The cost-effectiveness of the arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the arthroscopic Bankart and the open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness study used a Markov decision chain and Monte-Carlo simulation. Existing literature was reviewed to determine the survivorship and complication rates of these procedures. Health utility states (EQ-5D and quality-adjusted life-years) of the Bankart and Latarjet were prospectively collected. Using these variables, the Monte-Carlo simulation was modeled 100,000 times.

RESULTS

In reviewing the literature, the overall recurrence rate is 14% after the arthroscopic Bankart and 8% after the open Latarjet. Postoperative health utility states were equal between the 2 procedures (mean EQ-5D, 0.930; P = .775). The Monte-Carlo simulation showed that the Bankart had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4214 and the Latarjet had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4681 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Both the arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet are highly cost-effective; however, the Bankart is more cost-effective than the Latarjet, primarily because of a lower health utility state after a failed Latarjet. Ultimately, the clinical scenario may favor Latarjet (ie, critical glenoid bone loss) in certain circumstances, and decisions should be made on a case by case basis.