Primary Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction in Patients with Subcritical Bone Loss: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

Anterior shoulder instability and its treatment is a quickly evolving field of interest in orthopaedics, both for patients and for health-care systems. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) compared with Bankart repair in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss. Methods A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of Canada's publicly funded health-care system. A decision-tree model was created to simulate the progression of patients undergoing either a primary Bankart repair or AAGR. Recently published data were used to determine the recurrence rate and level of glenoid bone loss for the AAGR procedure; the recurrence rate was 1.4% in a cohort with a mean glenoid bone loss of 25.3%. A literature review on the primary Bankart procedure in patients with at least subcritical levels of glenoid bone loss yielded a recurrence rate of 22.9% in patients with a mean glenoid bone loss of 17.5%. AAGR served as the revision surgery for both primary procedures. Health utility scores for anterior shoulder instability were obtained from published literature. Total procedure costs, including costs of operating-room consumables, anesthesia, diagnostic imaging, and rehabilitation, were sourced from a hospital database. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 5,000 Monte Carlo simulations was performed, and results were used to create a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Results The AAGR procedure was less costly and led to an improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when compared with the arthroscopic Bankart repair in the treatment of patients with anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss (AAGR, cost = $16,682.77 [Canadian dollars] and QALYs = 5.76; Bankart, cost = $16,720.29 and QALYs = 5.46), suggesting that the AAGR is dominant, i.e., lower costs with higher QALYs. Applying a commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability that the primary AAGR was more cost-effective was 85.8%. Conclusions This study showed that, from the perspective of a publicly funded health-care system, AAGR was the economical treatment option when compared with Bankart repair in anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss. Level of Evidence Economic and Decision Analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.