Markov Models for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Knee Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55576/job.v4i1.48Keywords:
Markov model, knee arthroscopy, cost-effectiveness, QALYAbstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to review the existing literature on the cost-effectiveness of knee arthroscopy procedures with the objective of assessing the variability in assumptions, methodologies and results across different Markov analyses.
DESIGN: Systematic review of study designs involving a Markov model or probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis specific to knee arthroscopy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures comprised estimates of cost-effectiveness, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparisons and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ratios.
RESULTS: The initial search identified 474 studies, with 7 articles meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and review. The included studies exhibited heterogeneity in participant demographic, design, interventions, and outcomes. The majority of studies reported superior cost-effectiveness in favor of meniscus repair and against meniscectomy. Additional analyses included evidence favoring diagnostic needle arthroscopy to MRI; early drilling of osteochondral defects to nonoperative management; and early intervention to delayed treatment.
CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated substantial variability in estimates of cost-effectiveness, methodologies, and outcomes within the literature on knee arthroscopy procedures. Despite the heterogeneity, several trends emerged indicating favorable cost-effectiveness for several arthroscopic procedures for knee pathology. However, disparities in methodology and the lack of standardized reporting guidelines pose limitations to generalization of these interpretations. Future research should focus on standardized methodologies and reporting, as well as long-term clinical and economical studies. This review underscores the need for larger data sets for assumptions made in Markov models used in assessing the cost-effectiveness of knee arthroscopy procedures.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; systematic review of level IV or higher evidence
References
Hamid KS, Nwachukwu BU, Bozic KJ. Decisions and incisions: a value-driven practice framework for academic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(10):e50. doi:10.2106/jbjs.16.00818
Thomas N, Sandler A, Fernandez I, et al. Orthopaedic business is the focus of 3.4% of articles in top general orthopaedic journals. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(1):10-18. doi:10.55576/job.v2i1.11.
Dunn J, Scanaliato J, Green C, et al. Reimbursement for complex carpal trauma. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(1):19-23. doi:10.55576/job.v2i1.12
Eckhoff M, Tadlock J. Medicaid reimbursement of pediatric orthopaedic surgery is 22% lower than Medicare and highly variable across states. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(1):1-3. doi:10.55576/job.v2i1.10
Green C, Polmear M, Dunn J, et al. Care of low-income patients with sports injuries disincentivized by government reimbursement. J Ortho Business. 2021;1(1):4-7. doi:10.55576/job.v1i1.3
Hayward D, Hawkes C, Perry C, et al. Potential patient bias by insurance coverage on CG-CAHPS surveys: impact on physician reimbursement. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(3):1-4. doi:10.55576/job.v2i3.18
Cognetti D, Handcox J, Anderson K, et al. The economic process behind surgical innovation: changes in coding and compensation correlate with increased minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(4):5-9. doi:10.55576/job.v2i4.24
Wells M, Klahs K, Polmear M, et al. Free-vascularized bone grafts for scaphoid non-unions viable as outpatient procedure? No 30-day complications in NSQIP data. J Ortho Business. 2021;1(2):5-8. doi:10.55576/job.v1i2.6
Perry C, Rossettie S, Hayward D, et al. Medical management of common comorbidities in elderly patients with proximal femur fractures: review and evidence based note template. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(2):19-36. doi:10.55576/job.v2i2.17
Gavalas A, Perry C, Tihista M, et al. Geriatric distal femur fracture management protocols: a review and evidence-based template. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(4):14-23. doi:10.55576/job.v2i4.25
Simson JE, Vazquez E, Dunn JC, et al. Level II trauma centers have highest charges for hip fractures. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(1):4-6. doi:10.55576/job.v2i1.5
Flinn D, Gurnea T, Althausen P. The financial impact of the surgical treatment of infection on the practice of orthopedic trauma. J Ortho Business. 2021;1(1):1-3. doi:10.55576/job.v1i1.4
Johnson C, Folsom A, Powlan F, et al. Business articles in shoulder and elbow surgery support outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty and identify factors impacting surgery cost: review of shoulder and elbow related business publications. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(3):18-31. doi:10.55576/job.v2i3.20
Rajan PV, Qudsi RA, Wolf LL, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses in orthopaedic surgery: raising the bar. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(13):e71. doi:10.2106/jbjs.17.00509
Childs B, Breslin M, Swetz A, et al. Use, refine, repeat: implementation of a mobile application for patient education. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(3):12-17. doi:10.55576/job.v2i3.14
Nicholson T, Polmear M, VanTienderen R, et al. Cost of orthopaedic injuries sustained during unsanctioned crossings of the U.S.-Mexico border treated at a single level 1 trauma center. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(3):5-11. doi:10.55576/job.v2i3.19
Galton F. Vox populi (the wisdom of crowds). Nature. 1907;75:450-451. doi:10.1038/075450a0
Smith T, Evans J, Moriel K, et al. The cost of OR time is $46.04 per minute. J Ortho Business. 2022;2(4):10-13. doi:10.55576/job.v2i4.23
Basharin GP, Langville AN, Naumov VA. The life and work of A.A. Markov. Linear Algebra Appl. 2004;386:3-26. doi:10.1016/j.laa.2003.12.041
Komorowski M, Raffa J. Markov models and cost effectiveness analysis: applications in medical research. In: Data MIT Critical, ed. Secondary Analysis of Electronic Health Records [Internet]. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2016:Chapter 24. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-43742-2_24
Harzing AW. Publish or Perish. Version 8.19. 2007. Available from: https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
Amin N, McIntyre L, Carter T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of needle arthroscopy versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of meniscal tears of the knee. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(2):554-562.e13. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.09.030
Faucett SC, Geisler BP, Chahla J, et al. Meniscus root repair vs meniscectomy or nonoperative management to prevent knee osteoarthritis after medial meniscus root tears: clinical and economic effectiveness. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(3):762-769. doi:10.1177/0363546518755754
LeBrun DG, DeFrancesco CJ, Fabricant PD, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of nonoperative management versus early drilling for stable osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the knee in skeletally immature patients. Arthroscopy. 2021;37(2):624-634.e2. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2020.09.020
Lester JD, Gorbaty JD, Odum SM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of meniscal repair versus partial meniscectomy in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(9):2614-2620. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.06.046
Losina E, Dervan EE, Paltiel AD, et al. Defining the value of future research to identify the preferred treatment of meniscal tear in the presence of knee osteoarthritis. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130256. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130256
Rogers M, Dart S, Odum S, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of isolated meniscal repair versus partial meniscectomy for red-red zone, vertical meniscal tears in the young adult. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(12):3280-3286. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.06.026
Rongen JJ, Govers TM, Buma P, et al. Arthroscopic meniscectomy for degenerative meniscal tears reduces knee pain but is not cost-effective in a routine health care setting: a multi-center longitudinal observational study using data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018;26(2):184-194. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2017.02.805
Blatnik P, Tušak M, Bojnec Š, et al. Economic evaluation of knee arthroscopy treatment in a general hospital. Med Glas (Zenica). 2017;14(1):33-40. doi:10.17392/887-16
Derrett S, Stokes EA, James M, et al. Cost and health status analysis after autologous chondrocyte implantation and mosaicplasty: a retrospective comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(3):359-367. doi:10.1017/s0266462305050476
Hutt JR, Craik J, Phadnis J, et al. Arthroscopy for mechanical symptoms in osteoarthritis: a cost-effective procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(12):3545-3549. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3220-1
Lubowitz JH, Appleby D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the most common orthopaedic surgery procedures: knee arthroscopy and knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(10):1317-1322. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.06.001
Marsh JD, Birmingham TB, Giffin JR, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic surgery compared with non-operative management for osteoarthritis of the knee. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009949. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009949
van de Graaf VA, van Dongen JM, Willigenburg NW, et al. How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(9):538-545. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-100065
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Orthopaedic Business
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
