Treatment for Symptomatic SLAP Tears in Middle-Aged Patients Comparing Repair, Biceps Tenodesis, and Nonoperative Approaches: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management, primary SLAP repair, and primary biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic isolated type II SLAP tear. Methods: A microsimulation Markov model was constructed to compare 3 strategies for middle-aged patients with symptomatic type II SLAP tears: SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, or nonoperative management. A failed 6-month trial of nonoperative treatment was assumed. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2017 U.S. dollars using a societal perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Model results were compared with estimates from the published literature and were subjected to sensitivity analyses to evaluate robustness. Results: Primary biceps tenodesis compared with SLAP repair conferred an increased effectiveness of 0.06 QALY with cost savings of $1,766. Compared with nonoperative treatment, both biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair were cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values of $3,344/QALY gained and $4,289/QALY gained, respectively). Sensitivity analysis showed that biceps tenodesis was the preferred strategy in most simulations (52%); however, for SLAP repair to become cost-effective over biceps tenodesis, its probability of failure would have to be lower than 2.7% or the cost of biceps tenodesis would have to be higher than $14,644. Conclusions: When compared with primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment, primary biceps tenodesis is the most cost-effective treatment strategy for type II SLAP tears in middle-aged patients. Primary biceps tenodesis offers increased effectiveness when compared with both primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment and lower costs than primary SLAP repair.