Aims. To assess how the cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) varies with age, sex, and preoperative Oxford Hip or Knee Score (OHS/OKS); and to identify the patient groups for whom THA/TKA is cost-effective. Methods. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model from a United Kingdom NHS perspective, informed by published analyses of patient-level data. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of THA and TKA in adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis compared with having no arthroplasty surgery during the ten-year time horizon. Results. THA and TKA cost < £7,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at all preoperative scores below the absolute referral thresholds calculated previously (40 for OHS and 41 for OKS). Furthermore, THA cost < £20,000/QALY for patients with OHS of ≤ 45, while TKA was cost-effective for patients with OKS of ≤ 43, since the small improvements in quality of life outweighed the cost of surgery and any subsequent revisions. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that there is little uncertainty around the conclusions. Conclusion. If society is willing to pay £20,000 per QALY gained, THA and TKA are cost-effective for nearly all patients who currently undergo surgery, including all patients at and above our calculated absolute referral thresholds. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):950–958

Aims. The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. Methods. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA. Results. At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years. Conclusion. The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment with an osseointegrated percutaneous (OI-) prosthesis and a socket-suspended (S-) prosthesis for patients with a transfemoral amputation. Patients and Methods. A Markov model was developed to estimate the medical costs and changes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) attributable to treatment of unilateral transfemoral amputation over a projected period of 20 years from a healthcare perspective. Data were collected alongside a prospective clinical study of 51 patients followed for two years. Results. OI-prostheses had an incremental cost per QALY gained of €83 374 compared with S-prostheses. The clinical improvement seen with OI-prostheses was reflected in QALYs gained. Results were most sensitive to the utility value for both treatment arms. The impact of an annual decline in utility values of 1%, 2%, and 3%, for patients with S-prostheses resulted in a cost per QALY gained of €37 020, €24 662, and €18 952, respectively, over 20 years. Conclusion. From a healthcare perspective, treatment with an OI-prosthesis results in improved quality of life at a relatively high cost compared with that for S-prosthesis. When patients treated with S-prostheses had a decline in quality of life over time, the cost per QALY gained by OI-prosthesis treatment was considerably reduced. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:527–34