Aims. To perform an incremental cost-utility analysis and assess the impact of differential costs and case volume on the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) compared to manual (mUKA). Methods. This was a five-year follow-up study of patients who were randomized to rUKA (n = 64) or mUKA (n = 65). Patients completed the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) preoperatively, and at three months and one, two, and five years postoperatively, which was used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Costs for the primary and additional surgery and healthcare costs were calculated. Results. rUKA was associated with a relative 0.012 QALY gain at five years, which was associated with an incremental cost per QALY of £13,078 for a unit undertaking 400 cases per year. A cost per QALY of less than £20,000 was achieved when ≥ 300 cases were performed per year. However, on removal of the cost for a revision for presumed infection (mUKA group, n = 1) the cost per QALY was greater than £38,000, which was in part due to the increased intraoperative consumable costs associated with rUKA (£626 per patient). When the absolute cost difference (operative and revision costs) was less than £240, a cost per QALY of less than £20,000 was achieved. On removing the cost of the revision for infection, rUKA was cost-neutral when more than 900 cases per year were undertaken and when the consumable costs were zero. Conclusion. rUKA was a cost-effective intervention with an incremental cost per QALY of £13,078 at five years, however when removing the revision for presumed infection, which was arguably a random event, this was no longer the case. The absolute cost difference had to be less than £240 to be cost-effective, which could be achieved by reducing the perioperative costs of rUKA or if there were increased revision costs associated with mUKA with longer follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):889–898

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy plus optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in young patients aged under 45 years with traumatic meniscal tears. Methods. We conducted a multicentre, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial in patients aged 18 to 45 years, with a recent onset, traumatic, MRI-verified, isolated meniscal tear without knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomized to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or standardized physical therapy with an optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy after three months of follow-up. We performed a cost-utility analysis on the randomization groups to compare both treatments over a 24-month follow-up period. Cost utility was calculated as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared to physical therapy. Calculations were performed from a healthcare system perspective and a societal perspective. Results. A total of 100 patients were included: 49 were randomized to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and 51 to physical therapy. In the physical therapy group, 21 patients (41%) received delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy during follow-up. Over 24 months, patients in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group had a mean 0.005 QALYs lower quality of life (95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.14). The cost-utility ratio was €-160,000/QALY from the healthcare perspective and €-223,372/QALY from the societal perspective, indicating that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy incurs additional costs without any added health benefit. Conclusion. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is unlikely to be cost-effective in treating young patients with isolated traumatic meniscal tears compared to physical therapy as a primary health intervention. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy leads to a similar quality of life, but higher costs, compared to physical therapy plus optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1177–1183

Aims. To assess the cost-effectiveness of a two-layer compression bandage versus a standard wool and crepe bandage following total knee arthroplasty, using patient-level data from the Knee Replacement Bandage Study (KReBS). Methods. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside KReBS, a pragmatic, two-arm, open label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, in terms of the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Overall, 2,330 participants scheduled for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were randomized to either a two-layer compression bandage or a standard wool and crepe bandage. Costs were estimated over a 12-month period from the UK NHS perspective, and health outcomes were reported as QALYs based on participants’ EuroQol five-dimesion five-level questionnaire responses. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data and sensitivity analyses included a complete case analysis and testing of costing assumptions, with a secondary analysis exploring the inclusion of productivity losses. Results. The base case analysis found participants in the compression bandage group accrued marginally fewer QALYs, on average, compared with those in the standard bandage group (reduction of 0.0050 QALYs (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0051 to -0.0049)), and accumulated additional mean costs (incremental cost of £52.68 per participant (95% CI 50.56 to 54.80)). Findings remained robust to assumptions tested in sensitivity analyses, although considerable uncertainty surrounded the outcome estimates. Conclusion. Use of a two-layer compression bandage is marginally less effective in terms of health-related quality of life, and more expensive when compared with a standard bandage following TKA, so therefore is unlikely to provide a cost-effective option. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):550–559

Aims

The aims of this study were to assess mapping models to predict the three-level version of EuroQoL five-dimension utility index (EQ-5D-3L) from the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and validate these before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).