Poster 27: Arthroscopic Labral Repair Results in Lower Recurrence Rates and Is Highly Cost-Effective When Compared to Nonoperative Management for Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocations: A Contemporary Systematic Review and Decision-Analytic Markov Model-Based Analys
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: Value based decision making regarding nonoperative management vs. early surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability (ASI) events remains controversial. Thus, the purpose of this study was to perform 1) a systematic review of the current literature and 2) a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing an initial trial of nonoperative management to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for first-time ASI. Methods: A Markov Chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model (Figure 1) was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1,000 simulated patients (average age » 20 years old) with first-time ASI undergoing nonoperative management vs. ABR. Utility values, recurrence rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at our institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjust life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilities of recurrence as well as the utility of each treatment strategy were obtained from the literature search as described above. Probabilities were pooled across studies to obtain a weighted average for both nonoperative treatment and ABR. Similarly, studies reporting scores on the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scale were utilized to approximate shoulder-related quality of life after each treatment strategy and outcome. Costs for each treatment strategy and transition state in the model were considered from the payer perspective (commercial or government) and obtained from institutional data at a large, academic medical center. Results: The Markov model with Monte Carlo microsimulation demonstrated average (± standard deviation) costs for nonoperative management and ABR of $38,649 ± 10,521 and $43,052 ± 9,352, respectively. Total QALYS acquired over the 10-year time horizon were 7.7 ± 0.4 and 8.4 ± 0.5 for nonoperative management and ABR, respectively. The ICER comparing ABR to nonoperative management was found to be just $5,725/QALY, which falls substantially below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (Figure 2). The mean number of recurrences were 2.6 ± 0.3 and 1.2 ± 0.2 for patients initially assigned to the nonoperative and ABR treatment groups, respectively. Out of 1,000 samples run over 1,000 trials, ABR was the optimal strategy in 98.7% of cases, with nonoperative management the optimal strategy in 1.3% of cases (Figure 3). Conclusions: The primary findings of this systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis were as follows: 1) when compared to nonoperative management, arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) substantially reduces the risk of recurrent dislocations, 2) ABR results in greater shoulder function and higher WOSI scores than does nonoperative management, and 3) despite substantially higher upfront costs, ABR proved to be more cost-effective than an initial trial of nonoperative management, which can be attributed to both fewer recurrent dislocations and greater utility over the long-term.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».