Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy for a Degenerative Meniscus Tear Is Not Cost Effective Compared With Placebo Surgery: An Economic Evaluation Based on the FIDELITY Trial Data
Authors: Kalske Roope , Kiadaliri Ali , Sihvonen Raine , Englund Martin , Turkiewicz Aleksandra , Paavola Mika , Malmivaara Antti , Itälä Ari , Joukainen Antti , Nurmi Heikki , Toivonen Pirjo , Taimela Simo , Järvinen Teppo L. N. ,   for the FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study) Investigators
Published: September 2024

Background

In patients with a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus, recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown no treatment benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) over conservative treatment or placebo surgery. Yet, advocates of APM still argue that APM is cost effective. Giving advocates of APM their due, we note that there is evidence from the treatment of other musculoskeletal complaints to suggest that a treatment may prove cost effective even in the absence of improvements in efficacy outcomes, as it may lead to other benefits, such as diminished productivity loss and reduced costs, and so the question of cost effectiveness needs to be answered for APM.

Questions/purposes

(1) Does APM result in lower postoperative costs compared with placebo surgery? (2) Is APM cost-effective compared with placebo surgery?

Methods

One hundred forty-six adults aged 35 to 65 years with knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria were randomized to APM (n = 70) or placebo surgery (n = 76). In the APM and placebo surgery groups, mean age was 52 ± 7 years and 52 ± 7 years, and 60% (42 of 70) and 62% (47 of 76) of participants were men, respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics. In both groups, a standard diagnostic arthroscopy was first performed. Thereafter, in the APM group, the torn meniscus was trimmed to solid meniscus tissue, whereas in the placebo surgery group, APM was carefully mimicked but no resection of meniscal tissue was performed; as such, surgical costs were the same in both arms and were not included in the analyses. All patients received identical postoperative care including a graduated home-based exercise program. At the 2-year follow-up, two patients were lost to follow-up, both in the placebo surgery group. Cost effectiveness over the 2-year trial period was computed as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), using both the societal (primary) and healthcare system (secondary) perspectives. To be able to consider APM cost effective, the CEA analysis should yield a positive INMB value. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to assess uncertainty. Several one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results

APM did not deliver lower postoperative costs, nor did it convincingly improve quality of life scores when compared with placebo surgery. From a societal perspective, APM was associated with € 971 (95% CI -2013 to 4017) higher costs and 0.015 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.041) improved QALYs over 2-year follow-up compared with placebo surgery. Both differences were statistically inconclusive (a wide 95% CI that crossed the line of no difference). Using the conventional willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 35,000 per QALY, APM resulted in a negative INMB of € -460 (95% CI -3757 to 2698). In our analysis, APM would result in a positive INMB only when the WTP threshold rises to about € 65,000 per QALY. The wide 95% CIs suggests uncertain cost effectiveness irrespective of chosen WTP threshold.

Conclusion

The results of this study lend further support to clinical practice guidelines recommending against the use of APM in patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. Given the robustness of existing evidence demonstrating no benefit or cost effectiveness of APM over nonsurgical treatment or placebo surgery, future research is unlikely to alter this conclusion.

Level of Evidence Level III, economic analysis.