Revision Arthroscopic Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Recurrent Instability After Initial Repair Attempt: A Cost-Effectiveness Model

PurposeTo compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair.MethodsAn expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature.ResultsCompared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive ($13,672 v $15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective.ConclusionsLatarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, expected value decision analysis.