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.

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

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).

Aims

The aim of this study was to estimate the incremental use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with surgical reconstruction compared to rehabilitation for long-standing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in the NHS, and to estimate its cost-effectiveness.

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.

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

Aims. Olecranon fractures are usually caused by falling directly on to the olecranon or following a fall on to an outstretched arm. Displaced fractures of the olecranon with a stable ulnohumeral joint are commonly managed by open reduction and internal fixation. The current predominant method of management of simple displaced fractures with ulnohumeral stability (Mayo grade IIA) in the UK and internationally is a low-cost technique using tension band wiring. Suture or suture anchor techniques have been described with the aim of reducing the hardware related complications and reoperation. An all-suture technique has been developed to fix the fracture using strong synthetic sutures alone. The aim of this trial is to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tension suture repair versus traditional tension band wiring for the surgical fixation of Mayo grade IIA fractures of the olecranon. Methods. SOFFT is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to receive either tension suture fixation or tension band wiring. 280 adult participants will be recruited. The primary outcome will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at four months post-randomization. Secondary outcome measures include DASH (at 12, 18, and 24 months), pain, Net Promotor Score (patient satisfaction), EuroQol five-dimension five-level score (EQ-5D-5L), radiological union, complications, elbow range of motion, and re-operations related to the injury or to remove metalwork. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments. Discussion. There is currently no high-quality evidence comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of the tension suture repair to the traditional tension band wiring currently offered for the internal fixation of displaced fractures of the olecranon. The Simple Olecranon Fracture Fixation Trial (SOFFT) is a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power and design rigour to provide this evidence for the subtype of Mayo grade IIA fractures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):27–37

Aims. The aim of this trial was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a soft bandage and immediate discharge, compared with rigid immobilization, in children aged four to 15 years with a torus fracture of the distal radius. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, as well as a broader societal point of view. Health resources and quality of life (the youth version of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y)) data were collected, as part of the Forearm Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) multicentre randomized controlled trial over a six-week period, using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Costs and health gains (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) were estimated for the two trial treatment groups. Regression was used to estimate the probability of the new treatment being cost-effective at a range of ‘willingness-to-pay’ thresholds, which reflect a range of costs per QALY at which governments are typically prepared to reimburse for treatment. Results. The offer of a soft bandage significantly reduced cost per patient (saving £12.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£5.30 to £19.80)) while QALYs were similar (QALY difference between groups: 0.0013 (95% CI -0.0004 to 0.003)). The high probability (95%) that offering a bandage is a cost-effective option was consistent when examining the data in a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. In addition to the known clinical equivalence, this study found that the offer of a bandage reduced cost compared with rigid immobilization among children with a torus fracture of the distal radius. While the cost saving was small for each patient, the high frequency of these injuries indicates a significant saving across the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):623–630

Aims. Within healthcare, several measures are used to quantify and compare the severity of health conditions. Two common measures are disability weight (DW), a context-independent value representing severity of a health state, and utility weight (UW), a context-dependent measure of health-related quality of life. Neither of these measures have previously been determined for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The aim of this study is to determine the DW and country-specific UWs for DDH. Methods. A survey was created using three different methods to estimate the DW: a preference ranking exercise, time trade-off exercise, and visual analogue scale (VAS). Participants were fully licensed orthopaedic surgeons who were contacted through national and international orthopaedic organizations. A global DW was calculated using a random effects model through an inverse-variance approach. A UW was calculated for each country as one minus the country-specific DW composed of the time trade-off exercise and VAS. Results. Over a four-month period, 181 surgeons participated in the survey, with 116 surgeons included in the final analysis. The global DW calculated to be 0.18 (0.11 to 0.24), and the country-specific UWs ranged from 0.26 to 0.89. Conclusion. This is the first time that a global disability weight and country-specific utility weights have been estimated for DDH, which should assist in economic evaluations and the development of health policy. The methodology may be applied to other orthopaedic conditions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):120–128

Background. Over 55,000 spinal operations are performed annually in the NHS. Effective postoperative analgesia facilitates early mobilisation and assists rehabilitation and hospital discharge, but is difficult to achieve with conventional, opioid-based, oral analgesia. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of two alternative techniques, namely intrathecal opioid and the more novel erector-spinae plane blockade, is unknown. The Pain Relief After Instrumented Spinal Surgery (PRAISE) trial aims to evaluate these techniques. Methods. PRAISE is a multicentre, prospective, parallel group, patient-blinded, randomised trial, seeking to recruit 456 adult participants undergoing elective, posterior lumbar-instrumented spinal surgery from up to 25 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive (1) Usual Care with local wound infiltration, (2) Intrathecal Opioid plus Usual Care with local wound infiltration or (3) Erector Spinae Plane blockade plus Usual Care with no local wound infiltration. The primary outcome is pain on movement on a 100mm visual analogue scale at 24 hours post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain at rest, leg pain, quality of recovery (QoR-15), postoperative opioid consumption, time to mobilisation, length of hospital stay, health utility (EQ-5D-5L), adverse events and resource use. Parallel economic evaluation will estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results. Differences in the primary outcome at 24 hours will be estimated by mixed-effects linear regression modelling, with fixed effects for randomisation factors and other important prognostic variables, and random effects for centre, using the as-randomised population. Treatment effects with 95% confidence intervals will be presented. Conclusion. The study is due to open in May 2024 and complete in 2026. Conflicts of Interest. No conflicts of interest declared. Sources of Funding. NIHR Health Technology Award – grant number NIHR153170. Trial presentations so far. APOMP 2023 and 2024; RCOA conference, York, November 2023; Faculty of Pain Management training day, London, February 2024

Abstract. Design. A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial to determine whether the intervention is superior to comparator. Setting. 20 NHS Hospitals. Population. NHS patients <60 years with moderate-severe symptomatic knee OA localised to the medial compartment in whom surgical intervention is indicated. Intervention. Surgery with medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) followed by standard postoperative rehabilitation based on local pathways. Comparator. Tailored non-surgical intervention delivered within an NHS physiotherapy department delivered over 6-contact sessions within a period of 4 months. Outcomes. Primary outcome - 24-month Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); Secondary outcomes - OKS, FJS-12, EQ-5D-3L, Pittsburgh Sleep Problem Scale, Return to Work, secondary surgical interventions and complications at 12 and 24 months following randomisation. Health economic evaluation - 24-month within trial analysis, and a decision analytic simulation model to account for the impacts of future knee replacements (and associated revisions), and their timing relative to retirement and employment potential. Process evaluation – to explore trial eligibility, recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of intervention implementation and patient experience of taking part/contextual factors that influence this. Follow up. 12 months and 24 months post-randomisation. Sample size. 224 patients; (90% power, 2-sided p=0.05, equivalent to a sample size of 97 per group). Allowing for 15% loss to follow up, 112 patients will be recruited to each arm of the trial. Project timelines. Start date 1 August 2022, total project duration 60 months including a 9-month, 5-site internal pilot, with a recruitment rate of 0.7 patients/site/month

Introduction. Motorised intramedullary lengthening nails are considered more expensive than external fixators for limb lengthening. This research aims to compare the cost of femoral lengthening in children using the PRECICE magnetic lengthening nail with external fixation. Materials and Methods. Patients: Retrospective analysis of 50 children who underwent femoral lengthening. One group included patients who were treated with PRECICE lengthening nails, the other group included patients who had lengthening with external fixation. Each group included 25 patients aged between 11–17 years. The patients in both groups were matched for age. Cost analysis was performed following micro-costing and analysis of the used resources during the different phases of the treatments. Results. : Each group's mean patient age was 14.7 years. Lengthening nails were associated with longer operative times compared to external fixators, both for implantation and removal surgery (P-value 0.007 and <0.0001 respectively). Length of stay following the implantation surgery, frequency of radiographs, frequency of outpatient department appointments were all more favourable with lengthening nails. The overall cost of lengthening nails was £1393 more than external fixators, although this difference was not statistically significant (P-value 0.088). Conclusions. The cost of femoral lengthening with lengthening nails was not significantly higher than the external fixators’ cost. Further research to review the effectiveness of the devices and the quality of life during the lengthening process is crucial for robust health economic evaluation

Introduction. The purpose of this research is to compare the quality of life in children during gradual deformity correction using external fixators with intramedullary lengthening nails. Materials and Methods. Prospective analysis of children during lower limb lengthening. Group A included children who had external fixation, patients in group B had lengthening nails. Patients in each group were followed up during their limb reconstruction. CHU-9D and EQ-5DY instruments were used to measure quality of life at fixed intervals. The first assessment was during the distraction phase (1 month postop.), the second was during the early consolidation phase (3 months postop.) and the final one was late consolidation phase (6–9 months depends on the frame time). Results. Group B patients reported significantly better utility compared to Group A. This was observed during all the stages of the treatment. Group B children were less worried (P 0.004), less sad (P 0.0001), less pain (p <0.0001), less tired (P 0.0002), better school work (P0.0041), better sleep (p 0.016), more able to do sports activities (p 0.004) and, they were more independent (p <0.0001) compared to group B. QALYS was better for the nails group compared to external fixation group 0.44 compared to 0.36 for external fixators. Conclusions. Lengthening nails had the potential to improve the quality of life and utility compared to external fixation. This will help further economic evaluation to measure ICER to further explore the cost effectiveness of these devices

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is the most common pediatric hip disorder. The most devastating complication is development of avascular necrosis of the femoral head. In order to reduce the potential for this complication occurring following delayed contralateral SCFE, there has been consideration in the literature of prophylactic pinning of the contralateral hip. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment strategy. The outcome probabilities and utilities utilised in a decision analysis of prophylactic pinning of the contralateral hip in SCFE, reported by Kocher et al, were used in this study. Costing data, reported in 2005 Canadian dollars, was obtained from our institution. Using this data, an economic evaluation was performed. The time horizon was four years, so as to follow the adolescents to skeletal maturity. Discounting was performed at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the effect of variation of the outcome probabilities and utilities. In all analyses, prophylactic pinning resulted in cost savings but lower utility, compared to the currently accepted strategy of observation of the contralateral hip. The results were most sensitive to an increase in the probability of a delayed contralateral SCFE to 27%. Using the base case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $7856.12 per utility gained. Using the most sensitive probability of a delayed contralateral SCFE of 27%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $27,252.92 per utility gained. The results of this study demonstrated overall cost savings with prophylactic treatment, however the utility was lower than the standard treatment of observation. For both the base case and sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the accepted threshold of $50,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. It should be noted that the use of a four year time horizon excluded consideration of the costs related to total hip arthroplasty for the sequelae of AVN. A prospective, randomised controlled trial, with an accompanying economic evaluation, is required to definitively answer the question of the cost-effectiveness of this treatment. On the basis of this cost-effectiveness analysis, prophylactic pinning of the contralateral hip in SCFE cannot be recommended. A prospective, randomised controlled trial, with an accompanying economic evaluation, is required to definitively answer the question of the cost-effectiveness of this treatment

Robust evidence on the effectiveness of peri-operative local anaesthetic infiltration (LAI) is required before it is incorporated into the pain management regimen for patients receiving total hip replacement (THR). We assessed the effectiveness of LAI using a systematic review and a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic evaluation. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for RCTs of peri-operative LAI in patients receiving THR. Two reviewers screened abstracts, extracted data, and liaised with authors. Outcomes were pain, opioid use, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. If feasible, we conducted meta-analysis. In the APEX RCT, we randomised 322 patients awaiting THR to receive additional peri-operative LAI (60mls 0.25% bupivacaine plus adrenaline) or standard anaesthesia alone. Post-operatively, all patients received patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was joint pain severity (WOMAC-Pain) at 12 months. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation. Within APEX, cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social-care perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and WOMAC-Pain at 12-months. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient questionnaires. In the systematic review, we identified 13 studies (909 patients). Patients undergoing THR receiving LAI experienced greater pain reduction at 24 hours at rest, standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.61 (95%CI −1.05, −0.16; p=0.008) and at 48 hours during activity, SMD −0.43 (95%CI −0.78, −0.09; p=0.014). Patients receiving LAI spent fewer days in hospital, used less opioids and mobilised earlier. Complications were similar between groups. Long-term outcomes were not a focus of these studies. In the APEX RCT, pain levels in hospital were broadly similar between groups, probably due to patient-controlled analgesia. Opioid use was similar between groups. Time to mobilisation and discharge were largely dependent on local protocols and did not differ between groups. Patients receiving LAI were less likely to report severe pain at 12 months than those receiving standard care, odds ratio 10.2 (95%CI 2.1, 49.6; p=0.004). Complications were similar between groups. In the economic evaluation, LAI was associated with lower costs and greater cost-effectiveness than standard care. Using a £20,000 per QALY threshold, the incremental net monetary benefit was £1,125 (95%CI £183, £2,067) and the probability of being cost-effective was greater than 98 %. The evidence suggests that peri-operative LAI is a cost-effective intervention for reducing acute and chronic post-surgical pain after THR

This prospective, randomized, controlled trial compares patient outcome after non-operative care versus open reduction and tunneled suspension device fixation (ORTSD) for grade III or IV acromioclavicular joint disruptions. Sixty patients aged between sixteen and thirty-five years with an acute grade III or IV AC joint disruption were randomized to receive ORTSD fixation or non-operative treatment. Functional assessment was conducted at six weeks, three months, six months, and one year using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hands (DASH), Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS) and Short Form (SF-12). Reduction was evaluated using radiographs. Complications were recorded, and an economic evaluation performed. There was no significant difference in DASH or OSS at one year between non-operative and ORTSD groups (DASH score, 4.67 versus 5.63; OSS, 45.72 versus 45.63). Patients undergoing surgery had inferior DASH scores at 6 weeks (p<0.01). Five patients who failed non-operative management subsequently received surgery. Overall cost of treatment was significantly greater after ORTSD fixation (£796.22 vs £3359.73 (p<0.01)). ORTSD fixation confers no functional benefit over non-operative treatment at one year. While patients managed non-operatively generally recover faster, a significant group remain dissatisfied following non-operative treatment requiring delayed surgical reconstruction

Robust evidence on the effectiveness of peri-operative local anaesthetic infiltration (LAI) is required before it is incorporated into the pain management regimen for patients receiving total knee replacement (TKR). To assess the effectiveness of peri-operative LAI for pain management in patients receiving TKR we conducted a systematic review, fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for RCTs of peri-operative LAI in patients receiving TKR. Two reviewers screened abstracts and extracted data. Outcomes were pain, opioid use, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. Authors were contacted if required. When feasible, we conducted meta-analysis with studies analysed separately if a femoral nerve block (FNB) was provided. In the APEX RCT, we randomised 316 patients awaiting TKR to standard anaesthesia which included FNB, or to the same regimen with additional peri-operative LAI (60mls 0.25% bupivacaine plus adrenaline). Post-operatively, all patients received patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was joint pain severity (WOMAC-Pain) at 12 months. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation. Within APEX, cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social-care perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and WOMAC-Pain at 12-months. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient questionnaires. In the systematic review, 23 studies including 1,439 patients were identified. Compared with patients receiving no intervention, LAI reduced WOMAC-Pain by standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.40 (95%CI −0.58, −0.22; p<0.001) at 24 hours at rest and by SMD −0.27 (95%CI −0.50, −0.05; p=0.018) at 48 hours during activity. In three studies there was no difference in pain at any time point between randomised groups where all patients received FNB. Patients receiving LAI spent fewer days in hospital, used less opioids and mobilised earlier. Complications were similar between groups. Few studies reported long-term outcomes. In the APEX RCT, pain levels in hospital were broadly similar between groups. Overall opioid use was similar between groups. Time to mobilisation and discharge were largely dependent on local protocols and did not differ between groups. There were no differences in pain outcomes between groups at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, LAI was marginally associated with lower costs. Using the NICE £20,000 per QALY threshold, the incremental net monetary benefit was £264 (95%CI, −£710, £1,238) and the probability of being cost-effective was 62%. Although LAI appeared to have some benefit for reduced pain in hospital after TKR there was no evidence of pain control additional to that provided by femoral nerve block, however it would be cost-effective at the current NICE thresholds

Background and Purpose. The STarT Back approach comprises subgrouping of LBP patients according to risk of persistent LBP-related disability, and matches patients to appropriate treatments. In a clinical trial and implementation study, this stratified care approach was clinically and cost-effective compared to usual non-stratified care. However, the long-term cost- effectiveness is unknown, and could be established with decision modelling. A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations in LBP found shortcomings with existing models, including inadequate characterisation of the condition in health states and absence of long-term modelling. This study conceptualises the first decision model of this stratified care approach for LBP management, and assesses long-term cost-effectiveness. Methods. A cost-utility analysis from the NHS perspective compared stratified care with usual care, in patients consulting in primary care with non-specific LBP. A Markov state-transition model was constructed where long-term patient prognosis over ten years was dependent upon physical function achieved at twelve months. Consultation with experts helped define condition health states, inform the long-term modelling, and choice of sensitivity analyses. Results. Preliminary base-case results indicate this model of stratified care is cost-effective over a ten-year time horizon, delivering 0.10 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost-saving of £100.27 per patient. Sensitivity analyses indicate the approach is likely to be cost-effective in all scenarios, and cost-saving in most, although sensitive to assumptions regarding long-term patient prognosis. Analysis from the societal perspective improved the associated cost-savings. Conclusion. It is likely that implementation of this stratified care model will help reduce unnecessary healthcare usage, whilst improving patient quality of life. No conflicts of interest. Funding: Research stipend for JAH by the Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the MIS Anterolateral Approach to that of the MIS Posterolateral and MIS Direct Lateral Approach. Method. A prospective randomized control trial was designed and conducted to compare the MIS Anterolateral Approach to that of the MIS Posterolateral and MIS Direct Lateral Approach. Contemporary methods for economic evaluation were used to ascertain direct and indirect costs (in Canadian dollars) along with clinical effectiveness outcomes (SF6D and Pat5D utility measures). University and hospital ethics was obtained and patients were recruited and consented to participate in the RCT resulting in the assignment of 130 patients MIS hip arthroplasty procedures. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidity, quality of life, and utility were obtained for all patients. In-hospital costing data was obtained including operating room and patient room costs as well as medication, rehab and complications. Post-discharge costs were calculated from direct and indirect costs of medication, rehab, medical costs and complications until one year post-operatively. Clinical effectiveness measures were administered at intervals until one year post-operatively. Results. Patient groupings were similar pre-operatively with regards to demographic variables and quality of life measures (WOMAC, SF36, Pat5D). Post-operatively comparison of costs and complications were not different across the different surgical approaches (p>.05). Cost-effectiveness analyses (cost/QALY) were not statistically different (p>.05) when comparing the three MIS hip arthroplasty procedures. Conclusion. Primary total hip arthroplasty is a cost-effective surgical procedure and compares favorably with other health interventions. Our study is among the first to compare the cost-effectiveness of different MIS surgical approaches using contemporary methods of cost-effectiveness analyses. Our data suggests that the MIS Anterolateral approach is not superior to the MIS Posterolateral or MIS Direct Lateral approach with regards to cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Our economic evaluation was sensitive to early post-op complications including dislocation and re-operation. Surgeons should select an MIS approach based on criteria including technical preference, reliable implant placement, patient safety and complication minimization