A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Intraoperative Costs in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair, Open Latarjet, and Distal Tibial Allograft. Issue 11 (21st November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Uffmann, William J.; Christensen, Garrett V.; Yoo, Minkyoung; Nelson, Richard E.; Greis, Patrick E.; Burks, Robert T.; Tashjian, Robert Z.; Chalmers, Peter N.
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 7:Issue 11(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-11-21
• Subjects: shoulder instability -- arthroscopic Bankart -- Latarjet -- distal tibial allograft -- cost; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967119882001
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

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.