Research graph
References from 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. Local targets link to admitted publications; unresolved targets remain external evidence.
A history of arthroscopy
10.1016/j.arthro.2009.10.005 · 2010 · External reference
Memories of the early days of arthroscopy
10.1016/s0749-8063(86)80073-1 · 1986 · External reference
Office‐based needle arthroscopy: A standardized diagnostic approach to the knee
10.1016/j.eats.2017.03.031 · 2017 · External reference
Small‐caliber endoscopes are more fragile than conventional endoscopes
10.1055/a-1036-6186 · 2019 · External reference
Unresolved reference
External reference
Unresolved reference
External reference
Unresolved reference
External reference
Unresolved reference
External reference
Opioid use following partial meniscectomy with needle arthroscopy compared to standard knee arthroscopy: Results from a randomized multicenter trial
10.1016/j.jor.2025.11.012 · 2026 · External reference
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of the most common orthopaedic surgery procedures: Knee arthroscopy and knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
10.1016/j.arthro.2011.06.001 · 2011 · External reference
Statistical primer: A cost–effectiveness analysis
10.1093/ejcts/ezy187 · 2018 · External reference
Disaggregation of medical research data reveals outcome differences in demographic groups and presents opportunity to improve patient care
10.1016/j.arthro.2024.04.020 · 2024 · External reference
Making the right treatment decision requires consideration of utility and reconsideration of value
10.1016/j.arthro.2016.11.018 · 2017 · External reference
The health‐related quality‐of‐life of patients waiting for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is worse than an age‐ and sex‐matched population: Increasing time on waiting list for surgery was independently associated with a worse quality‐of‐life
10.1155/2022/8146897 · 2022 · External reference
Evaluation of knee‐specific patient‐reported outcome measures using rasch analysis
10.1123/jsr.2019-0263 · 2021 · External reference
Unresolved reference
External reference
Partial meniscectomy using needle arthroscopy associated with significantly less pain and improved patient reported outcomes at two weeks after surgery: A comparison to standard knee arthroscopy
10.1016/j.jor.2023.06.003 · 2023 · External reference
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) is the most responsive patient reported outcome measure after meniscal surgery
10.1016/j.asmr.2023.02.005 · 2023 · External reference
Updating cost‐effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000‐per‐QALY threshold
10.1056/nejmp1405158 · 2014 · External reference
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of needle arthroscopy versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of meniscal tears of the knee
10.1016/j.arthro.2018.09.030 · 2019 · External reference
In‐office needle arthroscopy: A systematic review of indications and clinical utility
10.1016/j.arthro.2019.03.045 · 2019 · External reference
In‐office needle arthroscopy is a cost‐effective alternative for operating room diversion in medial meniscectomy: A financial analysis
10.1186/s13018-023-03866-7 · 2023 · External reference
Moving orthopaedic procedures out of the operating theatre: Outpatient needle arthroscopy can reduce cost & waste, and increase inpatient capacity compared to conventional knee arthroscopy
10.1016/j.knee.2023.03.009 · 2023 · External reference
Cost‐effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and physical therapy for degenerative meniscal tear
10.1002/acr2.11480 · 2022 · External reference
Cost‐effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy for traumatic meniscal tears in patients aged under 45 years
10.1302/0301-620x.105b11.bjj-2023-0107.r1 · 2023 · External reference
FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study) investigators. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscus tear is not cost effective compared with placebo surgery: An economic evaluation based on the FIDELITY trial data
10.1097/corr.0000000000003094 · 2024 · External reference
A cost‐effectiveness analysis of isolated meniscal repair versus partial meniscectomy for red‐red zone, vertical meniscal tears in the young adult
10.1016/j.arthro.2019.06.026 · 2019 · External reference
Assessing cost‐effectiveness in healthcare: History of the $50,000 per QALY threshold
10.1586/14737167.8.2.165 · 2008 · External reference
Unresolved reference
External reference
Unresolved reference
External reference
Unresolved reference
External reference
Cost‐effectiveness analysis and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios: Uses and pitfalls
10.1097/00042737-200406000-00003 · 2004 · External reference
The limits of cost‐effectiveness analysis
10.1161/circoutcomes.108.812321 · 2009 · External reference
Editorial commentary: Navigating the cam: Balancing precision, cost, and patient‐reported outcomes for computer‐assisted femoral resections
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.08.026 · 2025 · External reference
Editorial commentary: Not every Hill‐Sachs needs filling: Most do, but selective, cost‐conscious remplissage is still warranted
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.07.011 · 2025 · External reference
Editorial commentary: Performing a concomitant lateral extra‐articular procedure is a dominant cost‐effective strategy over isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction due to higher quality‐of‐life and lower overall costs
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.07.009 · 2025 · External reference
Remplissage during primary arthroscopic bankart repair is highly cost‐effective for off‐track hill‐sachs lesions and variably cost‐effective for on‐track hill‐sachs lesions with glenoid bone loss below 15%
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.06.021 · 2025 · External reference
Adding a lateral extra‐articular tenodesis is cost‐effective in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A Markov analysis
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.06.004 · 2025 · External reference
Editorial commentary: Conversion to arthroscopy is twice the cost of rehabilitation and more costly than early arthroscopy
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.06.002 · 2025 · External reference
The open Latarjet is more cost‐effective than arthroscopic Bankart repair for first‐time shoulder dislocations in male patients with <10% glenoid bone loss
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.04.053 · 2025 · External reference
Editorial commentary: Tranexamic acid for shoulder arthroscopy shows low cost, low risk, small benefits, and meaningful potential to reduce postoperative hemarthrosis and operative time
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.04.039 · 2025 · External reference
Conversion to arthroscopic surgery for anterior shoulder instability does not significantly increase patient out‐of‐pocket costs, but both conversion and initial arthroscopic management are twice as costly as isolated nonoperative management
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.04.027 · 2025 · External reference
Editorial commentary: Repair of “degenerative” horizontal cleavage meniscus tears is cost‐effective, is chondroprotective, and shows healing rates similar to other meniscal tear patterns
10.1016/j.arthro.2024.11.077 · 2025 · External reference
Editorial commentary: The subacromial balloon spacer for massive irreparable rotator cuff tear demonstrates cost‐effectiveness in some settings
10.1016/j.arthro.2024.10.003 · 2025 · External reference
Editorial commentary: Suture tape augmentation enhances recovery after anterior cruciate ligament surgery and is cost‐effective, while biologic augmentation requires well‐powered controlled trials
10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.042 · 2025 · External reference
Balloon spacer implant is an “intermediate value” innovation relative to partial repair for full‐thickness massive rotator cuff repairs: A cost‐utility analysis
10.1016/j.arthro.2024.06.023 · 2025 · External reference
Editorial commentary: Bioinductive collagen implants reduce rotator cuff retear, yet cost‐effectiveness and improvement in clinical outcomes are unclear
10.1016/j.arthro.2024.02.001 · 2024 · External reference
Rethinking standards for minimum short‐term follow‐up duration for clinical outcome in orthopaedic and sports medicine studies
10.1016/j.arthro.2025.08.019 · 2025 · External reference
