Cost
effectiveness analysis of early reconstruction versus rehabilitation and the
lead reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament tears
effectiveness analysis of early reconstruction versus rehabilitation and the
lead reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament tears
Mather RC, Hettrich
CM, Dunn WR, Cole BJ, Bach BR, Hustun LJ, Reinke EK and Spindler KP. Am J
Sports Med. 2014, [Epub Ahead of Print].
CM, Dunn WR, Cole BJ, Bach BR, Hustun LJ, Reinke EK and Spindler KP. Am J
Sports Med. 2014, [Epub Ahead of Print].
Take Home Message: An early ACL reconstruction may lead
to lower cost than individuals with an optional delayed ACL reconstruction.
While this may help clinicians counsel patients, caution should be exercised as
little is understood about long-term effects of each option and these results
represent societal cost and may not always be applicable to a specific patient.
to lower cost than individuals with an optional delayed ACL reconstruction.
While this may help clinicians counsel patients, caution should be exercised as
little is understood about long-term effects of each option and these results
represent societal cost and may not always be applicable to a specific patient.
Although both early anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR)
and rehabilitation with the option of delayed ACLR are legitimate treatment
options for an ACL injury, only a few studies have directly compared the two
treatment strategies. However, no one has done a direct comparison of the
cost-effectiveness of each treatment option. A better understanding of the
financial impact of these two options may help clinicians identify a preferred
treatment strategy. Therefore, Mather and colleagues completed an economic
analysis to compare cost-effectiveness of early ACLR with rehabilitation plus
optional delayed ACLR. Researchers built a decision model using records from
the KANON study and MOON database (928 individuals with an
ACL rupture). All patients in the early ACLR group were assumed to have stable
knees at the end of 1 year. Patients in the delayed reconstruction group could
undergo other surgeries without ACLR for the treatment of meniscus injuries.
The quality of life was measured using the Short Form-36. Cost was estimated by
using the average Medicare reimbursement for knee surgeries in 2012. Overall, undergoing
an early ACLR was shown to cost $1572 less than the cost of rehabilitation with
the potential of ACLR later. These findings were primarily driven by the rate
of knee instability among patients. The authors estimated that early ACLR was
the “preferred cost-effective strategy for 78% of patients, while
rehabilitation plus optional delayed ACLR was preferred for 22% of patients.
and rehabilitation with the option of delayed ACLR are legitimate treatment
options for an ACL injury, only a few studies have directly compared the two
treatment strategies. However, no one has done a direct comparison of the
cost-effectiveness of each treatment option. A better understanding of the
financial impact of these two options may help clinicians identify a preferred
treatment strategy. Therefore, Mather and colleagues completed an economic
analysis to compare cost-effectiveness of early ACLR with rehabilitation plus
optional delayed ACLR. Researchers built a decision model using records from
the KANON study and MOON database (928 individuals with an
ACL rupture). All patients in the early ACLR group were assumed to have stable
knees at the end of 1 year. Patients in the delayed reconstruction group could
undergo other surgeries without ACLR for the treatment of meniscus injuries.
The quality of life was measured using the Short Form-36. Cost was estimated by
using the average Medicare reimbursement for knee surgeries in 2012. Overall, undergoing
an early ACLR was shown to cost $1572 less than the cost of rehabilitation with
the potential of ACLR later. These findings were primarily driven by the rate
of knee instability among patients. The authors estimated that early ACLR was
the “preferred cost-effective strategy for 78% of patients, while
rehabilitation plus optional delayed ACLR was preferred for 22% of patients.
The results of this study should be of interest to clinicians because
it compares the two treatment strategies not based on patient-reported outcomes
but by societal costs of these treatment options. Perhaps the decreased cost associated
with an early ACLR could lead to early reconstruction continuing to remain the
standard of care; however, these results must be interpreted with caution.
While early ACLR may lead to lower overall cost this study does not address the
long-term health of the joint. The current study focused on the first 6 years
after an injury and did not account for the long-term health of the patients. This
is undoubtedly something that clinicians must have a better understanding of
prior to identifying 1 treatment option as the standard. Therefore, more
research must be completed to identify any detrimental long-term effects after
either treatment strategy. Furthermore, we must not lose sight of the patient
in front of us. If we can find strategies to identify individuals who may be
successful without an early ACLR then this could improve the cost saving aspect
of an optional delayed ACLR. In the meantime, clinicians should still counsel
patients with ACL ruptures based on their preinjury level of activity,
anticipated activity level post-injury, as well as their ability to stabilize
the knee joint when ACL-deficient.
it compares the two treatment strategies not based on patient-reported outcomes
but by societal costs of these treatment options. Perhaps the decreased cost associated
with an early ACLR could lead to early reconstruction continuing to remain the
standard of care; however, these results must be interpreted with caution.
While early ACLR may lead to lower overall cost this study does not address the
long-term health of the joint. The current study focused on the first 6 years
after an injury and did not account for the long-term health of the patients. This
is undoubtedly something that clinicians must have a better understanding of
prior to identifying 1 treatment option as the standard. Therefore, more
research must be completed to identify any detrimental long-term effects after
either treatment strategy. Furthermore, we must not lose sight of the patient
in front of us. If we can find strategies to identify individuals who may be
successful without an early ACLR then this could improve the cost saving aspect
of an optional delayed ACLR. In the meantime, clinicians should still counsel
patients with ACL ruptures based on their preinjury level of activity,
anticipated activity level post-injury, as well as their ability to stabilize
the knee joint when ACL-deficient.
Questions for Discussion: What factors do you use to
counsel patients who have sustained an ACL rupture? Have you experienced
patients who worried about prohibitive cost of undergoing ACLR?
counsel patients who have sustained an ACL rupture? Have you experienced
patients who worried about prohibitive cost of undergoing ACLR?
Written by: Kyle Harris
Reviewed by: Jeffrey Driban
Related Posts:
Mather, R., Hettrich, C., Dunn, W., Cole, B., Bach, B., Huston, L., Reinke, E., Spindler, K., Koenig, L., Amendola, A., Andrish, J., Kaeding, C., Marx, R., McCarty, E., Parker, R., & Wright, R. (2014). Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Early Reconstruction Versus Rehabilitation and Delayed Reconstruction for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears The American Journal of Sports Medicine DOI: 10.1177/0363546514530866
Dont have access to the paper, but did they take into account adverse reaction from surgery, DVT, infection, medication effects etc? would drive up cost and generally not a risk with conservative care