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. To compare the cost-utility of removable brace compared with cast in the management of adult patients with ankle fracture. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation conducted from the UK NHS and personnel social services (PSS) perspective. Health resources and quality-of-life data were collected as part of the Ankle Injury Rehabilitation (AIR) multicentre, randomized controlled trial over a 12-month period using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Cost-utility analysis was estimated in terms of the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Estimate uncertainty was explored by bootstrapping, visualized on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio plane. Net monetary benefit and probability of cost-effectiveness were evaluated at a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds and visualized graphically. Results. The incremental cost and QALYs of using brace over a 12-month period were £46.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) £-9 to £147) and 0.0141 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.033), respectively. The cost per QALY gained was £3,318. The probability of brace being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 88%. The results remained robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. This within-trial economic evaluation found that it is probable that using a removable brace provides good value to the NHS when compared to cast, in the management of adults with ankle fracture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):455–462

Primary hip and knee joint replacements in Canada have been estimated to cost over $1.4 billion dollars annually, with revision surgery costing $177 million. The most common cause of revision arthroplasty surgery in Canada is infection. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a devastating though preventable complication following arthroplasty. Though variably used, antibiotic laden bone cement (ALBC) has been demonstrated to decrease PJIs following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Unfortunately, ALBC is costlier than regular bone cement (RBC). Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if the routine use of ALBC in primary TKA surgery is a cost-effective practice from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system. A decision tree was constructed using a decision analysis software (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, Massachusetts) to a two-year time horizon comparing primary TKA with either ALBC or RBC from the perspective of a single-payer healthcare system. All costs were in 2020 Canadian dollars. Health utilities were in the form of quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs for cost were derived from regional and national databases. Health utilities and probability parameters were derived from the latest literature. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed on all model parameters. The primary outcome of this analysis was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY. Primary TKA with ALBC (TKA-ALBC) was found to be more cost-effective compared to primary TKA with RBC (TKA-RBC). More specifically, TKA-ALBC dominated TKA-RBC as it was less costly on the long term ($11,160 vs. $11,118), while providing the same QALY (1.66). The ICER of this cost-utility analysis (CUA) was $-11,049.72 per QALY, much less than the WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The model was sensitive to costs of ALBC-TKA as well as the probability of PJI following ALBC-TKA and RBC-TKA. ALBC ceased to be cost effective once the cost of ALBC was greater than $223.08 CAD per bag of cement. The routine use of ALBC in primary TKA is a cost-effective practice in the context of the Canadian healthcare system as long as the cost of ALBC is maintained at a reasonable price and the published studies to-date keep supporting the efficacy of ALBC in decreasing PJI following primary TKA. Further, this analysis is very conservative, and ALBC is likely much more cost-effective than presented. This is due to this model's revision surgery cost parameter being based on the average cost of all revision TKA surgery in Canada, regardless of etiology. Considering many PJIs require two-stage revisions, the cost parameter used in this analysis for revision surgery is an underestimate of true cost. Ultimately, this is the first cost-effectiveness study evaluating this topic from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system and can inform future national guidelines on the subject matter

The aim was to perform a cost-utility analysis of total joint replacement in the current environment. Arthritis is a disabling condition that leads to long-term deterioration in quality of life. Total joint replacement, despite being one of the greatest advances in medicine in the modern era, has come under recent scrutiny. The National Health Service (NHS) has competing demands and resource allocation is challenging in times of economic restraint. Patients undergoing total hip (n=348) and knee arthroplasty (n=323), from January to July 2010, were entered into a prospective arthroplasty database. A health utility score was derived from the Euroqol (EQ-5D) score preoperatively, and at one year, and was combined with individual life expectancy to derive the Quality-Adujusted-Life-Years (QALYs) gained. Predicted need for revision surgery was Incorporated in the model. The 2011–12 Scottish Tariff was used. Two-way analysis of variance was used to compare QALYs gained between procedures, while controlling for baseline differences. The number of QALYs gained was higher in THR versus TKR (6.53 vs 4.04 years, p<0.001). The cost per QALY for THR was £1371 (95% CI £1194 to £1614) compared with £2101 (£1762 to £2620) for TKR. Predictors of an increase in QALYs gained were poorer health prior to surgery (p<0.001) and younger age (p<0.001). General health (EQ-5D VAS) showed greater improvement in THR versus TKR (p<0.001). This study provides up to date cost-effectiveness data for total joint replacement. THR and TKR are both extremely clinically and cost-effective interventions, with costs that compare favourably with other medical interventions (e.g. laparoscopic hernia repair vs open: £55,548 per QALY; CHD primary prevention with statins: £21,000)

Funding. This report presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). NEF is a Senior NIHR Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). KK was supported by a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lectureship award. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the Health Technology Assessment programme or the Department of Health. Background and Purpose. Stratified care (SC) has previously been found to be a cost-effective approach for primary care LBP patients. The SCOPiC trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a modified SC model combining prognostic and clinical characteristics to allocate sciatica patients into one of three groups (with matched care pathways) versus non-stratified, usual care (UC). Methods. Cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12-months. Resource use and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) data were obtained from postal questionnaires, mean costs and QALYs were calculated for each trial arm along with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The base case analysis was by intention-to-treat, and performed from NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective. Sensitivity analyses included healthcare provider and societal perspectives, as well as analyses for each of the three patient groups. Results. 476 patients were randomised (238 per arm). Mean NHS/PSS costs (SD) recorded were £663.58 for SC and £617.37 for UC. Mean QALYs (SD) were 0.659 (0.173) for SC and 0.671 (0.168) for UC; the adjusted mean difference in QALYs was −0.011 (−0.035, 0.013). In this base-case analysis, the chance of SC being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY was only 19%. Similarly, low probabilities of effectiveness were observed in all sensitivity analyses. The chance of SC being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 ranged from 18% to 52% for each of the three patient groups. Conclusions. Overall, the SC model that we tested for sciatica in primary care was not a cost-effective option compared to usual, non-stratified care. No sources of funding. No conflicts of interest

Microdiscectomy is the most commonly performed spine surgery in the world. Due to its technical simplicity and low complication rate, this was the first spine surgical procedure transitioning for one-day surgery. However, the economic assessment of this outpatient transition was never performed and the question on the real impact in the burden of spine care remains.

This economic study aims to access the cost-utility of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy when compared with the inpatient procedure.

To do so, a cost-utility study was performed, adopting the hospital perspective. Direct medical costs were retrieved from the assessment of 20 patients undergoing outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy and 20 undergoing inpatient lumbar microdiscectomy, from a in a Portuguese NHS hospital. Utilities were calculated with quality-adjusted life-years were derived from Oswestry Disability Index values (ODI). ODI was assessed prospectively in outpatients in pre and 3- and 6-month post-operative evaluations. Inpatient ODI data were estimated from a meta-analysis. both probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated. A willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of €60000/QALY gained with inpatient procedure was defined.

Out results showed that inpatient procedure was cost-saving in all models tested. At 3-month assessment ICER ranged from €135753 to €345755/QALY, higher than the predefined WTP. At 6-month costs were lower and utilities were higher in outpatient, overpowering the inpatient procedure. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that in 65% to 73% of simulations outpatient was the better option. The savings with outpatient were about 55% of inpatient values, with similar utility scores. No 30-day readmissions were recorded in either group. The mean admission time in inpatient group was 2.5 days. Since there is an overall agreement among spine surgeons that an uncomplicated inpatient MD would only need a one-day admission, an analysis reducing inpatient admission time for one day was also performed and outpatient remained cost-effective.

In conclusion, as the first economic study on cost-utility of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy, this study showed a significant reduction in costs, with a similar clinical outcome, proving this outpatient transition as cost-effective

Aims: We conducted an cost-utility analysis to compare standard (in-hospital) with prolonged (out-of-hospital) enoxaparin prophylaxis after elective total hip and knee replacement. Methods: The perspective was that of a societal healthcare payer, taking Belgium as a case country. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-utility ratio, reported as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (Euro/QALY). Costs for diagnosis and treatment of proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, postphlebitic syndrome, and major bleeding were obtained from a Delphi panel (orthopaedic surgeons) and the official reimbursement rates (Federal Ministery of Health). QALYs for these health states were based on utility scores as reported in the literature. Results: In the base-case analysis, incremental costs of prolonged prophylaxis amounted 58 Euro and 114 Euro per patient, with an additional gain in QALY of 0.0083 and 0.0018 after total hip and knee replacement, respectively. Thus, a strategy of prolonged enoxaparin prophylaxis was associated with a cost-utility ratio of 6,964 Euro/QALY and 64,907 Euro/QALY after total hip and knee replacement, respectively. Applying a societal willingness-to-pay threshold value of 20,000 Euro/QALY, prolonged enoxaparin prophylaxis is cost-effective after elective total hip replacement. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the general robustness of these findings. Conclusions: After elective total hip or knee replacement, prolonged enoxaparin prophylaxis leads to increased effectiveness at increased cost. Nevertheless, given the additional costs healthcare decision makers in Europe are usually prepared to pay for a gain in effectiveness, prolonged prophylaxis with enoxaparin is cost-effective after total hip replacement

The primary aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine operative fixation for all patients with humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using a Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures (RUSHU)<8 to facilitate selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion.

From 2008-2017, 215 patients (mean age 57yrs [17–81], 61% female) with a non-operatively managed humeral diaphyseal fracture were retrospectively identified. Union was achieved in 77% (n=165/215) after non-operative management, with 23% (n=50/215) uniting after nonunion surgery. The EuroQol Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) Health Index was obtained via postal survey. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <£20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was considered cost-effective.

At a mean of 5.4yrs (1.2–11.0), the mean EQ-5D was 0.736. Multiple regression demonstrated that uniting after nonunion surgery was independently associated with an inferior EQ-5D (beta=0.103, p=0.032). Routine fixation for all patients to reduce the nonunion rate would be associated with increased treatment costs (£1,542/patient) but confer a potential EQ-5D benefit of 0.120/patient. The ICER of routine fixation was £12,850/QALY gained. Selective fixation, based upon a RUSHU<8 at 6wks post-injury, would be associated with reduced treatment costs (£415/patient) and confer a potential EQ-5D benefit of 0.335 per ‘at-risk patient’.

Routine fixation for patients with humeral shaft fractures, to reduce the nonunion rate observed after non-operative management, appears to be cost-effective at 5yrs post-injury. Selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion based upon the RUSHU may confer greater cost-effectiveness, given the potential savings and improvement in EQ-5D.

To determine the cost-effectiveness of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement (LTDR) with circumferential spinal fusion surgery.

Cost utility analysis.

We prospectively reviewed a cohort of 32 consecutive patients who underwent LTDR between 2004 and 2008 with a mean follow-up for 3.75 years. Identical data was compared to a similar group of patients (n=37) who underwent fusion in our institution.

Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale, quality of life (SF-36) and NHS resource use. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. QALY gains were estimated from SF-36 data using standard algorithms.

There was no significant intergroup difference in the ODI, VAS and SF-36 pre and post-op. Both treatments produced statistically significant and equivalent improvements in mean health state utility at the 24-month follow-up (0.078 for LTDR, 0.087 for fusion). Costs were significantly lower with LTDR than with fusion due to a shorter mean procedure time (193.6 vs 377.4 minutes) and shorter length of stay (5.8 vs 7 days). The mean cost difference was £2,878 per patient. At 2 years, the cost per QALY gain of the lower-cost option (LTDR) was £48,892 although the cost effectiveness ratio would fall to below £30,000 if it is assumed that the patient benefits of LTDR last for at least 4 years.

Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes which were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with LTDR which is effective and a more cost-effective alternative.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness IDET relative to circumferential lumbar fusion with femoral ring allograft (FRA).

Cost-effectiveness analysis

Patient-level data were available for patients with discogenic low back pain treated with FRA (n=37) in a randomized trial of FRA vs. titanium cage, and for patients recruited to a separate study evaluating the use of IDET (n=85). Patients were followed-up for 24 months.

Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale, quality of life (SF-36), radiographic evaluations, and NHS resource use. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

Both treatments produced statistically significant improvements in pain, disability and quality of life at the 24-month follow-up. Costs were significantly lower with IDET due to a shorter mean procedure time (377.4 minutes vs. 49.9 minutes) and length of stay (7 days vs. 1.2 days). The mean incremental cost of IDET was -£3,713 per patient; the mean incremental QALY gain was 0.03. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY the probability that IDET is cost-effective is 1, and the net health benefit is 0.21 QALY per patient treated.

Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes which were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with IDET, and for appropriate patients IDET is an effective and cost-effective treatment alternative.

Ethics approval: Ethics committee COREC

This cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by the York Health Economics Consortium at the University of York, and was funded by Smith & Nephew. Smith & Nephew had no financial or other involvement in the collection or analysis of the data on which the CEA is based.

Introduction

Postoperative dislocation remains a vexing problem for patients and surgeons following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is the commonest reason for revision THA in the US. Dual mobility (DM) THA implants markedly decrease the risk of THA instability. However, DM implants are more expensive than those used for conventional THA. The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of DM implants compared to conventional bearing couples for unilateral primary THA using a computer model-based evaluation.

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.

Aims

A trial-based comparison of the use of resources, costs and quality of life outcomes of arthroscopic and open surgical management for rotator cuff tears in the United Kingdom NHS was performed using data from the United Kingdom Rotator Cuff Study (UKUFF) randomised controlled trial.

Is Non-Weight-Bearing Necessary? (INWN) is a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing immediate protected weight-bearing (IWB) with non-weight-bearing cast immobilisation (NWB) following ankle fracture fixation (ORIF). This trial compares; functional outcomes, complication rates and performs an economic analysis to estimate cost-utility. IWB within 24hrs was compared to NWB, following ORIF of all types of unstable ankle fractures. Skeletally immature patients and tibial plafond fractures were excluded. Functional outcomes were assessed by the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and RAND-36 Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) taken at regular follow-up intervals up to one year. A cost-utility analysis via decision tree modelling was performed to derive an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). A standard gamble health state valuation model utilising SF-36 scores was used to calculate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for each arm. We recruited 160 patients (80 per arm), aged 15 to 94 years (M = 45.5), 54% female. Complication rates were similar in both groups. IWB demonstrated a consistently higher OMAS score, with significant values at 6 weeks (MD=10.4, p=0.005) and 3 months (MD 12.0, p=0.003). Standard gamble utility values demonstrated consistently higher values (a score of 1 equals perfect health) with IWB, significant at 3 months (Ẋ = 0.75 [IWB] / 0.69 [NWB], p=0.018). Cost-utility analysis demonstrated NWB is €798.02 more expensive and results in 0.04 fewer QALYs over 1 year. This results in an ICER of −€21,682.42/QALY. This negative ICER indicates cost savings of €21,682.42 for every QALY (25 patients = 1 QALY gain) gained implementing an IWB regime. IWB demonstrates a superior functional outcome, greater cost savings and similar complication rates, compared to NWB following ankle fracture fixation

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 estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with standard care alone for the treatment of early-stage Dupuytren’s disease (DD) and the value of further research from an NHS perspective. Methods. We used data from the Repurposing anti-TNF for Dupuytren’s disease (RIDD) randomized controlled trial of intranodular adalimumab injections in patients with early-stage progressive DD. RIDD found that intranodular adalimumab injections reduced nodule hardness and size in patients with early-stage DD, indicating the potential to control disease progression. A within-trial cost-utility analysis compared four adalimumab injections with no further treatment against standard care alone, taking a 12-month time horizon and using prospective data on EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and resource use from the RIDD trial. We also developed a patient-level simulation model similar to a Markov model to extrapolate trial outcomes over a lifetime using data from the RIDD trial and a literature review. This also evaluated repeated courses of adalimumab each time the nodule reactivated (every three years) in patients who initially responded. Results. The within-trial economic evaluation found that adalimumab plus standard care cost £503,410 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus standard care alone over a 12-month time horizon. The model-based extrapolation suggested that, over a lifetime, repeated courses of adalimumab could cost £14,593 (95% confidence interval £7,534 to £42,698) per QALY gained versus standard care alone. If the NHS was willing to pay £20,000/QALY gained, there is a 77% probability that adalimumab with retreatment is the best value for money. Conclusion. Repeated courses of adalimumab are likely to be a cost-effective treatment for progressive early-stage DD. The value of perfect parameter information that would eliminate all uncertainty around the parameters estimated in RIDD and the duration of quiescence was estimated to be £105 per patient or £272 million for all 2,584,411 prevalent cases in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):898–906

Aims. The primary aim of this study is to quantify and compare outcomes following a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius in elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years) who are managed conservatively versus with surgical fixation (open reduction and internal fixation). Secondary aims are to assess and compare upper limb-specific function, health-related quality of life, wrist pain, complications, grip strength, range of motion, radiological parameters, healthcare resource use, and cost-effectiveness between the groups. Methods. A prospectively registered (ISRCTN95922938) randomized parallel group trial will be conducted. Elderly patients meeting the inclusion criteria with a dorsally displaced distal radius facture will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to either conservative management (cast without further manipulation) or surgery. Patients will be assessed at six, 12, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks post intervention. The primary outcome measure and endpoint will be the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) at 52 weeks. In addition, the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire, pain score (visual analogue scale 1 to 10), complications, grip strength (dynamometer), range of motion (goniometer), and radiological assessments will be undertaken. A cost-utility analysis will be performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery. We aim to recruit 89 subjects per arm (total sample size 178). Discussion. The results of this study will help guide treatment of dorsally displaced distal radial fractures in the elderly and assess whether surgery offers functional benefit to patients. This is an important finding, as the number of elderly distal radial fractures is estimated to increase in the future due to the ageing population. Evidence-based management strategies are therefore required to ensure the best outcome for the patient and to optimize the use of increasingly scarce healthcare resources. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):920–928

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

Aim. This paper describes the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty among hip fracture patients in the World Hip Trauma Evaluation Five (WHiTE5) trial. Methods. A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at four months postinjury from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Resource use pertaining to healthcare utilization (i.e. inpatient care, physiotherapy, social care, and home adaptations), and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at one and four months (primary outcome endpoint) postinjury; only treatment of complications will be captured at 12 months. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Conclusion. The planned analysis strategy described here records our intent to conduct a within-trial CUA alongside the WHiTE5 trial

Studies have shown that 10–30% patients do not achieve optimal function outcomes after total hip replacement (THR). High quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of techniques to improve functional outcomes after THR are lacking. We performed this study to evaluate the feasibility of a RCT comparing patient-reported functional outcomes after hybrid or fully cemented THR (ISRCTN11097021). Patients were recruited from two centres and randomised to receive either a fully cemented or hybrid THR. Data collection included Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), non-serious adverse events of special interest (AESI), serious adverse device effects (SADE) and NHS resource use. Qualitative interviews were undertaken to understand a) patient experiences of study processes and their reasons for taking part or not, and b) to understand surgeons’ perceptions of the study, factors affecting willingness to participate, and barriers to implementation of the future RCT findings. The target of 40 patients were successfully recruited for the feasibility RCT; the ratio of successful recruitment to eligible patients was 0.61 across both sites. Treatment crossovers occurred in four patients, all related to bone quality. Four patients were withdrawn due to not undergoing surgery within the study window because of the pandemic. Follow-up was 100% and PROMs were completed by all patients at all time points. The feasibility of conducting a within-trial cost-utility analysis was demonstrated. Interviews were conducted with 27 patients and 16 surgeons. Patients and surgeons generally found the study procedures acceptable and workable. Some declined participation because they did not want treatment allocated at random, or because blinding was off-putting. Surgeons’ perceptions of equipoise varied, and implementation of findings from the future RCT would need to recognise the ‘craft’ nature of surgery and the issue of training. We conclude that a full RCT with economic analysis will be both feasible and practicable, although mechanisms to safely implement potential changes to practice because of RCT findings may need consideration by the wider arthroplasty community