TABLE 1.
Study Characteristics a
| Lead Author (Year) | LOE | N | MINORS/QHES Scores | Study Type | Time Horizon | Study Design | Study Population | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clement (2014) 4 | 3 | 58 | 14
b
/72 |
Cost outcome description | 1, 2, and 10 y | Prospectively collected registry | Patients with FAI (mean age, 34 y) | Hip arthroscopy is cost-effective 1-10 y after surgery |
| Griffin (2018) 14 | 1 | 348 | 23/89 |
Cost-utility analysis | 1 y | Randomized controlled trial | Patients with FAI (mean age, 35 y) | Hip arthroscopy is not cost-effective in the first 12 mo |
| Lodhia (2016) 20 | 2 | Registry: NR | 20/95 |
Cost-utility analysis | Lifetime | Markov model (literature and own registry) | Patients with an acetabular labral tear without OA (age range, 20-80 y) | Hip arthroscopic surgery is cost-effective, resulting in a lower incidence of OA for patients without preexisting OA |
| Mather (2018) 22 | 2 | Registry: 102 | 19/88 |
Cost-utility analysis | 10 y | Markov model (literature and own registry) | Patients with no OA and mild to no hip dysplasia (mean age, 33 y) | Hip arthroscopy leads to substantial indirect savings (eg, lost wages) |
| Scott (2020) 36 | 3 | 864 | 20/72 |
Cost-effectiveness analysis | NR | Humana claims database | National database of patients with a labral tear | Hip arthroscopy does not lower conversion rate to THA and has a higher cost of care |
| Shearer (2012) 37 | 3 | NA | 18/95 |
Cost-utility analysis | Lifetime | Markov model (literature) | Patients with FAI (mean age, 36 y) | OA progression affects the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy |
a FAI, femoroacetabular impingement; LOE, level of evidence; MINORS, Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; OA, osteoarthritis; QHES, Quality of Health Economic Studies; THA, total hip arthroplasty.
b Clement et al is not a comparative study, so the maximum score is 16.