What question did this study set out to answer?

March 14, 2026Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine0 citationsOpen Access

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Addition of Autograft Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures to Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

JVJuan Bernardo Villareal-EspinosaRush University Medical Center OSOmar ShalakhtiRush University Medical Center MAMorgan AngottiRush University Medical Center

Key Points

To assess the cost-effectiveness of adding autograft lateral extra-articular procedures to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Conducted economic and decision analysis
Utilized failure rates from existing studies for ACLR and LEAP
Estimated costs including hospital and surgeon fees for ACLR and LEAP
Derived utility measures from Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
Performed one-way sensitivity analyses for cost and outcome factors.
Total cost of isolated ACLR was estimated at $14,000, rising to $14,990 with LEAP augmentation.
ICER for LEAP augmentation was $25,313/QALY, remaining under the $50,000/QALY threshold.
Implant costs could increase to $1265 while maintaining cost-effectiveness.
LEAP failure rates could rise to 7.7% and still meet cost-effectiveness standards.
Maximum additional operative time for cost-effectiveness was 36 minutes.

Abstract

Background: Multiple clinical studies have highlighted the improved outcomes of ACLR in associated with LEAPs. However, such procedures are associated with increased costs and operating room time, thus questioning their cost-effectiveness. Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of augmenting an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with autograft lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAP), either a modified Lemaire or anterolateral ligament reconstruction. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using failure rates for ACLR with and without concomitant autograft LEAPs from existing level 1 and 2 studies. Institutional data were used to estimate costs, including hospital and surgeon fees for ACLR and additional implant costs for LEAP. Utility measures were derived by linear approximation of the European Quality of Life 5 Dimension from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score to evaluate improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), a standardized metric that combines quantity and quality of life into a single value, over 1 year. Cost-effectiveness was determined based on previous literature, with an intervention considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <50, 000/QALY. Three 1-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effect of implant cost, LEAP failure rates, and surgical time on cost-effectiveness. Results: The total cost of an isolated ACLR was estimated at 14, 000, increasing to 14, 990 with LEAP augmentation. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed an ICER of 25, 313/QALY with LEAP augmentation, remaining below the 50, 000/QALY cost-effectiveness threshold. Implant costs could rise to 1265 while maintaining cost-effectiveness, given an LEAP operation time (OR) of 15 minutes. Additionally, the failure rate of LEAP-augmented ACLR could increase from 2. 9% to 7. 7% while still meeting cost-effectiveness criteria. Finally, time sensitivity analysis indicated that for the procedure to remain cost-effective, the maximum allowable additional operative time is 36 minutes, given an OR cost of 46/minute. Conclusion: Although LEAP increases the time and cost of ACLR, it remains a cost-effective strategy for patients who are suitable candidates for augmentation.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper