Background: There has been growing interest in anatomical reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), including the use of double-bundle (DB) reconstruction techniques.
Hypothesis: The DB technique will not be cost-effective when compared with single-bundle (SB) reconstruction.
Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods: A decision-analysis model with input values derived from the literature was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DB ACL reconstruction compared with SB ACL reconstruction. Effectiveness was based on the revision rate and the postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score.
Results: Sixty-four percent of DB knees result in an IKDC score of A, compared with 54% of SB knees. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a DB reconstruction compared with an SB reconstruction was $6416 per quality adjusted life year in the baseline scenario and $64 371 per quality adjusted life year in the alternate scenario. The model is very sensitive to the proportions of IKDC A outcomes. The model is also sensitive to the utility values assigned to IKDC A and B outcomes and is less sensitive to the marginal cost of a DB reconstruction.
Conclusion: This preliminary analysis based on published clinical results to date shows DB ACL reconstruction may be cost-effective, despite increased upfront cost. More research is needed to confirm whether there is any difference in the distribution of IKDC outcomes between the 2 techniques. Perhaps more importantly, the lack of any other demonstrated clinical benefit from the DB technique questions the clinical relevance of this difference in IKDC scores.
Clinical Relevance: Revision data and longer term outcomes after DB reconstruction and more reliable clinical utility data are needed to definitively compare the cost-effectiveness of DB and SB ACL reconstruction. Studies of ACL reconstruction and other sports medicine procedures should report the distribution of outcomes data to facilitate future analyses of clinical effectiveness.
AdachiNOchiMUchioYIwasaJKuriwakaMItoY. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: single- versus double-bundle multistranded hamstring tendons. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(4):515-520.
AndersonAFSnyderRBLipscombABJr. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study of three surgical methods. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(3):272-279.
4.
Archived Consumer Price Index Detailed Report Information. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Modified June29, 2009. Available from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm.
5.
AuneAKHolmIRisbergMAJensenHKSteenH. Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft compared with patellar tendon-bone autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized study with two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(6):722-728.
6.
BlackmoreCCRamseySDMannFADeyoRA. Cervical spine screening with CT in trauma patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology. 1999;212(1):117-125.
7.
BonsellS. Financial analysis of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at Baylor University Medical Center. Proc Baylor Univ Med Cent. 2000;13(4):327-330.
8.
BorchersJRPedrozaAKaedingC. Activity level and graft type as risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament graft failure: a case-control study. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2362-2367.
9.
BrauerCABozicKJ. Using observational data for decision analysis and economic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl):373-379.
10.
BrauerCANeumannPJRosenAB. Trends in cost effectiveness analyses in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;457:42-48.
11.
BrophyRHWrightRWMatavaMJ. Cost analysis of converting from single-bundle to double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):683-687.
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1996.
ColeDWGinnTAChenGJ. Cost comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: autograft versus allograft. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(7):786-790.
15.
ColosimoAJHeidtRSJrTraubJACarlonasRL. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a reharvested ipsilateral patellar tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(6):746-750.
16.
CurranARParkAEBachBRJrBush-JosephCAColeBJYaoES. Outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an analysis of charges and perioperative complications. Am J Knee Surg. 2001;14(3):145-151.
17.
EjerhedLKartusJSernertNKohlerKKarlssonJ. Patellar tendon or semitendinosus tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A prospective randomized study with a two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(1):19-25.
18.
ErikssonKAnderbergPHambergP. A comparison of quadruple semitendinosus and patellar tendon grafts in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(3):348-354.
19.
FellerJAWebsterKE. A randomized comparison of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(4):564-573.
FrybackDGDasbachEJKleinR. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13(2):89-102.
22.
FuFHShenWStarmanJSOkekeNIrrgangJJ. Primary anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a preliminary 2-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(7):1263-1274.
23.
FulesPJMadhavRTGoddardRKMowbrayMAS. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autografts with a polyester fixation device. Knee. 2003;10:335-340.
24.
GeorgeMSDunnWRSpindlerKP. Current concepts review: revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(12):2026-2037.
25.
GoldMFranksPEricksonP. Assessing the health of the nation: the predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care. 1996;34(2):163-177.
26.
GoldMRFranksPMcCoyKIFrybackDG. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med Care. 1998;36(6):778-792.
27.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
28.
GottlobCABakerCLJr. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: socioeconomic issues and cost effectiveness. Am J Orthop. 2000;29(6):472-476.
29.
GottlobCABakerCLJrPellisierJM. Cost effectiveness of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:272-282.
30.
GriffinLYAlbohmMJArendtEA. Understanding and preventing noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a review of the Hunt Valley II meeting, January 2005. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(9):1512-1532.
HarilainenALinkoESandelinJ. Randomized prospective study of ACL reconstruction with interference screw fixation in patellar tendon autografts versus femoral metal plate suspension and tibial post fixation in hamstring tendon autografts: 5-year clinical and radiological follow-up results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(6):517-528.
33.
HorsmanJFurlongWFeenyDTorranceG. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.
34.
HurstNPJobanputraPHunterMLambertMLochheadABrownH. Validity of Euroqol—a generic health status instrument—in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. Br J Rheumatol. 1994;33(7):655-662.
35.
IrrgangJJBostJEFuFH. Outcome of single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(7):1414-1421.
36.
IrrgangJJHoHHarnerCDFuFH. Use of the International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6(2):107-114.
37.
JarvelaT. Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomize clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15(5):500-507.
38.
JarvelaTMoisalaASPaakkalaTPaakkalaA. Tunnel enlargement after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(12):1349-1357.
39.
JarvelaTMoisalaASSihvonenRJarvelaSKannusPJarvinenM. Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autografts and bioabsorbable interference screw fixation: prospective, randomized, clinical study with 2-year results. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):290-297.
40.
KondoEYasudaKAzumaHTanabeYYagiT. Prospective clinical comparisons of anatomic double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures in 328 consecutive patients. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(9):1675-1687.
41.
LebelBHuletCGalaudBBurdinGLockerBVielpeauC. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: a minimum 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(7):1275-1282.
42.
LewisPBParameswaranADRueJPBachBRJr. Systematic review of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes: a baseline assessment for consideration of double-bundle techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(1):2028-2036.
43.
LidenMEjerhedLSernertNLaxdalGKartusJ. Patellar tendon or semitendinosus tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized study with a 7-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(5):740-748.
44.
LosinaEWalenskyRPKesslerCL. Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and hospital volume. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(12):1113-1122.
45.
MaeTShinoKMiyamaT. Single- versus two-femoral socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique: biomechanical analysis using a robotic simulator. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(7):708-716.
46.
MeredickRBVanceKJApplebyDLubowitzJH. Outcome of single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(7):1414-1421.
47.
MunetaTKogaHMochizukiT. A prospective randomized study of 4-strand semitendinosus tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing single-bundle and double-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(6):618-628.
48.
NovakPJBachBRJrBush-JosephCABadrinathS. Cost containment: a charge comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 1996;12(2):160-164.
49.
NoyesFRBarber-WestinSD. Revision anterior cruciate surgery with use of bone-patellar tendon-bone autogenous grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(8):1131-1143.
50.
O’NeillDB. Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1329-1332.
51.
O’NeillDB. Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a prospective randomized analysis of three techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(6):803-813.
52.
RichardsonJ. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured?Soc Sci Med. 1994;39(1):7-21.
53.
SalmonLJPinczewskiLARussellVJRefshaugeK. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft: 5- to 9-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(10):1604-1614.
54.
SalmonLJRussellVJRefshaugeK. Long-term outcome of endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft: minimum 13-year review. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(5):721-732.
55.
SchleinitzMDHeidenreichPA. A cost-effectiveness analysis of combination antiplatelet therapy for high-risk acute coronary syndromes: clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(4):251-259.
ShaiebMDKanDMChangSKMarumotoJMRichardsonAB. A prospective randomized comparison of patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(2):214-220.
58.
SieboldRDehlerCEllertT. Prospective randomized comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(2):137-145.
59.
SoohooNFSharifiHKominskiGLiebermanJR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(9):1975-1982.
60.
StreichNAFriedrichKGotterbarmTSchmittH. Reconstruction of the ACL with a semitendinosus tendon graft: a prospective randomized single blinded comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle technique in male athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):232-238.
61.
TannerSMDaintyKNMarxRGKirkleyA. Knee-specific quality-of-life instruments: which ones measure symptoms and disabilities most important to patients?Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(9):1450-1458.
62.
TengsTOWallaceA. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000;38(6):583-637.
63.
TsudaEIshibashiYFukudaATsukadaHTohS. Comparable results between lateralized single- and double-bundle ACL reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(4):1042-1055.
64.
TungTHShihHCChenSJChouPLiuCMLiuJH. Economic evaluation of screening for diabetic retinopathy among Chinese type 2 diabetics: a community-based study in Kinmen, Taiwan. J Epidemiol. 2008;18(5):225-233.
WangJQAoYFYuCLLiuPXuYChenLX. Clinical evaluation of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective, randomized and controlled study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2009;122(6):706-711.
67.
WeinsteinMCTorranceGMcGuireA. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(suppl 1):S5-S9.
68.
WilliamsRJ3rdHymanJPetriglianoFRozentalTWickiewiczTL. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a four-strand hamstring tendon autograft: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(suppl 1, pt 1):51-66.
69.
WrightRWDunnWRAmendolaA. Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: two-year results from the MOON cohort. J Knee Surg. 2007;20(4):308-311.
YamamotoYHsuWHWooSLVan ScyocAHTakakuraYDebskiRE. Knee stability and graft function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of a lateral and an anatomical femoral tunnel placement. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(8):1825-1832.
72.
YasudaKKondoEIchiyamaHTanabeYTohyamaH. Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):240-251.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
