Subacromial Balloon Spacer Versus Partial Rotator Cuff Repair in the Treatment of Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: Facility Personnel Allocation and Procedural Cost Analysis

Background The subacromial balloon is a novel technology that has shown promise in managing a select patient population with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. The purpose of this study was to quantify the true facility cost difference between subacromial balloon placement (SBP) and partial rotator cuff repair (PCR). Methodology A prospective cohort of patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears randomized to SBP versus PCR between 2015 and 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic variables, medical comorbidities, and range-of-motion (ROM) outcomes for all patients were recorded. True facility costs with respect to personnel were calculated using a time-driven activity based-costing (TDABC) algorithm and were classified into personnel costs and supply costs. Results Seven patients were treated with PCR compared to nine treated with SBP. No significant differences were observed with respect to demographic characteristics. Postoperative mean external rotation was 37° in SBP patients significantly higher than that of PCR patients at 8° (P = 0.023). Personnel time and cost differences while in the operating room (OR) were significantly less for the SBP ($605.58) compared to PCR ($1362.76) (P < 0.001). Implant costs were higher for SBP when compared to PCR, whereas disposable equipment costs were higher for PCR when compared to SBP. The total mean true facility cost was $7658.00 for SBP, significantly higher than that of PCR at $3429.00 (P < 0.001). Conclusions Despite the substantial reduction in personnel costs seen with SBP, the true facility cost of SBP was significantly higher than that of PCR. As this novel technology is used more ubiquitously and its price is negotiated down, the cost savings seen in personnel and OR time will become more significant. Future prospective cost analyses should follow up on the changes in implant costs and account for potential anesthesia cost savings.