Safran‐Norton, Clare E.

ObjectiveWe examined the cost‐effectiveness of treatment strategies for concomitant meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis (OA) involving arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery and physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated Monte Carlo microsimulation, to compare three strategies, 1) PT‐only, 2) immediate surgery, and 3) PT + optional surgery, for participants whose pain persists following initial PT. We modeled a cohort with baseline meniscal tear, OA, and demographics from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus PT. We estimated risks and costs of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy complications and accounted for heightened OA progression post surgery using published data. We estimated surgery use rates and treatment efficacies using MeTeOR data. We considered a 5‐year time horizon, discounted costs, and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) 3% per year and conducted sensitivity analyses. We report incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios.ResultsRelative to PT‐only, PT + optional surgery added 0.0651 QALY and $2,010 over 5 years (incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio = $30,900 per QALY). Relative to PT + optional surgery, immediate surgery added 0.0065 QALY and $3080 (incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio = $473,800 per QALY). Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were sensitive to optional surgery efficacy in the PT + optional surgery strategy. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PT + optional surgery was cost‐effective in 51% of simulations at willingness‐to‐pay thresholds of both $50,000 per QALY and $100,000 per QALY.ConclusionFirst‐line arthroscopic partial meniscectomy has a prohibitively high incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio. Under base case assumptions, second‐line arthroscopic partial meniscectomy offered to participants with persistent pain following initial PT is cost‐effective at willingness‐to‐pay thresholds between $31,000 and $473,000 per QALY. Our analyses suggest that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy can be a high‐value treatment option for patients with meniscal tear and OA when performed following an initial PT course and should remain a covered treatment option.

ObjectivePatients with meniscal tears reporting meniscal symptoms such as catching or locking have traditionally undergone arthroscopy. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether patients with meniscal tears who report meniscal symptoms have greater improvement with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) than physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, which randomized participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and meniscal tear to APM or PT. The frequency of each meniscal symptom (clicking, catching, popping, intermittent locking, giving way, swelling) was measured at baseline and 6 months. We used linear regression models to determine whether the difference in improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score at 6 months between patients treated with APM versus PT was modified by the presence of each meniscal symptom. We also determined the percentage of participants with resolution of meniscal symptoms by treatment group.ResultsWe included 287 participants. The presence (versus absence) of any of the meniscal symptoms did not modify the improvement in KOOS pain score between APM versus PT by >0.5 SD (all P interaction >0.05). APM led to greater resolution of intermittent locking and clicking than PT (locking 70% versus 46%, clicking 41% versus 25%). No difference in resolution of the other meniscal symptoms was observed.ConclusionMeniscal symptoms were not associated with improved pain relief. Although symptoms of clicking and intermittent locking had a greater reduction in the APM group, the presence of meniscal symptoms in isolation should not inform clinical decisions surrounding APM versus PT in patients with meniscal tear and knee OA.

Objective Synovitis is a prevalent feature in patients with knee osteoarthritis ( OA ) and meniscal tear and is associated with pain and cartilage damage. Patient‐reported swelling is also prevalent in this population. The aim of this study was to investigate the cross‐sectional association between patient‐reported swelling and effusion‐synovitis detected by magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) in patients with OA and meniscal tear. Methods We used baseline data from a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research ( METEOR ). MRI ‐identified effusion‐synovitis, a proxy for effusion and synovitis on noncontrast MRI s, was graded as none/small versus medium/large. Using MRI ‐identified effusion‐synovitis as the gold standard, we assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of patient self‐reported swelling in the previous week (none, intermittent, constant) to detect effusion and synovitis. Results We analyzed data from 276 patients. Twenty‐five percent of patients reported no swelling, 40% had intermittent swelling, and 36% had constant swelling. Fifty‐two percent had MRI ‐identified medium/large–grade effusion‐synovitis. As compared with MRI ‐identified effusion‐synovitis, any patient‐reported swelling (versus none) had a sensitivity of 84% (95% confidence interval [95% CI ] 77–89), a specificity of 34% (95% CI 26–43), and a positive predictive value of 57% (95% CI 54–61). A history of constant swelling (versus none or intermittent) showed a sensitivity of 46% (95% CI 37–54), a specificity of 75% (95% CI 67–82), and a positive predictive value of 66% (95% CI 58–74). Conclusion We found that the sensitivity and specificity of patient‐reported swelling were modest when compared with effusion‐synovitis detected by MRI . These data urge caution against using patient‐reported swelling as a proxy of inflammation manifesting as effusion‐synovitis.