Cost Comparison of Suture Anchor Modified Broström Repair and Augmentation of the Modified Broström with FiberTape Device

Abstract

Category: Ankle; Sports Introduction/Purpose: Augmentation of the Broström procedure with FiberTape device has been described for the treatment of chronic ankle instability. However, it has yet to be determined if the cost of the implant is negated by the benefits to the patient. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive cost analysis by comparing the cost of surgical procedure, physical therapy visits, time off work, and any costs related to revision surgery between the Broström reconstruction with suture anchors alone versus augmentation with a FiberTape device. Methods: 166 patients undergoing lateral ankle ligament repair were analyzed retrospectively. Patients underwent either a modified Broström ligament repair with two suture anchors or Broström ligament repair with FiberTape augmentation. All patients followed the same post-operative protocol for early weight bearing and initiation of physical therapy once the wound was healed. Timing of return to work and the total number of visits of physical therapy before discharge were recorded. Implant costs, facility charges and professional fees were obtained from billing records. Lost income for missed days of work was based on the Pennsylvania Bureau of Labor Statistics. Complications requiring return to the operating room were recorded. Patients were followed out to one year. Results: Aggregate cost in the modified Broström group was $2,219 more expensive than when augmenting with FiberTape ($20,970 vs. $18,751) despite an increased implant cost of $900. This difference was the result of a greater number of therapy visits and days out of work in the modified Broström group versus the augmentation group (14.9 vs 12.4) as well as a significantly higher amount of days out of work in the modified Broström group versus augmentation (63.3 vs. 53.8 days respectively). No statistically significant difference was found for operation time between groups, and failure rates were similar; 2.0% (1/49) for FiberTape and 3.4% (4/117) for modified Broström. Conclusion: The aim of this study was to explore the cost comparison of the modified Broström procedure for chronic ankle instability versus the FiberTape augmentation. Despite an upfront increase in implant costs, the average cost per procedure was lower for the augmentation group. The majority of cost savings occurred in decreases in the number of physical therapy visits and faster return to work times. The results of this study suggest that the use of FiberTape to augment modified Broström repair may have a financial benefit and cost savings to patients and the healthcare system.