No Significant Difference in Cost or Outcomes at 1-Year Minimum Follow-Up After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Comparing 1.9 mm Distal Chip-on-Tip Needlescope Versus 4 mm Glass Rod Lens Arthroscope: Both Treatments Are Highly Cost-Effective
In brief
In 48 patients, needlescope showed no significant cost or outcome difference
In this single-surgeon study, 24 patients treated with a 1.9 mm needlescope and 24 treated with a standard arthroscope had similar knee improvement and costs at a mean 26 months of follow-up. Both approaches were highly cost-effective, but the small sample and retrospective analysis limit confidence that their results are truly equivalent.
- Journal
- Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation (Q1)
- Published
- 1 October 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- James H Lubowitz, Chad Lavender
- PMID
- 42825169
- DOI
- 10.1002/ars2.70112
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (top studies of the week, 4 October 2026): Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy cost-effectiveness trial
- Picked for Rehabilitation (top studies of the week, 4 October 2026): Arthroscopic meniscectomy cost‑effectiveness, orthopedic focus
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate cost, outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy comparing visualization using a 1.9 mm distal chip-on-tip needlescope versus a standard 4 mm glass rod lens arthroscope. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data (from a larger randomized controlled trial) on patients having partial meniscectomy performed by 1 surgeon at 1 facility between February 2023 and February 2025. International Knee Documentation Committee and visual analog scale pain scores at 1-year minimum follow-up, costs, cost-effectiveness (cost/quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost of 1 additional year of life in perfect health) were collected. Sensitivity analyses were assessed for potential variations in cost or effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients are included in each group; mean follow-up is 26 months (range 12-36). Comparing needle versus standard, mean age (years) is 50 versus 46.5 (P = .19); percent male sex is 71 versus 46 (P = .14); improvement in International Knee Documentation Committee is 58.7 versus 48.7 (P = .24); improvement in visual analog scale is 5.4 versus 4.5 (P = .55). Mean cost per case is $17,236.69 versus $16,994.00 (P = .26). Cost-effectiveness is $1177.32/QALY versus $1215.59/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $367.71. Sensitivity analysis shows that if the costs of needle decreased to equal the costs of standard, needle becomes cost-neutral while providing superior outcomes (dominant), and if the effectiveness of standard arthroscopy increased to equal needle, needle becomes dominated (more expensive, effectiveness neutral). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy comparing 1.9 mm distal chip-on-tip needlescope versus 4 mm glass rod lens arthroscope results in no significant differences in cost or outcomes at 1-year minimum follow-up. Both treatments are highly cost-effective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for needlescope compared with arthroscope, $367.71, is more than 2 orders of magnitude lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic: input data from Level III study and uncertainty as examined by univariate sensitivity analysis.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.