Cost-effectiveness analysis of primary arthroscopic stabilization versus nonoperative treatment for first-time anterior glenohumeral dislocations

Comparing Recurrence Rates and the Cost-Effectiveness of Arthroscopic Labral Repair and Nonoperative Management for Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocations in Young Patients: A Decision-Analytic Markov Model-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Value-based decision-making regarding nonoperative management versus early surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability (ASI) events remains understudied.

PURPOSE

To perform (1) a systematic review of the current literature and (2) a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing an initial trial of nonoperative management to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for first-time ASI.

STUDY DESIGN

Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 simulated patients (mean age, 20 years; range, 12-26 years) with first-time ASI undergoing nonoperative management versus ABR. Utility values, recurrence rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors' institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The Markov model with Monte Carlo microsimulation demonstrated mean (± standard deviation) 10-year costs for nonoperative management and ABR of $38,649 ± $10,521 and $43,052 ± $9352, respectively. Total QALYs acquired over the 10-year time horizon were 7.67 ± 0.43 and 8.44 ± 0.46 for nonoperative management and ABR, respectively. The ICER comparing ABR with nonoperative management was found to be just $5725/QALY, which falls substantially below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The mean numbers of recurrences were 2.55 ± 0.31 and 1.17 ± 0.18 for patients initially assigned to the nonoperative and ABR treatment groups, respectively. Of 1000 samples run over 1000 trials, ABR was the optimal strategy in 98.7% of cases, with nonoperative management the optimal strategy in 1.3% of cases.

CONCLUSION

ABR reduces the risk for recurrent dislocations and is more cost-effective despite higher upfront costs when compared with nonoperative management for first-time ASI in the young patient. While all these factors are important to consider in surgical decision-making, ultimate treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis and occur through a shared decision-making process.

Cemented Hemiarthroplasty Results in Substantial Cost Savings Over Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures in Patients Over 60 Years Old: A Markov Analysis

BACKGROUND

While there is growing scientific evidence supporting superior outcomes following cemented versus uncemented hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) in elderly femoral neck fractures (FNFs), the relative cost-effectiveness of this in the United States is unknown. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cemented versus uncemented HHA for the treatment of FNFs in patients > 60 years old in the United States, accounting for postoperative outcomes including periprosthetic fractures.

METHODS

A Markov model utilizing Monte Carlo microsimulation was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of patients at least 60 years of age (mean ± standard deviation, 84 ± 8 years) undergoing cemented versus uncemented HHA for the treatment of FNFs. Health utility values, transition probabilities, and upfront costs were derived from the published literature. Outcome measures included average total costs associated with each treatment (including those from patients who sustained a periprosthetic fracture), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Mean total costs resulting from cemented and uncemented HHA were $19,462 ± 3,581 and $21,997 ± 3,574, respectively (upfront costs from the published literature were $18,267 for cemented HHA and $16,803 for uncemented HHA). Average QALYs resulting from cemented and uncemented HHA were 4.0 ± 0.7 and 3.1 ± 0.6. The resulting ICER was -$2,688.9/QALY. Cemented HHA was found to be the most cost-effective treatment strategy in 89% of the patients in the Monte Carlo microsimulation model.

CONCLUSION

Despite documented higher upfront costs for cemented HHA, the averaged total costs over a 10-year time horizon were $2,534 less for cemented HHA than for uncemented HHA. In addition, cemented HHA resulted in an additional 0.9 QALYs relative to uncemented HHA. The findings of this United States-based study replicate the financial and quality-of-life benefits of cemented HHA for elderly FNFs seen in other health systems.

Single anterior shoulder dislocation patients demonstrate higher rates of posterior labral repair and biceps procedures than multiple dislocators at the time of arthroscopic stabilization surgery

Hypothesis

The purpose of this study is to identify and compare demographic, clinical, historical, and intraoperative variables in patients who have received arthroscopic treatment for single vs. multiple anterior shoulder dislocations.

Methods

This is a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair of the shoulder by six surgeons at a single institution between 2012 and 2020. Patients with a documented anterior shoulder dislocation were included. Patients with pain-only, subluxation-only, multidirectional or posterior instability, and prior shoulder surgeries of any kind were excluded. Studied variables included age, sex, laterality, body mass index, contact/collision sports, Charlson comorbidity index, tobacco use, number of dislocations (1, >1), labral tear size, time from first dislocation to surgery, anchor number, and concomitant procedures. Study groups were compared using student's t-tests and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher's exact tests for discrete variables with a significance of 0.05.

Results

Six hundred thirty-three patients were identified, and 351 (85 single dislocators [SDs], 266 multiple dislocators [MDs]) met inclusion criteria (mean age: 27 years; range: 14-71 years). There were no demographic differences between the study groups. SD received surgery significantly sooner at 17 ± 44 months after injury, while MD received surgery 53 ± 74 months postinitial dislocation. SDs (30/85, 35%) were significantly more likely than MDs (56/266, 21%) to receive concomitant posterior labrum repair. MDs (46/266, 17%) were significantly more likely than SDs (5/85, 6%) to receive a remplissage. SDs (11/85, 13%) were significantly more likely than MDs (11/266, 4%) to receive a concomitant biceps tenotomy/tenodesis. There were no other significant differences in injury or surgery characteristics.

Conclusion

MDs will have more time between their initial dislocation and arthroscopic labral repair and are more likely to receive a remplissage procedure, yet they are less likely than SDs to receive a concomitant posterior labral repair or biceps tenodesis/tenotomy despite no differences in age, sex, and activity level. Whether the greater extent of labrum injury in SD is due to a more severe initial injury vs. earlier recognition and intervention requires further study.

Arthroscopic stabilization surgery for first-time anterior shoulder dislocations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of first-time anterior shoulder dislocations (FTASDs) remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of arthroscopic stabilization surgery for FTASDs through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to December 18, 2022, for single-arm or comparative studies assessing FTASDs managed with arthroscopic stabilization surgery following first-time dislocation. Eligible comparative studies included studies assessing outcomes following immobilization for an FTASD, or arthroscopic stabilization following recurrent dislocations. Eligible levels of evidence were I to IV. Primary outcomes included rates of shoulder redislocations, cumulative shoulder instability, and subsequent shoulder stabilization surgery.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies with 2222 shoulder dislocations were included. Of these, 5 studies (n = 408 shoulders) were randomized trials comparing immobilization to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) after a first dislocation. Another 16 studies were nonrandomized comparative studies assessing arthroscopic Bankart repair following first-time dislocation (ABR-F) to either immobilization (studies = 8, n = 399 shoulders) or arthroscopic Bankart repair following recurrent dislocations (ABR-R) (studies = 8, n = 943 shoulder). Mean follow-up was 59.4 ± 39.2 months across all studies. Cumulative loss to follow-up was 4.7% (range, 0%-32.7%). A composite rate of pooled redislocation, cumulative instability, and reoperations across ABR-F studies was 6.8%, 11.2%, and 6.1%, respectively. Meta-analysis found statistically significant reductions in rates of redislocation (odds ratio [OR] 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.3, P < .001), cumulative instability (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.03-0.08, P < .001), and subsequent surgery (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.04-0.15, P < .001) when comparing ABR-F to immobilization. Rates of cumulative instability (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22-0.47, P < .001) and subsequent surgery rates (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.76, P = .01) were significantly reduced with ABR-F relative to ABR-R, with point estimate of effect favoring ABR-F for shoulder redislocation rates (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.19-1.83, P = .36). Return to sport rates to preoperative levels or higher were 3.87 times higher following ABR-F compared to immobilization (95% CI 1.57-9.52, P < .001), with limited ABR-R studies reporting this outcome. The median fragility index of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 2, meaning reversing only 2 outcome events rendered the trials' findings no longer statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic stabilization surgery for FTASDs leads to lower rates of redislocations, cumulative instability, and subsequent stabilization surgery relative to immobilization or arthroscopic stabilization surgery following recurrence. Although a limited number of RCTs have been published on the subject matter to date, the strength of their conclusions is limited by a small sample size and statistically fragile results.

Early Surgery for Partial Tears of the Ulnar Collateral Ligament May Be More Cost-Effective and Result in Longer Playing Careers Than Nonoperative Management for High-Level Baseball Pitchers: A Decision-Analytic Markov Model-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Nonoperative management versus early reconstruction for partial tears of the medial ulnar collateral ligament (MUCL) remains controversial, with the most common treatment options for partial tears consisting of rest, rehabilitation, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and/or surgical intervention. However, whether the improved outcomes reported for treatments such as MUCL reconstruction (UCLR) or nonoperative management with a series of PRP injections justifies their increased upfront costs remains unknown.

PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of an initial trial of physical therapy alone, an initial trial of physical therapy plus a series of PRP injections, and early UCLR to determine the preferred cost-effective treatment strategy for young, high-level baseball pitchers with partial tears of the MUCL and with aspirations to continue play at the next level (ie, collegiate and/or professional).

STUDY DESIGN

Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 young, high-level, simulated pitchers undergoing nonoperative management with and without PRP versus early UCLR for partial MUCL tears. Utility values, return to play rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors' institution. Outcome measures included costs, acquired playing years (PYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The mean total costs resulting from nonoperative management without PRP, nonoperative management with PRP, and early UCLR were $22,520, $24,800, and $43,992, respectively. On average, early UCLR produced an additional 4.0 PYs over the 10-year time horizon relative to nonoperative management, resulting in an ICER of $5395/PY, which falls well below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Overall, early UCLR was determined to be the preferred cost-effective strategy in 77.5% of pitchers included in the microsimulation model, with nonoperative management with PRP determined to be the preferred strategy in 15% of pitchers and nonoperative management alone in 7.5% of pitchers.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased upfront costs, UCLR is a more cost-effective treatment option for partial tears of the MUCL than an initial trial of nonoperative management for most high-level baseball pitchers.

Early Arthroscopic Debridement May Be More Cost-Effective Than Nonoperative Management for Symptomatic Osteochondritis Dissecans Lesions of the Capitellum

Purpose

To compare the cost-effectiveness of an initial trial of nonoperative treatment to that of early arthroscopic debridement for stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions of the capitellum.

Methods

A Markov Chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1,000 simulated patients undergoing nonoperative management versus early arthroscopic debridement for stable OCD lesions of the capitellum. Health utility values, treatment success rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined on the basis of the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at our institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Mean total costs resulting from nonoperative management and early arthroscopic debridement were $5,330 and $21,672, respectively. On average, early arthroscopic debridement produced an additional 0.64 QALYS, resulting in an ICER of $25,245/QALY, which falls well below the widely accepted $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Overall, early arthroscopic debridement was determined to be the preferred cost-effective strategy in 69% of patients included in the microsimulation model.

Conclusion

Results of the Monte Carlo microsimulation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated early arthroscopic debridement to be a cost-effective treatment strategy for the majority of stable OCD lesions of the capitellum. Although early arthroscopic debridement was associated with higher total costs, the increase in QALYS that resulted from early surgery was enough to justify the cost difference based on an ICER substantially below the $50,000 WTP threshold.

Level of Evidence

Level III, economic computer simulation model.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus nonoperative management for first-time anterior shoulder instability: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Purpose

Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) may be more effective than nonoperative management for patients with anterior shoulder instability following first-time dislocation. The purpose of the study was to determine the most cost-effective treatment strategy by evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ABR versus nonoperative treatment.

Methods

This cost-effectiveness study utilized a Markov decision chain and Monte Carlo simulation. Probabilities, health utility values, and outcome data regarding ABR and nonoperative management of first-time shoulder instability derived from level I/II evidence. Costs were tabulated from Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using >100,000 repetitions of the Monte Carlo simulation. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000.

Results

The expected cost for operative management higher than nonoperative management ($32,765 vs $29,343). However, ABR (5.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) was the more effective treatment strategy compared to nonoperative management (4.61 QALYs). The ICER for ABR was $3943. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ABR was the most cost-effective strategy in 100% of simulations.

Discussion

ABR is more cost-effective than nonoperative management for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. The threshold analysis demonstrated that when accounting for WTP, ABR was found to be the more cost-effective strategy.

Surgical Intervention Following a First Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Is Worthy of Consideration

Up to 60% of patients experience recurrence after a first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD), which is often defined as having experienced either dislocation or subluxation. Thus surgical intervention after FTASD is worthy of consideration and is guided by the number of patients who need to receive surgical intervention to prevent 1 redislocation (i.e., number needed to treat), (subjective) health benefit, complication risk, and costs. Operative intervention through arthroscopic stabilization can be successful in reducing recurrence risk in FTASD, as has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, there is a large "gray area" for the indication of arthroscopic stabilization, and it is therefore heavily debated which patients should receive operative treatment. Previous trials showed widely varying redislocation rates in both the intervention and control group, meta-analysis shows 2% to 19% after operative and 20% to 75% after nonoperative treatment, and redislocation rates may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. The literature is quite heterogeneous, and a major confounder is time to follow-up. Furthermore, there is insufficient standardization of reporting of outcomes and no consensus on definition of risk factors. As a result, surgery is a reasonable intervention for FTASD patients, but in which patients it best prevents redislocation requires additional refinement.

Epidemiology of shoulder instability procedures: A comprehensive analysis of complications and costs

Background

Recurrent shoulder instability is a debilitating condition that can lead to chronic pain, decreased function, and inability to return to activities or sport. This retrospective epidemiology study was performed to report 90-day postoperative complications and costs of Latarjet, anterior bone block reconstruction, arthroscopic, and open Bankart repair for shoulder instability.

Methods

Patients 18 years and older who underwent four primary shoulder surgeries from 2010 to 2019 were identified using national claims data. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and 90-day postoperative complications were analyzed using univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Total and itemized 90-day reimbursements were determined for each procedure.

Results

The 90-day medical and surgery-specific complication rates were highest for anterior bone block reconstruction, followed by Latarjet. Arthroscopic Bankart repair had the highest 90-day costs and primary procedure costs compared to other procedures.

Conclusion

Anterior bone block reconstruction and Latarjet procedures were associated with the highest rates of 90-day medical and surgery-specific complications, while arthroscopic Bankart repair was associated with the highest costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet reconstruction in anterior shoulder instability

PURPOSE

The ideal surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability is still under debate. In the healthcare setting, both clinical and economic factors must be considered for optimal resource allocation. From the clinical perspective, the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) is a helpful and validated tool for surgeons, although a gray area between 4 and 6 exists. In fact, patients with an ISIS < 4 and > 6 can be treated effectively with arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet, respectively. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet in patients with an ISIS between 4 and 6.

METHODS

A decision-tree model was constructed to simulate the clinical scenario of an anterior shoulder dislocation patient with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Based on previously published literature, outcome probabilities and utility values in the form of Western Ontario Instability Score (WOSI) were assigned to each branch of the tree, alongside institutional cost. The primary outcome assessed was an Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the two procedures. Eden-Hybbinette was also considered in the model as a salvage procedure for failed Latarjet. A two-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the most impactful parameters on the ICER upon their variation within a pre-determined interval.

RESULTS

Base case cost was 1245.57 € (1220.48-1270.65 €) for arthroscopic Bankart repair, 1623.10 € (1580.82-1665.39 €) for open Latarjet and 2.373.95 € (1940.81-2807.10 €) for Eden-Hybbinette. Base-case ICER was 9570.23 €/WOSI. Sensitivity analysis showed that the most impactful parameters were the utility of arthroscopic Bankart repair, the probability of success of open Latarjet, the probability of undergoing surgery after post-operative recurrence of instability and the utility of Latarjet. Of these, utility of arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet had the most significant impact on the ICER.

CONCLUSION

From a hospital perspective, open Latarjet was more cost-effective than arthroscopic Bankart repair in preventing further shoulder instability in patients with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Despite its several limitations, this is the first study to analyze this subgroup of patients from a European hospital setting from both an economic and clinical perspective. This study can help surgeons and administrations in the decision-making process. Further clinical studies are needed to prospectively analyze both aspects to further delineate the best strategy.

Editorial Commentary: Urgency Toward Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Is Essential for Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: You Don't Have to Fix After the First Dislocation, but Definitely Before the Second!

While still hotly debated, primary arthroscopic management of the first-time anterior shoulder dislocation has an extensive list of known benefits: lower overall health care costs, improved patient-reported outcomes, a vast reduction in secondary instability, and higher quality-of-life measures. Yet, despite these meaningful contributions to health care quality, we continue to bypass the predictable success of an acute arthroscopic Bankart repair in order to tempt fate with "a trial" of nonoperative care for our young, high-risk collision athletes. Whether for the in-season athlete, the "early responder" with limited apprehension, subluxations with spontaneous reduction, or those stoically committed to nonsurgical care, we as physicians are often complicit in this shared risk taking and ceremonial weighing of the risks and benefits for treatment options after primary shoulder instability. Even just 1 additional episode of instability recurrence can double (or triple) the rate of glenohumeral bone loss. Furthermore, subsequent anterior shoulder instability compromises subjective shoulder function, heightens risk of secondary recurrence and/or revision, and increases the likelihood of requiring more advanced surgical management, such as with a Latarjet or other anterior bone block procedure. We must maintain a sense of urgency toward surgical treatment, particularly in young, high-demand athletes with persistent instability. To parrot the wisdom of our shoulder mentors, hear my humble plea: you don't have to fix the shoulder after the first anterior dislocation, but you should definitely do it before the second!

Editorial Commentary: The Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score Can, in Part, Help to Predict Failure After Nonoperative Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability: Fix Them All Versus Wait and See?

The optimal management of anterior shoulder instability remains a heated topic of debate, particularly after first-time shoulder dislocation. From expedited rehabilitation to arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet coracoid transfer, the shoulder community has staunchly defended its approach with carefully tailored data describing patient satisfaction, instability recurrence, revision surgery, and timeline to return to play or preinjury activity. However, not all patients require surgical stabilization, and a "wait-and-see" approach can often result in favorable outcome. The Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score has been proposed as a unique tool to stratify risk for failure among athletes after an anterior shoulder instability event. While not a standalone tool for predicting further shoulder dislocation in a broader athletic population, the Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score reflects a movement toward personalized medicine, where clinical decision making is executed on the individual level based on unique risk factors and circumstances.

Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment Following First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate about whether to perform operative or nonoperative treatment following a first-time anterior dislocation or wait for recurrence before operating. The aim of this systematic review is to compare recurrence rates following operative treatment following first-time anterior dislocation (OTFD) with recurrence rates following (1) nonoperative treatment (NTFD) or (2) operative treatment after recurrent anterior dislocation (OTRD).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted by searching PubMed (Legacy), Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics from 1990 to April 15, 2020, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The revised tool to assess risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2) developed by Cochrane was used to determine bias in randomized controlled trials, and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was used to determine the methodological quality of non-randomized studies. The certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach using GRADEpro software.

RESULTS

Of the 4,096 studies for which the titles were screened, 9 comparing OTFD and NTFD in a total of 533 patients and 6 comparing OTFD and OTRD in a total of 961 patients were included. There is high-quality evidence that OTFD is associated with a lower rate of recurrence (10%) at >10 years of follow-up compared with NTFD (55%) (p < 0.0001). There is very low-quality evidence that patients receiving OTFD had a lower recurrence rate (11%) compared with those receiving OTRD (17%) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence showing a lower recurrence rate at >10 years following OTFD compared with NTFD (or sham surgery) in young patients. There is evidence that OTFD is more effective than OTRD, but that evidence is of very low quality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Anterior Glenohumeral Instability in the Adolescent Athlete

Glenohumeral instability is multifactorial and has both static and dynamic elements. The initial management of first-time dislocations has become increasingly controversial, although recent evidence supports operative treatment for adolescents who participate in contact sports. Risk factors for recurrent glenohumeral instability include adolescent age, hyperlaxity, glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, and fixation with <=3 anchors. High rates of return to sport can be expected when the surgical plan is tailored to individual pathology.

Age, participation in competitive sports, bony lesions, ALPSA lesions, > 1 preoperative dislocations, surgical delay and ISIS score > 3 are risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4584 shoulders

PURPOSE

Determining the risk of recurrent instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair can be challenging, as numerous risk factors have been identified that might predispose recurrent instability. However, an overview with quantitative analysis of all available risk factors is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify risk factors that are associated with recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics from inception up to November 12th 2020. Studies evaluating risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimal follow-up of 2 years were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised a total of 4582 shoulders (4578 patients). Meta-analyses were feasible for 22 risk factors and demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years (RR = 2.02; P < 0.00001), age ≤ 30 years (RR = 2.62; P = 0.005), participation in competitive sports (RR = 2.40; P = 0.02), Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 1.77; P = 0.0005), off-track Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 3.24; P = 0.002), glenoid bone loss (RR = 2.38; P = 0.0001), ALPSA lesion (RR = 1.90; P = 0.03), > 1 preoperative dislocations (RR = 2.02; P = 0.03), > 6 months surgical delay (RR = 2.86; P < 0.0001), ISIS > 3 (RR = 3.28; P = 0.0007) and ISIS > 6 (RR = 4.88; P < 0.00001) were risk factors for recurrence. Male gender, an affected dominant arm, hyperlaxity, participation in contact and/or overhead sports, glenoid fracture, SLAP lesion with/without repair, rotator cuff tear, > 5 preoperative dislocations and using ≤ 2 anchors could not be confirmed as risk factors. In addition, no difference was observed between the age groups ≤ 20 and 21-30 years.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analyses demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years, age ≤ 30 years, participation in competitive sports, Hill-Sachs lesion, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, glenoid bone loss, ALPSA lesion, > 1 preoperative dislocations, > 6 months surgical delay from first-time dislocation to surgery, ISIS > 3 and ISIS > 6 were risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair. These factors can assist clinicians in giving a proper advice regarding treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

The financial burden associated with multiple shoulder dislocations and the potential cost savings of surgical stabilization

Introduction

Shoulder dislocation is a costly problem and can have a high risk for recurrent instability after initial dislocation based on well-defined patient characteristics. Patients with recurrent instability can be treated with shoulder stabilizing procedures. Although more costly, surgery may decrease the overall health care burden of managing a patient with multiple shoulder dislocations nonoperatively.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with a diagnosis of a shoulder dislocation at a level 1 academic trauma center during the year 2016. Patient information regarding the current dislocation episode, previous dislocations, shoulder surgeries, and postreduction follow-up was gathered. These data were then used to determine the average cost of an ED presentation for a shoulder dislocation episode as obtained from the hospital finance department. The average cost of shoulder stabilization surgery was used to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of operative vs. nonoperative management.

Results

Data were collected on 104 individuals who presented to the ED with shoulder dislocations. Of these, 65 were primary dislocations and 39 were recurrent dislocations. Twelve patients underwent shoulder stabilization surgery after their ED presentation. The average cost to the institution for an ED visit requiring the closed reduction of a shoulder dislocation was $2207 ($973.21 without sedation and $3744 with conscious sedation). The average cost of a shoulder stabilization procedure performed at this same institution was $7807.

Discussion and conclusion

Although shoulder stabilization has a higher cost on the front end, this intervention results in cost savings if it prevents 2-3 future shoulder dislocations resulting in ED visits. These findings suggest that, for patients with a high risk for recurrent instability, not only would stabilization surgery help prevent subsequent dislocation events but would also minimize health care costs.

Cost Analysis in Shoulder Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Cost analysis studies in medicine were uncommon in the past, but with the rising importance of financial considerations, it has become increasingly important to use available resources most efficiently.

PURPOSE

To analyze the current state of cost-effectiveness analyses in shoulder surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review of the current literature was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. All full economic analyses published since January 1, 2010 and including the terms "cost analysis" and "shoulder" were checked for usability. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence and established health economic criteria (Quality of Health Economic Studies [QHES] instrument).

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Compared with older studies, recent studies were of better quality: one level 1 study and eight level 2 studies were included. The mean QHES score was 87 of 100. The thematic focus of most studies (n = 13) was rotator cuff tears, with the main findings as follows: (1) magnetic resonance imaging is a cost-effective imaging strategy, (2) primary (arthroscopic) rotator cuff repair (RCR) with conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in case of failure is the most cost-effective strategy, (3) the platelet-rich plasma augmentation of RCR seems not to be cost-effective, and (4) the cost-effectiveness of double-row RCR remains unclear. Other studies included shoulder instability (n = 3), glenohumeral osteoarthritis (n = 3), proximal humeral fractures (n = 4), subacromial impingement (n = 4), and other shoulder conditions (n = 7).

CONCLUSION

Compared with prior studies, the quality of recently available studies has improved significantly. Current studies could help decision makers to appropriately and adequately allocate resources. The optimal use of financial resources will be of increasing importance to improve medical care for patients. However, further studies are still necessary.

A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Intraoperative Costs in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair, Open Latarjet, and Distal Tibial Allograft

Background:

The optimal surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability remains controversial.

Hypothesis:

(1) Implants and facility-related costs are the primary drivers of variation in direct costs between arthroscopic Bankart and Latarjet procedures, and (2) distal tibial allograft (DTA) is more costly than Latarjet as a function of the graft expense.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Intraoperative cost data were derived for all arthroscopic anterior stabilizations and Latarjet and DTA procedures performed at a single academic institution from January 2012 to September 2017. Cost comparisons were made between those undergoing arthroscopic stabilization and Latarjet and between Latarjet and DTA. Multivariate regressions were performed to determine the difference in direct costs accounting for various patient- and surgery-related factors.

Results:

A total of 87 arthroscopic stabilizations, 44 Latarjet procedures, and 5 DTA procedures were performed during the study period. Arthroscopic Bankart repair was found to be 17% more costly than Latarjet, with suture anchor implant cost being the primary driver of cost. DTA was 2.9-fold more costly than Latarjet, with greater costs across all domains. Multivariate analysis also found the number of prior arthroscopic procedures performed (P = .007) and whether the procedure was performed in an ambulatory or inpatient setting (P < .0001) to be significantly associated with higher direct costs.

Conclusion:

Latarjet is less costly than arthroscopic Bankart repair, largely because of implant cost. Value-driven strategies to narrow the cost differential could focus on performing these procedures in an outpatient setting in addition to reducing overall implant cost for arthroscopic procedures. Perceived potential benefits of DTA over Latarjet may be outweighed by higher costs.

Direct and indirect costs associated with nonoperative treatment for shoulder instability: an observational study in 132 patients

BACKGROUND

Shoulder instability is associated with decreased functioning. The associated costs could be substantial and interesting to clinicians, researchers, and policy makers. This prospective observational study aims to (1) estimate productivity losses and healthcare expenses following the nonoperative treatment of shoulder instability and (2) identify patient characteristics that influence societal costs.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-two patients completed a questionnaire regarding production losses and healthcare utilization following consecutive episodes of shoulder instability. Productivity losses were calculated using the friction cost approach. Healthcare utilization was evaluated using standard costs. analysis of variance test was used to assess which patient characteristics are related to productivity losses and healthcare expenses. Societal costs were assessed using multilevel analyses. Bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.

RESULTS

Mean productivity losses are €1469, €881, and €728 and mean healthcare expenses are €3759, €3267, and €2424 per patient per dislocation for the first, second, and third dislocation. Productivity losses decrease significantly after the second (mean difference €-1969, 95%CI= -3680 to -939) and third (mean difference €-2298, 95%CI= -4092 to -1288) compared to the first dislocation.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonoperative treatment of shoulder instability has substantial societal costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, economic analysis.

The Natural History of Pediatric and Adolescent Shoulder Dislocation

BACKGROUND

Twenty percent of shoulder dislocations occur in people younger than 20 years old. Management of anterior shoulder instability in young patients remains an evolving and controversial topic. Herein we review the natural history of anterior shoulder dislocation in young patients.

METHODS

The English-language literature was searched for studies examining the natural history of pediatric and adolescent shoulder dislocation. Recurrent dislocation was the primary outcome of interest in most studies.

RESULTS

Most studies found that recurrent instability was likely in young patients. Several systematic reviews reported the recurrence rate for young patients to be >70%. Recurrent instability was likely to cause greater damage to the joint and may result in more extensive and costly surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies agree that recurrent anterior shoulder instability is likely in young patients. Some authors advocate for consideration of early surgery in this high-risk population.

Glenohumeral Dislocation Arthropathy: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management

Dislocation arthropathy describes the development of progressive degenerative changes of the glenohumeral joint in the setting of instability. Although the specific etiology remains unclear, the trauma of a single dislocation, repetitive injury associated with recurrent dislocations, changes in shoulder biomechanics, and complications associated with instability surgery have all been implicated in its development. Pain and restricted range of motion are the most common patient complaints. Conservative management, consisting of pain control, activity modification, and physical therapy, is the first-line treatment after the development of arthropathy. If conservative management fails, multiple surgical options exist. Arthroscopic débridement can be attempted in young, active patients and in those patients with mild-to-moderate arthropathy. Open subscapularis lengthening and capsular release can be done in patients with prior instability repairs that are overly tight. In young patients with minimal bone loss and glenoid wear, surface replacement arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty are surgical options. In older patients with moderate-to-severe arthropathy, total shoulder or reverse shoulder arthroplasty is the preferred treatment option. Further study is needed to better predict which patients will develop dislocation arthropathy and will thus benefit from early surgical intervention.

Who will redislocate his/her shoulder? Predicting recurrent instability following a first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation

Objective

To develop a multivariate tool that would predict recurrent instability after a first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation.

Methods

Participants (aged 16–40 years) were recruited across New Zealand into a prospective cohort study. Baseline data were collected during a telephone interview and through examination of radiology records. Variables associated with recurrent instability were selected for the multivariate logistic regression model using backwards selection (p<0.10). Coefficients for those variables retained in the model were used to develop the predictive tool.

Results

Among the 128 participants, 36% had redislocated at least once in the first 12 months. Univariate analysis showed an increased likelihood of recurrent dislocation with bony Bankart lesions (OR=3.65, 95% CI 1.05 to 12.70, p=0.04) and participants who had: not been immobilised in a sling (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.98, p=0.05), higher levels of shoulder activity (OR=1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.27, p=0.03), higher levels of pain and disability (OR=1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06, p=0.02), higher levels of fear of reinjury (OR=1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26, p=0.04) and decreased quality of life (OR=1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02, p=0.05). There was no significant difference in those with non-dominant compared with dominant shoulder dislocations (p=0.10) or in those aged 16–25 years compared with 26–40 years (p=0.07).

Conclusion

Six of seven physical and psychosocial factors can be used to predict recurrent shoulder instability following a first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation.

Cost-utility studies in upper limb orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of published literature

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale.

RESULTS

The mean total QHES score was 82 (high-quality). Over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores < 75). Lower-scoring studies demonstrated several deficits, including failures in identifying reference perspectives, incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses, discounting costs and utilities, and disclosing funding.

CONCLUSION

It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics and ensure standards of reporting and comparability in accordance with Second Panel recommendations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1416-23.

Return to sport following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the return-to-sport rate following arthroscopic Bankart repair, and it was hypothesized that patients would experience a high rate of return to sport.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases were searched by 2 reviewers, and the titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently. The inclusion criteria were English-language studies investigating arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients of all ages participating in sports at all levels with reported return-to-sport outcomes. A meta-analysis of proportions was used to combine the rate of return to sport using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up time of 46 months (range, 3-138 months). The pooled rate of return to participation in any sport was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74%-87%). In addition, the pooled rate of return to the preinjury level was 66% (95% CI, 57%-74%) (n = 1441). Moreover, the pooled rate of return to a competitive level of sport was 82% (95% CI, 79%-88%) (n = 273), while the pooled rate of return to the preinjury level of competitive sports was 88% (95% CI, 66%-99%).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Bankart repair yields a high rate of return to sport, in addition to significant alleviation of pain and improved functional outcomes in the majority of patients. However, approximately one-third of athletes do not return to their preinjury level of sports.

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.

Effect of Facility Ownership on Utilization of Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery

INTRODUCTION

We examined practice patterns and surgical indications in the management of common shoulder procedures by surgeons practicing at physician-owned facilities.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of 501 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder procedures performed by five surgeons in our practice at one of five facilities during an 18-month period. Two of the facilities were physician-owned, and three of the five surgeons were shareholders. Demographics, insurance status, symptom duration, time from injury/symptom onset to the decision to perform surgery (at which time surgical consent is obtained), and time to schedule surgery were studied to determine the influence of facility type and physician shareholder status.

RESULTS

Median duration of symptoms before surgery was significantly shorter in workers' compensation patients than in non-workers' compensation patients (47% less; P < 0.0001) and in men than in women (31% less; P < 0.001), but was not influenced by shareholder status or facility ownership (P > 0.05). Time between presentation and surgical consent was not influenced by facility ownership (P = 0.39) or shareholder status (P = 0.50). Time from consent to procedure was 13% faster in physician-owned facilities than in non-physician-owned facilities (P = 0.03) and 35% slower with shareholder physicians than with nonshareholder physicians (P < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

The role of physician investment in private healthcare facilities has caused considerable debate in the orthopaedic surgery field. To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the effects of shareholder status and facility ownership on surgeons' practice patterns, surgical timing, and measures of nonsurgical treatment before shoulder surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither shareholder status nor facility ownership characteristics influenced the speed with which surgeons determined that shoulder surgery was indicated or surgeons' use of preoperative nonsurgical treatment. After the need for surgery was determined, patients underwent surgery sooner at physician-owned facilities than at non-physician-owned facilities and with nonshareholder physicians than with shareholder physicians.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Allograft Augmentation of Hamstring Autograft for Younger Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Younger patients and those with smaller hamstring autograft diameters have been shown to be at significantly greater risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. To date, there is no information in the literature about the clinical success and/or cost-effectiveness of increasing graft diameter by augmenting with semitendinosus allograft tissue for younger patients.

HYPOTHESIS

Hybrid hamstring grafts are a cost-effective treatment option because of a reduced rate of graft failure.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (economic and decision analysis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients younger than 18 years who had undergone ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon between 2010 and 2015. During this period, the operating surgeon's graft selection algorithm included the use of bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts for the majority of patients younger than 18 years. However, hamstring autografts (hamstring) or hybrid hamstring autografts with allograft augment (hybrid) were used in skeletally immature patients and in those whom the surgeon felt might have greater difficulty with postoperative rehabilitation after BTB graft harvest. Patient demographics, graft type, graft diameter, the time the patient was cleared to return to activity, and the need for secondary surgical procedures were compared between the hamstring and hybrid groups. The clinical results were then used to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of hybrid grafts in this select group of young patients with an ACL injury or reconstruction.

RESULTS

This study comprised 88 patients (hamstring group, n = 46; hybrid group, n = 42). The 2 groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, timing of return to activity, or prevalence of skeletally immature patients. Graft diameters were significantly smaller in the hamstring group (7.8 vs 9.9 mm; P < .001), which corresponded with a significantly greater rate of graft failure (13 of 46 [28.3%] vs 5 of 42 [11.9%]; P = .049). As a result of the reduced revision rate, the hybrid graft demonstrated incremental cost savings of US$2765 compared with the hamstring graft, and the hybrid graft was the preferred strategy in 89% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Driven by increased graft diameters and the reduced risk of revision, hybrid grafts appear to be a more cost-effective treatment option in a subset of younger patients with an ACL injury.

Current Concepts in the Management of Shoulder Instability

Shoulder instability ranges from subtle instability to frank dislocation. Our understanding on the subject is getting better. Patient lifestyle, increased awareness/expectations, better availability of information, improved imaging modalities, and increased awareness about the previously less known concepts in instability all add to the challenges of managing the problem. History and clinical examination without over reliance on imaging remain essential. We used Embase, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and Google Scholar search for published literature in English. We used various combinations of the keywords, namely, human shoulder instability, sports injuries, dislocation, surgery, latarjet, glenohumeral, glenoid, and arthroscopy from 1980 to March 2017. The systematic search captured 310 publications. After applying initial exclusion criteria, 41 abstracts were assessed for eligibility. Of these, we selected 20 full-text articles with the majority of focus primarily on surgical management of traumatic shoulder instability. A tailor-made approach for the management of the individual patient is essential and should involve shared decision making. In this article, we have tried to simplify and present the current evidence in the management of traumatic shoulder instability, particularly in sportsperson.

Intra-articular lesions and their relation to arthroscopic stabilization failure in young patients with first-time and recurrent shoulder dislocations

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the frequency of intra-articular lesions between young patients with first-time shoulder dislocations and those with recurrent shoulder dislocations and to assess the correlation between intra-articular lesions and failure of arthroscopic stabilization.

METHODS

The study enrolled 33 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair after first-time shoulder dislocation before the age of 30 years. There were 89 age-matched patients who were treated arthroscopically for recurrent dislocation included as a control group.

RESULTS

Among intra-articular pathologic findings, anterior glenoid erosion (P = .043) and anterior labral periosteal sleeve avulsion lesions (P = .048) were found more frequently in the recurrent dislocation group. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (P = .675) and Rowe (P = .132) scores at the last follow-up. However, there was a significant difference in the failure rate after operation between the 2 groups (P = .039). In the first-time dislocation group, 1 patient had redislocation and none showed positive apprehension. In the recurrent dislocation group, 6 patients had redislocation and 10 patients had positive apprehension. Eight of 10 patients who showed positive apprehension had either anterior labral periosteal sleeve avulsion lesions or anterior glenoid erosion. The patients' satisfaction with daily activities was significantly better in the first-time dislocation group (93.0 ± 5.2) than in the recurrent dislocation group (82.7 ± 7.2; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary surgical treatment for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation provided satisfactory functional outcomes and improved quality of life. Primary arthroscopic stabilization can be considered one of the treatment options in patients younger than 30 years with first-time shoulder dislocation to prevent further intra-articular injuries that may contribute to recurrence.

Anterior Shoulder Instability in the Military Athlete

CONTEXT

Given its young, predominately male demographics and intense physical demands, the US military remains an ideal cohort for the study of anterior shoulder instability.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database was performed to identify all peer-reviewed publications from 1950 to 2016 from US military orthopaedic surgeons focusing on the management of anterior shoulder instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

RESULTS

The incidence of anterior shoulder instability events in the military occurs at an order of magnitude greater than in civilian populations, with rates as high as 3% per year among high-risk groups. With more than 90% risk of a Bankart lesion and high risk for instability recurrence, the military has advocated for early intervention of first-time shoulder instability while documenting up to 76% relative risk reduction versus nonoperative treatment. Preoperative evaluation with advanced radiographic imaging should be used to evaluate for attritional bone loss or "off-track" engaging defects to guide comprehensive surgical management. With complex recurrent shoulder instability and/or cases of clinically significant osseous lesions, potential options such as remplissage, anterior open capsular procedures, or bone augmentation procedures may be preferentially considered.

CONCLUSION

Careful risk stratification, clinical evaluation, and selective surgical management for at-risk military patients with anterior shoulder instability can optimize the recurrence risk and functional outcome in this population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair for Symptomatic Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness within the United States health care system of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with symptomatic large and massive rotator cuff tears without cuff-tear arthropathy.

METHODS

An expected-value decision analysis was constructed comparing the costs and outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for large and massive rotator cuff tears (and excluding cases of cuff-tear arthropathy). Comprehensive literature search provided input data to extrapolate costs and health utility states for these outcomes. The primary outcome assessed was that of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus rotator cuff repair.

RESULTS

For the base case, both arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and reverse total shoulder were superior to nonoperative care, with an ICER of $15,500/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $37,400/QALY, respectively. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was dominant over primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, with lower costs and slightly improved clinical outcomes. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was the preferred strategy as long as the lifetime progression rate from retear to end-stage cuff-tear arthropathy was less than 89%. However, when the model was modified to account for worse outcomes when reverse shoulder arthroplasty was performed after a failed attempted rotator cuff repair, primary reverse total shoulder had superior outcomes with an ICER of $90,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair-despite high rates of tendon retearing-for patients with large and massive rotator cuff tears may be a more cost-effective initial treatment strategy when compared with primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and when assuming no detrimental impact of previous surgery on outcomes after arthroplasty. Clinical judgment should still be prioritized when formulating treatment plans for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic decision analysis.

Revision Arthroscopic Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Recurrent Instability After Initial Repair Attempt: A Cost-Effectiveness Model

PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair.

METHODS

An expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature.

RESULTS

Compared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive ($13,672 v $15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Latarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, expected value decision analysis.

Ten-year follow-up of acute arthroscopic Bankart repair for initial anterior shoulder dislocation in young patients

INTRODUCTION

Early treatment of initial anterior glenohumeral dislocation in young patients is controversial and the interest of surgery, and notably arthroscopic stabilization, has not been demonstrated. A prospective study was therefore performed to assess (1) short-to-medium-term recurrence rate, (2) functional outcome, and (3) and medium-term osteoarthritis rate.

HYPOTHESIS

Early arthroscopic stabilization by anterior capsule-labrum reinsertion after initial anterior shoulder dislocation is associated with low recurrence rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients with initial anterior dislocation were included between June 2002 and February 2004. All patients underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair within 30 days of dislocation. Patients were followed up prospectively, with clinical (Duplay and Constant scores) and radiological assessment (osteoarthritis).

RESULTS

There were 5 recurrent dislocations (25%); 2 patients reported sensations of subluxation: i.e., 7 failures (35%). Mean Walch-Duplay score at 10 years was 88±1 (range, 30-100) and mean Rowe score 86±22 (range, 35-100). There was significant internal rotation deficit of one vertebral level between operated and contralateral shoulder (P < 0.005). At 10 years, 3 shoulders (15%) showed Samilson grade 1 centered glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSION

Early arthroscopic capsule-labrum reinsertion by the Bankart technique in the month following initial anterior dislocation of the shoulder in patients under 25 years of age provided a low recurrence rate (35%) compared to the literature, including dislocation (25%) and subluxation (10%). Functional outcome was satisfactory, and osteoarthritis rate was low (15% Samilson grade 1).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, prospective non-comparative study.

The Effect of Cartilage Injury After Arthroscopic Stabilization for Shoulder Instability

This study was undertaken to (1) determine the incidence of articular cartilage injuries in patients with instability of the glenohumeral joint, (2) determine whether recurrent dislocations increased the risk of articular damage, and (3) correlate these injuries with postoperative clinical outcomes. A cohort was identified of consecutive patients who underwent diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging and shoulder arthroscopy for glenohumeral instability with documented dislocation or subluxation between 1997 and 2006 at a single institution. Patients with moderate or severe osteoarthritis were excluded. Arthroscopic findings were recorded, including lesion location and Outerbridge grade. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) was used to assess outcome in 61 patients who were available for follow-up. Outcomes were compared between shoulders with and without articular lesions. A total of 87 shoulders (83 patients) met the inclusion criteria, with 69 (83%) men and 14 (17%) women. Mean age was 26.1 years (range, 18-64 years), and mean follow-up was 36 months (range, 33-39 months). Cartilage injuries were found in 56 shoulders (64%). Previously documented shoulder dislocation requiring closed reduction (P=.046) and the number of discrete dislocations (P=.032) were significant for glenoid injury. A greater number of dislocations was associated with higher-grade lesions of the glenohumeral joint (P<.001). Overall, mean ASES score was 89.6 (range, 37-100). In patients with an articular cartilage lesion, mean ASES score was 90.4 (range, 58-100) compared with 88.1 (range, 37-100) in those without this injury (P=.75). Although clinical outcomes were not significantly affected, further investigation is warranted to establish a relationship between these injuries and longer-term outcomes.

Glenoid version and inclination are risk factors for anterior shoulder dislocation

HYPOTHESIS

Although the contribution of the capsuloligamentous structures and dynamic muscle balance to shoulder stability has been well documented, the role of the osseous anatomy of the glenoid has not been thoroughly evaluated. This study investigated glenoid version and inclination in patients with a documented anterior shoulder dislocation and compared it with a control group. We hypothesized that patients with a prior anterior dislocation would have more anterior version and increased inferior inclination of the glenoid.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged younger than 40 years who underwent arthroscopic shoulder stabilization (study group) were compared with patients (control group) who had previously undergone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for a different shoulder condition. Version was measured on axial images, and inclination was measured on coronal images of a T2-weighted spin-echo scan. The MRIs of 128 study group patients (mean age, 24.5 ± 8.6 years) with a confirmed traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation were compared with the MRIs of 130 control group patients (mean age, 30.9 ± 7 years).

RESULTS

The mean version in the study group was -1.7° ± 4.5° (retroversion); the mean inclination was 1.6° ± 5.9° (inferior). The mean version in the control group was -5.8° ± 4.6° (retroversion); the mean inclination was -4.0° ± 6.8° (superior). The between-group differences were significant for version (P = .00001) and inclination (P = .00001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study strongly suggest that glenoid version and inclination are significantly increased in patients with established anterior shoulder instability compared with a matched control group.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in orthopaedic sports medicine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

As increasing attention is paid to the cost of health care delivered in the United States (US), cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are gaining in popularity. Reviews of the CEA literature have been performed in other areas of medicine, including some subspecialties within orthopaedics. Demonstrating the value of medical procedures is of utmost importance, yet very little is known about the overall quality and findings of CEAs in sports medicine.

PURPOSE

To identify and summarize CEA studies in orthopaedic sports medicine and to grade the quality of the available literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to compile findings and grade the methodological quality of US-based CEA studies in sports medicine. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument and the checklist by the US Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine were used to assess study quality. One-sided Fisher exact testing was performed to analyze the predictors of high-quality CEAs.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. Five studies examined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, 3 studies examined rotator cuff repair, 2 examined autologous chondrocyte implantation, 1 study examined hip arthroscopic surgery, and 1 study examined the operative management of shoulder dislocations. Based on study findings, operative intervention in sports medicine is highly cost-effective. The quality of published evidence is good, with a mean quality score of 81.8 (range, 70-94). There is a trend toward higher quality in more recent publications. No significant predictor of high-quality evidence was found.

CONCLUSION

The CEA literature in sports medicine is good; however, there is a paucity of studies, and the available evidence is focused on a few procedures. More work needs to be conducted to quantify the cost-effectiveness of different techniques and procedures within sports medicine. The QHES tool may be useful for the evaluation of future CEAs.

A cost analysis of internal fixation versus nonoperative treatment in adult midshaft clavicle fractures using multiple randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To determine whether the cost of nonoperative treatment, including those who require delayed operative treatment, is less than those receiving initial operative management.

METHODS

We identified 4 recent randomized controlled trials comparing operative and nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. A decision tree was then created from these data using reoperation for those treated with surgery or delayed operative treatment of those treated nonoperatively as end points. Actual costs estimated from 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates were applied and adjusted to better reflect private insurance rates. We then performed a 2-way sensitivity analysis to test the stability of our model.

RESULTS

Based on our decision tree, the expected costs for operative and nonoperative treatment were $14,763.21 and $3112.65, respectively, producing a cost savings of $11,650.56 with nonoperative treatment. After application of a 2-way sensitivity analysis, our model remains valid until delayed operative treatment for nonoperative patients approaches 95% and reoperation after initial operative management falls below 15%.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of a single payer, initial nonoperative treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures followed by delayed surgery as needed is less costly than initial operative fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Management of primary anterior shoulder dislocations using immobilization

Reference/Citation : Paterson WH, Throckmorton TW, Koester M, Azar FM, Kuhn JE. Position and duration of immobilization after primary anterior shoulder dislocation: a systemic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(18):2924-2933.

CLINICAL QUESTION

Does an optimum duration and position of immobilization after primary anterior shoulder dislocation exist for reducing recurrence rates?

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2009 without limitations. The search terms for all databases used were shoulder AND dislocation and shoulder AND immobilization.

STUDY SELECTION

Criteria used to include articles were (1) English language, (2) prospective level I or level II studies (according to Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery guidelines), (3) nonoperative management of initial anterior shoulder dislocation, (4) minimum follow-up of 1 year, and (5) rate of recurrent dislocation as a reported outcome.

DATA EXTRACTION

A standardized evaluation method was used to extract data to allow assessment of methods issues and statistical analysis to determine sources of bias. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after nonoperative management of anterior shoulder dislocation. Additional data extracted and used in subanalyses included duration and position of immobilization and age at the time of initial dislocation. Data were analyzed to determine associations among groups using 2-tailed Fisher exact tests. For pooled categorical data, relative risk of recurrent dislocation, 95% confidence intervals, and heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic and χ(2) tests were calculated for individual studies. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to combine studies and estimate overall relative risk of recurrent dislocation and 95% confidence intervals. The statistical difference between duration of immobilization and position was determined using z tests for overall effect. Pooled results were presented as forest plots.

MAIN RESULTS

In the initial search of the databases, the authors identified 2083 articles. A total of 9 studies met all of the criteria and were included in this review. In most of the studies, age was a risk factor for recurrence. Patients less than 30 years of age were more likely to sustain a recurrent dislocation than patients more than 30 years of age. In 5 studies (n = 1215), researchers found no difference in recurrence of shoulder dislocation when immobilized in internal rotation (IR) for less than 1 week (41%, 40 of 97) compared with more than 3 weeks (37%, 34 of 93) in patients less than 30 years of age (P = .52). Authors of 3 studies (n = 289) compared the effect of immobilization in IR versus external rotation (ER), and whereas they found no statistical difference, a trend appeared toward reduced recurrence rates in ER but not IR (P = .07). The rate of recurrent dislocation was 40% (25 of 63) in patients treated with IR sling immobilization and 25% (22 of 88) in patients immobilized in ER.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the investigators found that younger age (<30 years) was a predictor of recurrent dislocations, immobilization for more than 1 week did not improve recurrence rates, and an apparent trend existed toward decreased recurrence rates with ER rather than IR. According to the review and meta-analysis by Paterson et al, the level of evidence for recommendations regarding optimal duration and position of immobilization to reduce the risk of recurrent dislocation was therapeutic level II. This level of evidence was appropriate because the review included only prospective studies of level I or II and a minimum follow-up of 1 year.

Approach to the treatment of primary anterior shoulder dislocation: A review

Glenohumeral joint dislocation is common among younger, active patients. Anterior dislocation is the most common direction of instability following a traumatic event. Due to a high rate of recurrence following primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, an evidence-based approach is necessary to determine the best treatment regime for a patient presenting with this problem. A history, physical examination, and radiographic imaging can help guide treatment recommendations by determining the extent of soft tissue damage following dislocation. Controversies in the treatment of the first-time dislocator include the length and position of immobilization following dislocation, and the role of initial surgical stabilization. This article outlines the treatment options for the first-time glenohumeral dislocator, with an emphasis on the available evidence in the literature. Where applicable, the criteria known as the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy were used to summarize the strength of evidence available for recommendations.

Shoulder instability with concomitant bone loss in the athlete

Thorough evaluation of the athlete with persistent shoulder instability and appropriate use of imaging modalities, such as 3-dimensional computed tomography, can help quantify the severity of bony deficiency. Based on obtained imaging and examination, surgical and nonsurgical methods can be considered. In many situations both the humeral- and glenoid-sided bone loss must be addressed. Depending on the extent of bone loss, athletic demands, and surgeon experience, arthroscopic or open surgical options can provide shoulder stability and return athletes to their prior level of activity.

Interest of emergency arthroscopic stabilization in primary shoulder dislocation in young athletes

INTRODUCTION

The recurrence rate after primary shoulder dislocation in young subjects with high functional demand is close to 75%. The present study assessed the interest of emergency arthroscopic stabilization in this specific population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A non-randomized prospective study included 31 athletes under 30 years of age with primary anterior shoulder dislocation. Fifteen were offered emergency stabilization; after informed consent, 14 were enrolled in the "emergency stabilization" group. This was compared to a group matched for age, sport and lesion, managed 1 year previously by "non-operative" treatment (n=17), divided into 2 subgroups: "immobilization" and "secondary stabilization". Continuous prospective assessment of recurrence, return to sport and function (QuickDASH, QDsport, Duplay and Rowe scores) enabled comparison between the 3 groups.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 19 months for the "emergency stabilization" group and 25 months for the "non-operative" group. There were no failures in the "emergency stabilization" group, compared to a 77% rate in the "non-operative" group with onset at a mean 7.5 months and a mean 2.6 episodes of recurrence. Seven (54%) of the failures of non-operative treatment required secondary stabilization. Ninety-three percent of the "emergency stabilization" group, 44% of the "immobilization" group and 71% of the "secondary stabilization" group resumed sport at least at their pre-dislocation level. Mean Quick DASH was 1.46 in the "emergency stabilization" group, versus 15.28 the "immobilization" group (P<0.05) and 16.96 in the "secondary stabilization" group. Mean Duplay and Rowe scores were respectively 92.9 and 95 in the "emergency stabilization" group, versus 59.44 and 61.1 in the "immobilization" group (P<0.05) and 85 and 93.57 in the "secondary stabilization" group.

DISCUSSION

Emergency arthroscopic stabilization limits recurrence (Kirkley et al.), with better functional results than for secondary stabilization, lesion "freshness" providing a more favorable environment for labral and ligamentary healing. These encouraging results need confirmation over longer follow-up.

Shoulder instability with concomitant bone loss in the athlete

Thorough evaluation of the athlete with persistent shoulder instability and appropriate use of imaging modalities, such as 3-dimensional computed tomography, can help quantify the severity of bony deficiency. Based on obtained imaging and examination, surgical and nonsurgical methods can be considered. In many situations both the humeral- and glenoid-sided bone loss must be addressed. Depending on the extent of bone loss, athletic demands, and surgeon experience, arthroscopic or open surgical options can provide shoulder stability and return athletes to their prior level of activity.