van de Graaf Victor A, Scholtes Vanessa A B, Wolterbeek Nienke, Noorduyn Julia C A, Neeter Camille, van Tulder Maurits W, Saris Daniël B F, de Gast Arthur, Poolman Rudolf W
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 21;6(12):e014381. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014381.
Recent studies show similar outcome between surgery and conservative treatment in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears. However, surgery is still often preferred over conservative treatment. When conservative treatment is non-inferior to surgery, shifting the current standard treatment choice to conservative treatment alone could save over €30 millions of direct medical costs on an annual basis. Economic evaluation studies comparing surgery to conservative treatment are lacking.
A multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an economic evaluation alongside was performed to assess the (cost)-effectiveness of surgery and conservative treatment for meniscal tears. We will include 402 participants between 45 and 70 years with an MRI-confirmed symptomatic, non-obstructive meniscal tears to prove non-inferiority of conservative treatment. Block randomisation will be web-based. The primary outcome measure is a physical function, measured by the International Knee Documentation Committee 'Subjective Knee Form'. Furthermore, we will perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from societal perspective and a budget impact analysis from a societal, government and insurer perspective. Secondary outcomes include general health, quality of life, activity level, knee pain, physical examination, progression of osteoarthritis and the occurrence of adverse events.
This RCT will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Ethics Committee (number NL44188.100.13). The results of this study will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. We further aim to disseminate our results to guideline committees.
NCT01850719.
近期研究表明,非阻塞性半月板撕裂患者手术治疗和保守治疗的结果相似。然而,手术治疗仍常比保守治疗更受青睐。当保守治疗不劣于手术治疗时,将当前的标准治疗选择仅转向保守治疗,每年可节省超过3000万欧元的直接医疗费用。目前缺乏比较手术治疗和保守治疗的经济评估研究。
开展了一项多中心随机对照试验(RCT),并同时进行经济评估,以评估半月板撕裂手术治疗和保守治疗的(成本)效益。我们将纳入402名年龄在45至70岁之间、经MRI确诊为有症状的非阻塞性半月板撕裂患者,以证明保守治疗的非劣效性。将通过网络进行区组随机化。主要结局指标是身体功能,采用国际膝关节文献委员会的“膝关节主观量表”进行测量。此外,我们将从社会角度进行成本效益和成本效用分析,并从社会、政府和保险公司角度进行预算影响分析。次要结局包括总体健康状况、生活质量、活动水平、膝关节疼痛、体格检查、骨关节炎进展情况以及不良事件的发生。
本RCT将按照《赫尔辛基宣言》进行,并已获得伦理委员会批准(编号NL44188.100.13)。本研究结果将在同行评审期刊和国际会议上报告。我们还旨在将研究结果传播给指南制定委员会。
NCT01850719。