COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF SINGLE-ROW VERSUS DOUBLE-ROW CONSTRUCTS IN ARTHROSCOPIC ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal approach to arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff is controversial, and both single row and double row fixation methods are commonly used. Which construct yields the highest efficacy is not clear. Given the current era of increasing costs in which health care delivery models are aiming for improved efficiencies and optimal outcomes, a cost-effectiveness study was performed to inform the decision making process of the utilisation of single versus double row repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single row versus double row constructs in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. A cost-utility analysis was performed. Health resource use and outcome data were obtained from a previous prospective randomised controlled trial in which 90 patients were randomised to two treatment arms, single row rotator cuff repair (n=48) and double row (n=42). The patients were followed over a two-year span from the time of initial surgery. Unit cost data were captured using case costs collected from the hospital database and the Ontario Schedule of Benefits. Utility values were derived from published literature. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in cost between the two types of rotator cuff fixation divided by the difference in quality adjusted life years (QALY), was determined. Double row fixation was more costly ($2,279.94 versus $1,587.37) but was more effective than the single row method (QALY of 4.073 versus 4.055). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be $38,504.92 per QALY for double row fixation relative to single row. This is well below the commonly used willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm) had a lower ICER, suggesting that double-row fixation may be more cost-effective in more severe tears. Double row rotator cuff fixation is a cost-effective option compared to single row rotator cuff repair with an ICER of $38,504.92/QALY, well within the accepted willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Furthermore, the ICER between single and double row fixation improved with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm), suggesting an additional benefit of a double row construct in those cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".