Comparison of cost, surgical time, and clinical results between arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair with lateral cortical augmentation and arthroscopic transosseous equivalent suture bridge: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Arthroscopic transosseous equivalent suture bridge Arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair Cost comparison Lateral cortical augmentation Range of motion Shoulder Surgical time

Journal

Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association
ISSN: 1436-2023
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Sci
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9604934

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 02 11 2022
revised: 15 01 2023
accepted: 04 02 2023
entrez: 23 2 2023
pubmed: 24 2 2023
medline: 24 2 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To reduce the healthcare burden, the clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and the cost of the implants used have recently been focused upon. This study compared implant cost, surgical time, short-term clinical results, and cuff repair integrity 2 years postoperatively between arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair using lateral cortical augmentation (TOA) and arthroscopic transosseous-equivalent suture bridge (TOE). This study included 220 patients with rotator cuff repairs performed by a single surgeon between December 2013 and December 2018. Overall, 70 TOA and 68 TOE cases met the inclusion criteria. The same surgeon performed the procedures at two different hospitals, and the techniques differed between the facilities. A total of 42 TOA patients were matched with 42 TOE patients. The patients were matched using a propensity score analysis by gender, age, and cuff tear size. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years. Implant cost and surgical time were compared between the two methods. The range of motion, clinical outcomes, and visual analog scale were evaluated. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to examine cuff repair integrity 2 years postoperatively. The follow-up rate was 81% (112/138 patients). Implant cost was significantly lower with TOA ($1,396 vs. $2,165; p < 0.001) than with TOE. The average surgical time in the TOA method was significantly shorter than that in the TOE method (82 vs. 109 min; p = 0.001). At a minimum 2-year follow-up, the mean active elevation, abduction, and clinical outcomes improved with both methods, although no improvements in external and internal rotations were observed with either method. There were no significant differences in the postoperative variables and retear rate (TOA, 12%; TOE, 19%; p = 0.548) between the two methods. TOA and TOE achieved comparable clinical results; however, TOA was more cost-effective and had a shorter surgical time than TOE. Level Ⅲ, retrospective matched control study.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
To reduce the healthcare burden, the clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and the cost of the implants used have recently been focused upon. This study compared implant cost, surgical time, short-term clinical results, and cuff repair integrity 2 years postoperatively between arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair using lateral cortical augmentation (TOA) and arthroscopic transosseous-equivalent suture bridge (TOE).
METHODS METHODS
This study included 220 patients with rotator cuff repairs performed by a single surgeon between December 2013 and December 2018. Overall, 70 TOA and 68 TOE cases met the inclusion criteria. The same surgeon performed the procedures at two different hospitals, and the techniques differed between the facilities. A total of 42 TOA patients were matched with 42 TOE patients. The patients were matched using a propensity score analysis by gender, age, and cuff tear size. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years. Implant cost and surgical time were compared between the two methods. The range of motion, clinical outcomes, and visual analog scale were evaluated. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to examine cuff repair integrity 2 years postoperatively.
RESULTS RESULTS
The follow-up rate was 81% (112/138 patients). Implant cost was significantly lower with TOA ($1,396 vs. $2,165; p < 0.001) than with TOE. The average surgical time in the TOA method was significantly shorter than that in the TOE method (82 vs. 109 min; p = 0.001). At a minimum 2-year follow-up, the mean active elevation, abduction, and clinical outcomes improved with both methods, although no improvements in external and internal rotations were observed with either method. There were no significant differences in the postoperative variables and retear rate (TOA, 12%; TOE, 19%; p = 0.548) between the two methods.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
TOA and TOE achieved comparable clinical results; however, TOA was more cost-effective and had a shorter surgical time than TOE.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE METHODS
Level Ⅲ, retrospective matched control study.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36822948
pii: S0949-2658(23)00022-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2023.02.003
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest None.

Auteurs

Yoshihiro Hirakawa (Y)

Ishikiriseiki Hospital, 18-28, Yayoi-town, Higashi-Osaka City 579-8026, Japan.

Tomoya Manaka (T)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3, Asahimachi, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8585, Japan. Electronic address: manakaT@omu.ac.jp.

Yoichi Ito (Y)

Osaka Shoulder Center, Ito Clinic, 1-10-12, Ueda, Matsubara-city, Osaka, 580-0016 Japan.

Katsumasa Nakazawa (K)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3, Asahimachi, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.

Ryosuke Iio (R)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3, Asahimachi, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.

Naoya Kubota (N)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3, Asahimachi, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.

Hiroaki Nakamura (H)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3, Asahimachi, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.

Classifications MeSH