BACKGROUND

Safe return to play (RTP) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is critical to patient satisfaction. Enhanced rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction with appropriate objective criteria for RTP may reduce the risk of subsequent injury. The cost-effectiveness of an enhanced RTP (eRTP) strategy relative to standard post-ACL reconstruction rehabilitation has not been investigated.

PURPOSE

To determine if an eRTP strategy after ACL reconstruction is cost-effective compared with standard rehabilitation.

STUDY DESIGN

Economic and decision analysis.

METHODS

A decision-analysis model was utilized to compare standard rehabilitation with an eRTP strategy, which includes additional neuromuscular retraining, advanced testing, and follow-up physician visits. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a payer perspective. Costs of surgical procedures and rehabilitation protocols, risks of graft rupture and contralateral ACL injury, risk reductions as a result of the eRTP strategy, and relevant health utilities were derived from the literature. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed on pertinent model parameters to assess their effect on base case conclusions. In the base case analysis, the eRTP strategy cost was conservatively estimated to be $969 more than the standard rehabilitation protocol. Completion of the eRTP strategy was considered to confer a 25% risk reduction for graft rupture in comparison with standard rehabilitation.

RESULTS

The eRTP strategy was more cost-effective than standard rehabilitation alone. Based on 1-way threshold analyses, the eRTP strategy was cost-effective as long as its additional cost over standard rehabilitation was <$2092 or the eRTP strategy decreased the incidence of contralateral ACL rupture by >13.8%.

CONCLUSION

The eRTP strategy in this study adds additional neuromuscular retraining and additional physician follow-up-as well as advanced testing goals upon which RTP is contingent-to traditional physical therapy. Our data suggest that these additions are cost-effective, even assuming only modest associated decreases in ACL graft failure. This study also determined that the only variable that had the potential to change the cost-effectiveness conclusion based on predetermined ranges was the additional cost of rehabilitation based on 1-way sensitivity analysis.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study provides evidence of cost-effectiveness for payers, supporting the use of enhanced RTP programs. The sensitivity analyses herein may be used to determine if any given RTP program going forward is cost-effective, regardless of the exact components of the program.