Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 isolated meniscal repair (IMR) treatment strategies: platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-augmented IMR, IMR with a marrow venting procedure (MVP), and IMR without biological augmentation. Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the baseline case: a young adult patient meeting the indications for IMR. Health utility values, failure rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing IMR at an outpatient surgery center. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Total costs of IMR with an MVP were $8,250; PRP-augmented IMR, $12,031; and IMR without PRP or an MVP, $13,326. PRP-augmented IMR resulted in an additional 2.16 QALYs, whereas IMR with an MVP produced slightly fewer QALYs, at 2.13. Non-augmented repair produced a modeled gain of 2.02 QALYs. The ICER comparing PRP-augmented IMR versus MVP-augmented IMR was $161,742/QALY, which fell well above the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusions: IMR with biological augmentation (MVP or PRP) resulted in a higher number of QALYs and lower costs than non-augmented IMR, suggesting that biological augmentation is cost-effective. Total costs of IMR with an MVP were significantly lower than those of PRP-augmented IMR, whereas the number of additional QALYs produced by PRPaugmented IMR was only slightly higher than that produced by IMR with an MVP. As a result, neither treatment dominated over the other. However, because the ICER of PRP-augmented IMR fell well above the $50,000 willingness-topay threshold, IMR with an MVP was determined to be the overall cost-effective treatment strategy in the setting of young adult patients with isolated meniscal tears. Level of Evidence: Level III, economic and decision analysis.
