The subject of this article is the comparison in cost savings with arthroscopic transosseous (anchorless) double- row rotator cuff repair compared with double-row anchored (transosseous-equivalent [TOE]) repair.
These results have been brought to light that (having based the study on 344 patients, 178 with TOE repairs and 166 with anchor less repairs), the average implant cost for TOE repairs was $1014.10 ($813.00 for small, $946.67 for medium, $1104.56 for large, and $1507.29 for massive tears). This was significantly more expensive compared with anchorless repairs, which averaged $678.05 ($659.75 for small, $671.39 for medium, $695.55 for large, and $716.00 for massive tears). Average total operative time in TOE and anchorless groups was not significantly different (99 vs. 98 minutes). There was larger (although not statistically significant) case time variation in the TOE group. So it may be concluded that, compared with TOE repair, anchorless rotator cuff repair provides substantial implant- related cost savings, with no significant differences in surgical time for medium and large rotator cuff tears. Case time for TOE repair varied more with extremes in tear size.

This study has been performed to point out the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) as a good approach in facing out and reducing health costs.
By this article “CEA” refers to 4 cost analysis methods like as:
• Cost-effectiveness analysis that refers to the cost per health unit gain
• Cost-utility analysis, it is similar the previous method but unlike that one cost-utility analysis are patient-centric and based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
• Cost-benefit analysis that utilizes purely financial inputs to compare the expected monetary cost and benefit of a procedure. By this method health care consumers are queried to understand how much they are willing to pay for the intervention or to achieve a certain health state.
• Cost-identification (minimization) analysis is a form of nalysis that identifies the costs associated with certain interventions, with the presumed goal being to choose the least expensive option.
Then, on the basis of these 4 methods, Three studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rotator cuff repair and the management of rotator cuff associated injuries:
Mather at al that has demonstrated a lifetime age-weighted mean societal savings of $13,771 per rotator cuff repair, and this was associated with a mean QALY difference of 0.62. Mather at al (2013)
Vitale et al also evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rotator cuff repair; however, the authors used primarily direct cost calculations. The authors found that the mean lifetime gain in QALYs for an operative intervention was 0.81 using the Health Utility Index (HUI) and 3.43 using the EuroQol instrument. Thus, the calculated cost-effectiveness ratios were $13,092.84 per QALY using the HUI and $3091.90 per QALY using the EuroQol instrument.
Genuario et al assessed the cost-effectiveness of rotator cuff repair using a single-row versus double-row technique. The authors found that the double-row technique had an ICER of $571,500 for rotator cuff tears of <3 cm and $460,200 for rotator cuff tears of >/=3 cm. Thus, based on the authors’ analysis, the double-row technique appears to be a cost-ineffective option.

This study has been performed in order to evaluate national trends (US) in the surgical setting and hospital costs of shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair (RCR).

The conclusion shows (time frame: 2001-2009) an overall 58.8% decrease in inpatient RCRs that was similar across all hospital settings, with an increase in RCR-associated hospital charges by 144.9%, whereas hospital costs only increased by 85.2%.

This study started by the challenge to provide an high quality care with contained cost, of course it would be a paramount goal in orthopaedic.

The present study have been performed by the hypothesis that the direct cost of outpatient arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was assessed to determine whether, due to an older population, rotator cuff surgery was more costly in Medicare-insured patients than in patients covered by other insurers. We hypothesized that operative time, implant cost, and overall higher cost would be observed in Medicare patients.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures in the United States,1 accounting for an estimated $1.2 to $1.6 billion in US health care expenditures annually. Ideally, actions to reduce RCR cost should not adversely affect clinical outcomes and tendon healing.

Tear size, age and fatty degeneration have been shown to affect tendon healing. Tendon healing has been definitively linked to strength and Constant scores after RCR but not all other outcome measures.

To point out the costs, outcomes, and tendon healing after an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, this surgical procedure has been performed: both arthroscopic single-row repairs using triple- loaded suture anchors and transosseous equivalent double-row repairs were used and came to light that factors that increased direct costs were outcome neutral, and factors that improved outcome were cost neutral.

There are limited information exists about factors affecting direct clinical costs of rotator cuff repair surgery and so this article have been developed to find out them and resulted significant correlations between higher total direct cost and the presence of a subscapularis repair being performed (P = .015) and total number of anchors used (P  .0001).

Moreover came up to light other factors influencing costs occurring in rotator cuff repair surgery, like as a Higher body mass index, severe systemic illness, biceps tenodesis using an anchor, and total sum of anchors were correlated with higher facility utilization costs.

Then a  Severe systemic illness, addition of a sub- scapularis repairand additional subacromial decompression were correlated with higher pharmacy costs.The addition of a subscapularis repair, total sum of anchors, and severe muscle changes to the supraspinatus were correlated with higher supply costs.

The subject of this study regards the immediate costs arising from a mini-open an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
So which is the less immediately expansive among them? The team who performed that (three fellowship-trained surgeons) performed arthroscopic repairs and one performed the mini-open repair and resulted that the cost of implants and consumables was significantly higher with arthroscopic repair. The duration of surgery was also significantly longer with that technique.

There was no difference in length of stay between the two techniques. There was also no difference in Constant scores or ASES scores, both preoperatively and at 1 year post- operatively.
In conclusion came out that the immediate costs of mini-open repair of rotator cuff tears are significantly less than that of arthroscopic repair. Most of the difference arises from the cost of implants and consumables. Equivalent functional outcomes from both techniques suggest that mini-open repair may be more cost-effective.

It comes out by this article that Procedures performed by surgeons with higher provider volumes offer advantages both to the individual patient and the health system, with studies documenting fewer adverse events, shorter surgical times, and decreased reoperation rates. With workforce requirements for surgeons growing, it is increasingly necessary to establish the most efficient structure of this workforce.

Substantial economic savings are realized when procedures are performed by high-volume providers as compared with low-volume providers in the areas of readmission, prolonged admission, and subsequent surgery.

The costs per case attributable to adverse outcomes for ACL reconstruction (in 2010 US$) were $496, $781, and $868 for high-, medium-, and low-volume providers, respectively. For rotator cuff repair, these numbers were $523, $640, and $872, and for total shoulder arthroplasty, $1692, $1876, and $2021, respectively.

The hypothesis was accepted; higher provider volumes for surgeons do convey substantial societal economic benefits. Policies to incentivize and facilitate a greater portion of procedures being performed by high-volume surgeons may increase the efficiency of resource utilization in health care delivery

During the 14-year study period, 390,001 RC repairs were performed in Italy, which represented an incidence of 62.1 RC procedures for every 100,000 Italian inhabitants over 25 years old. Approximately 65% of RC repair were performed annually in patients ages\65 years, thus affecting the working population. 246,810 patients (63.3%) from the North underwent RC repairs from 2001 through 2014, 78,540 patients (20.2%) from the Center, and 64,407 patients (16.5%) from the South. The projection model predicted substantial increases in the numbers of RC repairs.

Conclusions This study confirms that the socioeconomic burden of RC surgery is growing and heavily affecting the working population. According to the prediction model, hospital costs sustained by the national health care system for RC procedures are expected to be over 1 billion euros by 2025.