Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 May;54(9):538-545.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100065. Epub 2019 Jun 21.

How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study

Victor A van de Graaf  1   2 , Johanna M van Dongen  3 , Nienke W Willigenburg  4 , Julia C A Noorduyn  4 , Ise K Butter  4 , Arthur de Gast  5 , Daniel B F Saris  2   6 , Maurits W van Tulder  3 , Rudolf W Poolman  4 ; ESCAPE Research Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study

Victor A van de Graaf et al. Br J Sports Med. 2020 May.

Abstract

Objectives: To examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis-this paper-we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM.

Methods: We recruited patients aged 45-70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively.

Results: We randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (-€1803; 95% CI -€3008 to -€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs.

Conclusions: The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears.

Trial registration numbers: NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

Keywords: arthroscopic partial meniscectomy; economic evaluation; knee; physical therapy; randomised controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: all authors had financial support from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (in Dutch: ZonMw) for the submitted work; the Achmea Healthcare Foundation (in Dutch Stichting Achmea Gezonheidszorg fonds) and the foundation of medical research at the OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of patients through the trial. *The number of patients screened for eligibility was not available. †Missing data refer to data that was missing at a specific time point, while patients remained available for the remaining follow-up moments. ‡Loss to follow-up refers to actual drop-out from the study, for example, patients who did not participate at any of the remaining time points (cumulative numbers are total number of drop-outs). §Cumulative number of delayed APM refers to total number of participants from the PT group that have received delayed APM from baseline until that follow-up. APM, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy; FU, follow-up.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost-effectiveness planes, including non-inferiority margins, for quality-adjusted life-years (A) and the IKDC (B). IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; QALY, quality-adjusted life years.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Järvinen TLN, Guyatt GH. Arthroscopic surgery for knee pain. BMJ 2016;354 10.1136/bmj.i3934 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siemieniuk RAC, Harris IA, Agoritsas T, et al. . Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 1982;2017 j. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Järvinen TLN, Sihvonen R, Englund M. Arthroscopy for degenerative knee—a difficult habit to break? Acta Orthopaedica 2014;85:215–7. 10.3109/17453674.2014.922736 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rongen JJ, Govers TM, Buma P, et al. . Arthroscopic meniscectomy for degenerative meniscal tears reduces knee pain but is not cost-effective in a routine health care setting: a multi-center longitudinal observational study using data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017. - PubMed
    1. Bosmans JE, de Bruijne MC, van Hout HPJ, et al. . Practical guidelines for economic evaluations alongside equivalence trials. Value in Health 2008;11:251–8. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00245.x - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data