarjet a Cost-Effective Procedure? A Decision Analysis.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) aims to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of Orthopedic Sciences. The journal accepts scientific papers including original research, review article, short communication, case report, and letter to the editor in all fields of bone, joint, musculoskeletal surgery and related researches. The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) will publish papers in all aspects of today`s modern orthopedic sciences including: Arthroscopy, Arthroplasty, Sport Medicine, Reconstruction, Hand and Upper Extremity, Pediatric Orthopedics, Spine, Trauma, Foot and Ankle, Tumor, Joint Rheumatic Disease, Skeletal Imaging, Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation, Orthopedic Basic Sciences (Biomechanics, Biotechnology, Biomaterial..).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信