The Knee · 2016
The cost-effectiveness of meniscal repair versus partial meniscectomy: A model-based projection for the United States.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Feeley Brian T, Liu Shan, Garner Abigail M, Zhang Alan L, Pietzsch Jan B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Meniscal tears are the most common knee condition requiring surgery, and represent a substantial disease burden with clinical and cost implications. The success rates partial meniscectomy and meniscal repair have been studied, but limited information is available investigating their long-term costs and effects. Our objective was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of meniscal repair compared to meniscectomy.
METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov disease progression model, using strategy-specific failure rates and treatment-specific probabilities for the development of osteoarthritis (OA) and subsequent knee replacement (TKR). Failure rates and OA incidence were derived from controlled and uncontrolled studies as well as meta-analyses. Costs were derived from 2014U.S. reimbursement amounts and published literature.
RESULTS: Meniscal repair was associated with an increased failure rate (RR of 4.37), but meaningful reductions in OA and TKR incidence (29.7% vs. 39.4% and 19.6% vs. 27.9%, respectively) in our model-based analysis. Over the 30-year horizon, meniscal repair was associated with an increase in discounted QALYs to 16.52 (compared to 16.37 QALYs for meniscectomy), at overall discounted savings of $2384, making it the dominant index procedure strategy. Using age-specific per-patient cost and QALYs projected for the 30-year horizon, our computations suggest that payers could save approximately $43 million annually if 10% of current meniscectomies could be performed as meniscal repairs.
CONCLUSIONS: Our projection suggests that meniscal repair, despite substantially higher failure rates, is associated with improved long-term outcomes and cost savings relative to meniscectomy in the majority of patients, making it the dominant treatment strategy.
METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov disease progression model, using strategy-specific failure rates and treatment-specific probabilities for the development of osteoarthritis (OA) and subsequent knee replacement (TKR). Failure rates and OA incidence were derived from controlled and uncontrolled studies as well as meta-analyses. Costs were derived from 2014U.S. reimbursement amounts and published literature.
RESULTS: Meniscal repair was associated with an increased failure rate (RR of 4.37), but meaningful reductions in OA and TKR incidence (29.7% vs. 39.4% and 19.6% vs. 27.9%, respectively) in our model-based analysis. Over the 30-year horizon, meniscal repair was associated with an increase in discounted QALYs to 16.52 (compared to 16.37 QALYs for meniscectomy), at overall discounted savings of $2384, making it the dominant index procedure strategy. Using age-specific per-patient cost and QALYs projected for the 30-year horizon, our computations suggest that payers could save approximately $43 million annually if 10% of current meniscectomies could be performed as meniscal repairs.
CONCLUSIONS: Our projection suggests that meniscal repair, despite substantially higher failure rates, is associated with improved long-term outcomes and cost savings relative to meniscectomy in the majority of patients, making it the dominant treatment strategy.