An All-Suture–Based Technique for Meniscal Repair Is Cost-Effective in Comparison to Partial Meniscectomy for Horizontal Cleavage Tears

Purpose

To determine the cost-effectiveness of meniscal repair (MR) using an all-suture–based technique when compared to partial meniscectomy (PM) for horizontal cleavage tears (HCTs) from a payor’s perspective in the United States.

Methods

A state-transition model and cost-utility analysis were developed from a US payor’s perspective to project treatment costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a cohort of 35-year-old patients without osteoarthritis at baseline and presenting with either a lateral or medial HCT. Two outpatient costing perspectives were used, namely ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and hospitals. The state-transition model had 7 health states with transition probabilities, costs, and utilities obtained from the existing literature. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, and sensitivity analysis considered the effects of parameter uncertainty on model results. MR failure rates were focused on an all-suture–based technique; however, in a separate scenario, this study considered effectiveness data from various MR techniques and devices.

Results

MR dominated PM over a lifetime horizon, increasing QALYs by 0.43 per patient and decreasing the cost by $12,227 per patient within a hospital setting (and by $12,570 within an ASC). MR with an all-suture–based technique continued to be the dominant treatment when age at primary treatment was varied between 30 and 60 years. Sensitivity analysis showed that MR was not cost-effective in year 1, was cost-effective from year 2, and was cost-saving from year 6 onward from both ASC and hospital perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that MR was cost-effective over a lifetime horizon in 99% of 10,000 iterations on base-case analysis.

Conclusions

Using a lifetime horizon, this study found that from a payor’s perspective, MR is a cost-saving intervention when compared with PM in patients with an HCT.

Level of Evidence

Level III, economic analysis.