Is Arthroscopic Latarjet a Cost-Effective Procedure? A Decision Analysis

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

The Rothman Institute of Orthopaedics at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Abstract

Objectives: Arthroscopic Latarjet for glenohumeral stabilization has emerged as an alternative to the 
open approach; however, the evidence to date has questioned if this technique delivers improved 
outcomes. This analysis provides an assessment of the cost and utility associated with arthroscopic 
versus open Latarjet.
Methods: The cost-effectiveness of Latarjet stabilization was modeled over a ten-year period. Institutional cases 
were reviewed for equipment utilization. Cost data from ambulatory surgical centers was obtained for each piece of 
equipment used intraoperatively. Based upon prior analyses, the operating room cost was assigned a value of 
$36.14 per minute. To determine effectiveness, a utility score was derived based upon prior analysis of shoulder 
stabilization using the EuroQol (EQ) 5D. For reoperations, a utility score of 0.01 was assigned for a single year for 
revision surgeries for instability and 0.5 for minor procedures. Probability of surgical outcomes and operative time 
for arthroscopic and open Latarjet were taken from prior studies comparing outcomes of these procedures. Decisiontree analysis utilizing these values was performed.
Results: Based upon equipment and operating room costs, arthroscopic Latarjet was found to cost $2,796.87 more 
than the equivalent open procedure. Analysis of the utility of these procedures were 1.330 and 1.338 quality adjusted 
life years obtained over the modeled period for arthroscopic versus open Latarjet, respectively. For arthroscopic 
Latarjet to be cost-equivalent to open Latarjet, surgical time would need to be reduced to 41.5 minutes or the surgical 
equipment would need to be provided at no expense, while maintaining the same success rates.
Conclusion: With nearly identical utility scores favoring open surgery, the added cost associated with arthroscopic 
Latarjet cannot be supported with available cost and utility data. To provide value, additional benefits such as 
decreased post-operative narcotic utilization, decreased blood loss, or lower complications of the arthroscopic 
approach must be demonstrated.
 Level of evidence: IV

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Degen RM, Camp CL, Werner BC, Dines DM, Dines JS. Trends in Bone-Block Augmentation among Recently Trained Orthopaedic Surgeons Treating Anterior Shoulder Instability. J Bone Jt Surg. 2016; 98(13):e56. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01478.
  2. Frank RM, Gregory B, O’Brien M, et al. Ninety-day complications following the Latarjet procedure. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(1):88-94. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.06.022.
  3. Greis PE, Scuderi MG, Mohr A, Bachus KN, Burks RT. Glenohumeral articular contact areas and pressures following labral and osseous injury to the anteroinferior quadrant of the glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11(5):442-451. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.124526.
  4. Itoi E, Lee SB, Berglund LJ, Berge LL, An KN. The effect of a glenoid defect on anteroinferior stability of the shoulder after Bankart repair: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82(1):35-46. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200001000-00005.
  5. Shaha JS, Cook JB, Song DJ, et al. Redefining “Critical” Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability: Functional Outcomes Worsen With “Subcritical” Bone Loss. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43(7):1719-1725. doi: 10.1177/0363546515578250.
  6. Shin SJ, Kim RG, Jeon YS, Kwon TH. Critical Value of Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss That Leads to Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair. Am J Sports

Med. 2017; 45(9):1975-1981. doi:10.1177/0363546517697963.

  1. Yamamoto N, Muraki T, An KN, et al. The stabilizing mechanism of the Latarjet procedure: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(15):1390-1397. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00777.
  2. Balg F, Boileau P. The instability severity index score: a simple pre-operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilisation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89-B (11):1470-1477. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B11.18962.
  3. Latarjet M. Treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Lyon Chir. 1954; 49(8):994-997.
  4. Lafosse L, Lejeune E, Bouchard A, Kakuda C, Gobezie R, Kochhar T. The Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure for the Treatment of Anterior Shoulder Instability. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2007; 23(11):1242.e1-1242.e5. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.06.008.
  5. Lafosse L, Boyle S. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19(2):2-12. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.12.010.
  6. Horner NS, Moroz PA, Bhullar R, et al. open versus arthroscopic Latarjet procedures for the treatment of shoulder instability: a systematic review of comparative studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1):255. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2188-2.
  7. Hurley ET, Lim Fat D, Farrington SK, Mullett H. Open Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47(5):1248-1253. doi: 10.1177/0363546518759540.
  8. Castricini R, De Benedetto M, Orlando N, Rocchi M, Zini R, Pirani P. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure: analysis of the learning curve. Musculoskelet Surg. 2013; 97(S1):93-98. doi: 10.1007/s12306-013-0262-3.
  9. Cunningham G, Benchouk S, Kherad O, Lädermann A. Comparison of arthroscopic and open Latarjet with a learning curve analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24(2):540-545. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3910-3.
  10. Leuzinger J, Brzoska R, Métais P, et al. Learning Curves in the Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure: A Multicenter Analysis of the First 25 Cases of 5 International Surgeons. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2019; 35(8):2304-2311. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.03.035.
  11. Zhu Y, Jiang C, Song G. Arthroscopic Versus Open Latarjet in the Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Dislocation with Marked Glenoid Bone Loss: A Prospective Comparative Study. Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45(7):1645-1653. doi: 10.1177/0363546517693845.
  12. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Available at: https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act/#:~:text=The%20law%20provides%20numerous%20rights,more%20people%20with%20low%20incomes. Accessed March 23, 2010.
  13. Randelli P, Fossati C, Stoppani C, Evola FR, De Girolamo L. Open Latarjet versus arthroscopic Latarjet: clinical results and cost analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2016; 24(2):526-532. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3978-9.
  14. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Understanding Costs of Care in the Operating Room. JAMA Surg. 2018; 153(4):e176233. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233.
  15. Min K, Fedorka C, Solberg MJ, Shaha SH, Higgins LD. The cost-effectiveness of the arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(6):S2-S9. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.11.013.
  16. Makhni EC, Lamba N, Swart E, et al. Revision Arthroscopic Repair versus Latarjet Procedure in Patients with Recurrent Instability after Initial Repair Attempt: A Cost-Effectiveness Model. Arthroscopy. 2016; 32(9):1764-1770. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.062.
  17. Mizuno N, Denard PJ, Raiss P, Melis B, Walch G. Long-term results of the Latarjet procedure for anterior instability of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(11):1691-1699. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.015.
  18. Bonnevialle N, Thélu CE, Bouju Y, et al. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with double-button fixation: short-term complications and learning curve analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(6):e189-e195. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.007.
  19. Valsamis EM, Kany J, Bonnevialle N, et al. The arthroscopic Latarjet: a multisurgeon learning curve analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020; 29(4):681-688. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.10.022.
  20. Colvin AC, Egorova N, Harrison AK, Moskowitz A, Flatow EL. National Trends in Rotator Cuff Repair: J Bone Jt Surg-Am Vol. 2012;94(3):227-233. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00739.

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 12, Issue 1
January 2024
Pages 12-18

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 August 2023
  • Revise Date: 07 November 2023
  • Accept Date: 30 October 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics