Search

Background: In patients with a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus, recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown no treatment benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) over conservative treatment or placebo surgery. Yet, advocates of APM still argue that APM is cost effective. Giving advocates of APM their due, we note that there is evidence from the treatment of other musculoskeletal complaints to suggest that a treatment may prove cost effective even in the absence of improvements in efficacy outcomes, as it may lead to other benefits, such as diminished productivity loss and reduced costs, and so the question of cost effectiveness needs to be answered for APM., Questions/purposes: (1) Does APM result in lower postoperative costs compared with placebo surgery? (2) Is APM cost-effective compared with placebo surgery?, Methods: One hundred forty-six adults aged 35 to 65 years with knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria were randomized to APM (n = 70) or placebo surgery (n = 76). In the APM and placebo surgery groups, mean age was 52 ± 7 years and 52 ± 7 years, and 60% (42 of 70) and 62% (47 of 76) of participants were men, respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics. In both groups, a standard diagnostic arthroscopy was first performed. Thereafter, in the APM group, the torn meniscus was trimmed to solid meniscus tissue, whereas in the placebo surgery group, APM was carefully mimicked but no resection of meniscal tissue was performed; as such, surgical costs were the same in both arms and were not included in the analyses. All patients received identical postoperative care including a graduated home-based exercise program. At the 2-year follow-up, two patients were lost to follow-up, both in the placebo surgery group. Cost effectiveness over the 2-year trial period was computed as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), using both the societal (primary) and healthcare system (secondary) perspectives. To be able to consider APM cost effective, the CEA analysis should yield a positive INMB value. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to assess uncertainty. Several one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed., Results: APM did not deliver lower postoperative costs, nor did it convincingly improve quality of life scores when compared with placebo surgery. From a societal perspective, APM was associated with € 971 (95% CI -2013 to 4017) higher costs and 0.015 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.041) improved QALYs over 2-year follow-up compared with placebo surgery. Both differences were statistically inconclusive (a wide 95% CI that crossed the line of no difference). Using the conventional willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 35,000 per QALY, APM resulted in a negative INMB of € -460 (95% CI -3757 to 2698). In our analysis, APM would result in a positive INMB only when the WTP threshold rises to about € 65,000 per QALY. The wide 95% CIs suggests uncertain cost effectiveness irrespective of chosen WTP threshold., Conclusion: The results of this study lend further support to clinical practice guidelines recommending against the use of APM in patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. Given the robustness of existing evidence demonstrating no benefit or cost effectiveness of APM over nonsurgical treatment or placebo surgery, future research is unlikely to alter this conclusion.Level of Evidence Level III, economic analysis., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Several randomized clinical trials on the treatment of meniscal tears have shown that surgery is not superior to nonoperative treatment in middle-aged and older adults. However, clinical practice has not changed consistently worldwide in response to this evidence, and arthroscopic meniscectomy remains one of the most frequently performed operations., Questions/purposes: (1) How has the use of arthroscopic meniscectomy changed in Spain between 2003 and 2018, particularly in middle-aged (35 to 59 years) and older patients (over 60 years) relative to younger patients? (2) How have surgical volumes changed across different healthcare areas in the same health system? (3) How has the proportion of outpatient versus inpatient arthroscopic procedures changed over time?, Methods: Data on all 420,228 arthroscopic meniscectomies performed in Spain between 2003 and 2018 were obtained through the Atlas of Variations in Medical Practice project (these years were chosen because data in that atlas for 2002 and 2019 were incomplete). This database has been promoted by the Spanish Health Ministry since 2002, and it collects basic information on all admissions to public and public-private partnership hospitals. The Spanish population of 2003 was used to calculate age- and sex-standardized rates of interventions per 10,000 inhabitants and year. To assess the change in standardized rates among the age groups over the study period, a linear regression analysis was used. Standard small-area variation statistics were used to analyze variation among healthcare areas. Data on outpatient surgery and length of stay for inpatient procedures were also included., Results: The standardized rate of arthroscopic meniscectomy in Spain in 2003 was 4.8 procedures per 10,000 population (95% CI 3.9 to 5.6), while in 2018, there were 6.3 procedures per 10,000 population (95% CI 5.4 to 7.3), which represents an increase of 33%. Standardized rates increased slightly in the age group < 35 years (0.06 interventions per 10,000 inhabitants per year [95% CI 0.05 to 0.08]), whereas they increased more markedly in the age groups of 35 to 59 years (0.14 interventions per 10,000 inhabitants per year [95% CI 0.11 to 0.17]) and in those 60 years and older (0.13 interventions per 10,000 inhabitants per year [95% CI 0.09 to 0.17]). The variability among healthcare areas in the meniscectomy rate progressively decreased from 2003 to 2018. In 2003, 32% (6544 of 20,384) of knee arthroscopies were performed on an outpatient basis, while in 2018, these accounted for 67% (19,573 of 29,430)., Conclusion: We observed a progressive increase in arthroscopic meniscectomies in Spain; this procedure was more prevalent in older patients presumed to have degenerative pathologic findings. This increase occurred despite increasing high-level evidence of a lack of the additional benefit of meniscectomy over other less-invasive treatments in middle-aged and older people. Our study highlights the need for action in health systems with the use of financial, regulatory, or incentive strategies to reduce the use of low-value procedures, as well as interventions to disseminate the available evidence to clinicians and patients. Research is needed to identify the barriers that are preventing the reversal of interventions that high-quality evidence shows are ineffective., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Partial meniscectomy is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures for a meniscus tear. Decreased contact area and increased contact pressure have been seen in partial meniscectomies from treatment of various types of meniscal tears; however, the biomechanical effect of a horizontal cleavage tear in the lateral meniscus and subsequent treatment are unknown., Questions/purposes: This study asked whether a horizontal cleavage tear of the lateral meniscus, resecting the inferior leaf, and further resecting the superior leaf would (1) decrease contact area and (2) increase peak contact pressure., Methods: Eleven fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees were evaluated under five conditions of intact meniscus, horizontal cleavage tear, inferior leaf resection, and resection of the inferior and superior leaves of the lateral meniscus. Tibiofemoral contact area and pressure were measured at 0° and 60° knee flexion under an 800-N load, normalized to that at the intact condition of the corresponding knee flexion, and compared across the five previously described conditions., Results: At 0° knee flexion, normalized contact area with inferior leaf resection (65.4% ± 14.1%) was smaller than that at the intact condition (100% ± 0.0%, p < 0.001); smaller than horizontal cleavage tear (94.1% ± 5.8%, p = 0.001) contact area; and smaller than repaired horizontal tear (92.8% ± 8.2%, p = 0.001) contact area. Normalized contact area with further superior leaf resection (50.5% ± 7.3%) was smaller than that at the intact condition (100% ± 0.0%, p < 0.001); smaller than horizontal cleavage tear (94.1% ± 5.8%, p < 0.001) contact area; and smaller than repaired horizontal tear (92.8% ± 8.2%, p < 0.001) contact area. At 60° flexion, normalized contact area with inferior leaf resection (76.1% ± 14.8%) was smaller than that at the intact condition (100% ± 0.0%, p = 0.004); smaller than horizontal cleavage tear (101.8% ± 7.2%, p = 0.006) contact area; and smaller than repaired horizontal tear (104.0% ± 13.3%, p < 0.001) contact area. Normalized contact area with further superior leaf resection (52.1% ± 16.7%) was smaller than that at the intact condition (100% ± 0.0%, p < 0.001); smaller than horizontal cleavage tear (101.8% ± 7.2%, p < 0.001) contact area; and smaller than repaired horizontal tear (104.0% ± 13.3%, p < 0.001) contact area. At 60° flexion, contact area with both leaf resection (52.1% ± 16.7%) was smaller than that with inferior leaf resection (76.1% ± 14.8%, p = 0.039). At 0° knee flexion, peak pressure increased to 127.0% ± 22.1% with inferior leaf resection (p = 0.026) and to 138.6% ± 24.3% with further superior leaf resection (p = 0.002) compared with that at the intact condition (100% ± 0.0%). At 60° flexion, compared with that at the intact condition (100% ± 0.0%), peak pressure increased to 139% ± 33.6% with inferior leaf resection (p = 0.035) and to 155.5% ± 34.7% (p = 0.004) with further superior leaf resection., Conclusions: Resection of the inferior leaf or both leaves of the lateral meniscus after a horizontal cleavage tear resulted in decreased contact area and increased peak contact pressure at 0° and 60° knee flexion., Clinical Relevance: In vitro resection of one or both leaves of a horizontal cleavage tear of the lateral meniscus causes increases in peak pressure, consistent with other types of partial meniscectomies associated in a clinical setting with excessive loading and damage to knee cartilage. Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing partial leaf meniscectomy could confirm this theory. Avoidance of resection may be relatively beneficial for long-term function. The findings of this in vitro study lend biomechanical support for nonoperative management.