Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 1 of 1
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_20 | Pages 78 - 78
1 Nov 2016
Huang A Thavorn K Katwyk S Lapner P
Full Access

The optimal approach to arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff is controversial, and both single row and double row fixation methods are commonly used. Which construct yields the highest efficacy is not clear. Given the current era of increasing costs in which health care delivery models are aiming for improved efficiencies and optimal outcomes, a cost-effectiveness study was performed to inform the decision making process of the utilisation of single versus double row repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single row versus double row constructs in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

A cost-utility analysis was performed. Health resource use and outcome data were obtained from a previous prospective randomised controlled trial in which 90 patients were randomised to two treatment arms, single row rotator cuff repair (n=48) and double row (n=42). The patients were followed over a two-year span from the time of initial surgery. Unit cost data were captured using case costs collected from the hospital database and the Ontario Schedule of Benefits. Utility values were derived from published literature. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in cost between the two types of rotator cuff fixation divided by the difference in quality adjusted life years (QALY), was determined.

Double row fixation was more costly ($2,279.94 versus $1,587.37) but was more effective than the single row method (QALY of 4.073 versus 4.055). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be $38,504.92 per QALY for double row fixation relative to single row. This is well below the commonly used willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm) had a lower ICER, suggesting that double-row fixation may be more cost-effective in more severe tears.

Double row rotator cuff fixation is a cost-effective option compared to single row rotator cuff repair with an ICER of $38,504.92/QALY, well within the accepted willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Furthermore, the ICER between single and double row fixation improved with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm), suggesting an additional benefit of a double row construct in those cases.