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

The presence of metastatic bone disease (MBD) often necessitates major orthopaedic surgery. Patients will enter surgical care either through emergent or electively scheduled care pathways. Patients in a pain crisis or with an acute fracture are generally admitted via emergent care pathways whereas patients with identified high-risk bone lesions are often booked for urgent yet scheduled elective procedures. The purpose of this study is to compare the post-operative outcomes of patients who present through emergent or electively scheduled care pathways in patients in a Canadian health care system. We have conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of all patients presenting for surgery for MBD of the femur, humerus, tibia or pelvis in southern Alberta between 2006 and 2021. Patients were identified by a search query of all patients with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer who underwent surgery for an impending or actual pathologic fracture in the Calgary, South and Central Alberta Zones. Subsequent chart reviews were performed. Emergent surgeries were defined by patients admitted to hospital via urgent care mechanisms and managed via unscheduled surgical bookings (“on call list”). Elective surgeries were defined by patients seen by an orthopaedic surgeon at least once prior to surgery, and booked for a scheduled urgent, yet elective procedure. Outcomes include overall survival from the time of surgery, hospital length of stay, and 30-day hospital readmission rate. We have identified 402 patients to date for inclusion. 273 patients (67.9%) underwent surgery through emergent pathways and 129 patients (32.1%) were treated through urgent, electively scheduled pathways. Lung, prostate, renal cell, and breast cancer were the most common primary malignancies and there was no significant difference in these primaries amongst the groups (p=0.06). Not surprisingly, emergent patients were more likely to be treated for a pathologic fracture (p<0.001) whereas elective patients were more likely to be treated for an impending fracture (p<0.001). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the emergent group (5.0 months, 95%CI: 4.0-6.1) compared to the elective group (14.9 months 95%CI: 10.4-24.6) [p<0.001]. Hospital length of stay was significantly longer in the emergent group (13 days, 95%CI: 12-16 versus 5 days, 95%CI: 5-7 days). There was a significantly greater rate of 30-day hospital readmission in the emergent group (13.3% versus 7.8%) [p=0.01]. Electively managed MBD has multiple benefits including longer post-operative survival, shorter length of hospital stay, and a lower rate of 30-day hospital readmission. These findings from a Canadian healthcare system demonstrate clinical value in providing elective orthopaedic care when possible for patients with MBD. Furthermore, care delivery interventions capable of decreasing the footprint of emergent surgery through enhanced screening or follow-up of patients with MBD has the potential to significantly improve clinical outcomes in this population. This is an ongoing study that will justify refinements to the current surgical care pathways for MBD in order to identify patients prior to emergent presentation. Future directions will evaluate the costs associated with each care delivery method to provide opportunity for health economic efficiencies

There is a lack of evidence as to the best way to deliver rehabilitation following TKA. Previous work has suggested that postoperative physiotherapy applied to all patients is not effective at improving one-year post-surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to target physiotherapy to those at risk of poor outcome following TKA, and to determine if a therapist-led intervention offered superior results compared to a home-exercise based protocol in this ‘at risk’ group. The Targeted Rehabilitation to Improve Outcomes (TRIO) study was a prospective randomised controlled trial run at 15-centres in the UK. Patients were identified as ‘potential poor outcome’ based on an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) classification at 6-weeks post-surgery and randomised to either therapist-led or home-exercise based protocols. Patients were reviewed by a physiotherapist and commenced 18-exercise sessions over 6-weeks. The therapist-led group undertook a progressive functional protocol (modified weekly in 1-1 contact sessions) in contrast to the static home-exercise based regime. Evaluation took place following rehabilitation intervention, then at 6-months and 1-year post-surgery. Primary outcome was comparative group OKS at 1-year. Secondary outcomes included, ‘worst’ and ‘average’ pain scores, OXS and EQ-5D, and satisfaction questionnaire. Health economic (cost-utility) analysis was undertaken from NHS perspective up to 1-year post-surgery. Incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated from intervention costs, patient reported primary and secondary care usage, and EQ-5D data. 4264 patients were screened, 1296 were eligible, 334 patients were randomised, 8 were lost to follow-up, therapy compliance was >85%. Clinically meaningful improvement in OKS (between baseline and 1-year) was seen in both arms (p < 0 .001). Between group difference in 1-year OKS was 1.91 (95%CI, −0.17–3.99) points favouring the therapist-led arm (p=0.07). Incorporating all time point data, between group difference in OKS was 2.25 points (95%CI, 0.61–3.90, p=0.008). Small, non-significant reductions (< 5 %) in both worst and average pain scores were observed favouring the therapist-led group. Enhanced satisfaction with pain relief (OR 1.65, p < 0 .02), ability to perform daily functional tasks (OR 1.66, p < 0 .02), and perform heavy functional tasks (OR 1.6, p=0.04) was reported in the therapist-led group. There was a small non-significant difference of 0.02 points (95%CI −0.02–0.06) between groups in EQ-5D, resulting in a £12,125 cost per QALY of delivering the therapist led intervention with a 57% chance of being cost-effective at the standard UK policy threshold of £20,000 per QALY. TRIO is the largest randomised trial of physiotherapy following TKA, and the first to target rehabilitation to patients at risk of poor outcomes. Both therapist-led and home-exercise based rehabilitation groups made clinically meaningful improvements in outcome by 1-year. We observed a modest difference in OKS in favour of therapist-led rehabilitation compared to the home-exercises which was not statistically significant. The relatively tight confidence intervals suggests that any difference which might exist is too small to be clinically relevant. Patient satisfaction with outcome was however higher in those that received greater physiotherapist contact. While cost per QALY estimates were below UK policy threshold, this result is uncertain and insufficient to make accept-decline recommendations

Aim. Current standard of care in the management of bone and joint infection commonly includes a 4–6 week course of intravenous (IV) antibiotics but there is little evidence to suggest that oral antibiotic therapy results in worse outcomes. The primary objective was to determine whether oral antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in this setting. Method. This was a parallel group, randomised (1:1), open label, non-inferiority trial across twenty-six NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom. Eligible patients were adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least six weeks of antibiotics and who had received ≤7 days of IV therapy from the date of definitive surgery (or the start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). Participants were randomised to receive either oral or IV antibiotics for the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral therapy was permitted in either arm. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing definitive treatment failure within one year of randomisation. The non-inferiority margin was set at 7.5%. Results. Of 1054 participants randomised (527 to each arm) endpoint data were available for 1015 (96.30%). Definitive treatment failure was identified in 141/1015 (13.89%) participants, 74/506 (14.62%) of those randomised to IV therapy and 67/509 (13.16%) of those randomised to oral therapy. In the intention to treat analysis, the imputed risk difference (PO-IV) for definitive treatment failure was −1.38% (90% CI: −4.94, 2.19), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion (i.e. the upper limit of 95%CI being <7.5%). A complete cases analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data confirmed this result. With the exception of intravenous catheter complications, there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). Health economic analysis suggests that the non-surgical treatment costs over one year for patients randomised to oral therapy were approximately £2,700 less than those of IV therapy. Conclusions. Oral antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first six weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within one year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. Funding. The OVIVA study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (Project number 11/36/29)

Chronic osteomyelitis is a challenging problem and a growing burden for the National Health Service. Conventional method of treatment is 2 stage surgery, with debridement and prolonged courses of antibiotics. Recently single stage treatment of chronic osteomyelitis is gaining popularity due decreased patient morbidity and cost effectiveness. Dead space management in single stage treatment is accomplished by either a muscle / myocutaneous or antibiotic loaded calcium sulphate beads. We analysed the cost effectiveness of two dead space management strategies in single stage treatment of osteomyelitis. Study is designed to analyse the health economics at 2 time points; 45 days post surgery and 2 years post surgery. We report preliminary results at 45 days post surgery. Setting – Level 1 trauma centre and university hospital. Approval – Ethics committee approved study. 10 patients in each group were retrospectively analysed through patient records. Each group was identified for standard demographics, duration of procedure, hospital stay, type and duration of postoperative antibiotics, number of out patient visits in first 45 days and recurrence of infection. Table attached details the results of both groups. In health technology assessment four quadrant model, CSB appears in quadrant II suggesting that it is more cost effective. Based on small data set and on assessment only evaluating cost, at 45 days assessment, antibiotic calcium sulphate beads from a Health Economic Cost Effectiveness Analysis offers a better economic outcome. This is holding constant the morbidity of the patients and effectiveness, assuming both treatments are standards of care, which is best evaluated at 24 months. Acknowledgements. Biocomposites for funding the cost of health economist

Aims. To establish if the principles of Enhanced Recovery, an evidence-based, integrated, multi-modal approach to improving recovery following colonic resection are transferable to elective orthopaedic primary arthroplasty surgery. The principles are to reduce the stress response provoked by surgery and eliminate the peri-operative catabolic state by optimally managing patients' metabolism, expectations, postoperative pain and mobility. This combination of interventions has not been tested in Orthopaedics before. Methods. We conducted a single surgeon, consecutive patient, interventional, cohort study of primary total hip and knee arthroplasties. Our intervention was Enhanced Orthopaedic Recovery (EOR). Results. We retrospectively reviewed 138 primary joint replacements. We performed a power calculation before prospectively assessing the next 50 hip and 32 knee arthroplasties. A two-tailed t-test showed a highly statistically significant fall in mean time to discharge (Hips 8.1-5.4 total nights stay, p=0.003, knees 8.5-5.3 total nights stay, p<0.001) and a fall in expected date of discharge from 5 to 3 postoperative days. We studied the complication and readmission rate and found no apparent difference. Conclusions. We have shown that by implementing EOR, reduced time to functional recovery and subsequent hospital discharge can be safely achieved with consequent quality of life and health economic benefits

Significance. Increasing health care costs are bankrupting the United States and other industrialized countries. To control and/or reduce costs in health care, hospitals, payers, and patients are turning to evidence-based meta-analyses and health economic analyses to identify medical treatments that provide value (value=outcome/cost). Objective: To determine if clinical outcome (patient reported outcomes) analyses or value/economic analyses are more likely to provide the evidence needed for adoption of new technologies in arthroplasty. Methods. A proprietary joint arthroplasty database of patient reported outcomes (PROs) was analyzed to determine the minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) for PROs used for total knee replacement surgery. The PROs analyzed were: (1) European quality of life (EQ-5D); Oxford Knee Score (OKS); (3) Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS); and (4) Likert Pain Scale (LPS). The MCID was calculated using a distribution method where the MCID equals one half the standard deviation of the score change, MCID = σΔ/2. For clinical meta-analyses, new technologies must demonstrate statistically significant better PROs and the difference must be greater than the MCID. For economic analyses, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) are used. For example, if a total knee replacement (TKR) improved a patient's health-related quality of life by 10% (0.10) and the assumed implant life is 15 years, the patient received 1.5 QALYs (0.10 × 15 years). If the total cost of care for the knee replacement surgery is $30,000, the cost per QALY is $20,000 ($30,000/1.5 QALYs). Results. The MCIDs for EQ-5D, OKS, LEAS, and LPS are 0.086%, 4.6 points, 1.6 points, and 1.3 points, respectively. The mean change (one-year post-operative EQ-5D minus pre-operative EQ-5D) for health-related quality of life is 15% (0.15). The average patient received 2.25 QALYs (0.15 × 15 years) from the surgery. The average cost per QALY is $13,333. However, if a new technology improves the mean health-related quality of life by 1% and the assumed implant life is 15 years, the patient receives 0.15 QALYs of improvement. With an average cost per QALY of $13,333, the new technology will be cost effective if the new technology cost is less than or equal to $2,000 (0.15 × $13,333) per patient. Conclusions. Achieving clinical superiority with new arthroplasty technology will be difficult because the minimum clinically important differences that need to be achieved are significant (EQ-5D 8.6%, OKS 4.6 points, LEAS 1.3 points, and LPS 1.3 points). However, small mean improvements in health-related quality of life (1%) can make the new technology cost effective. New technologies for arthroplasty surgery will increasingly need economic analyses to demonstrate cost effectiveness. Orthopaedic surgeons and manufacturers must collaborate to routinely collect health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) patient reported outcomes to provide a pathway for adoption of new innovative arthroplasty technologies

Study design. Economic evaluation alongside a prospective, randomised, controlled trial from a two-year National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Objective. To determine the cost-effectiveness of Titanium Cages (TC) compared to Femoral Ring Allografts (FRA) in circumferential lumbar spinal fusion. Summary of background data. A randomised controlled trial has shown the use of TC to be clinically inferior to the established practice of using FRA in circumferential lumbar fusion. Health economic evaluation is needed to justify the continued use of TC, given that this treatment is less effective and, all things being equal, is assumed more costly than FRA. Methods. Eighty-three patients were randomly allocated to receive either the TC or FRA between 1998 and 2002. NHS costs related to the surgery and revision surgery needed during the trial period were monitored and adjusted to the base year (2005/6 pounds sterling). The Short Form-6D (SF-6D) was administered pre-operatively and at 6, 12 and 24 months in order to elicit patient utility and subsequently Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for the trial period. Return to paid employment was also monitored. Bootstrapped mean differences in discounted costs and benefits were generated in order to explore cost-effectiveness. Results. A significant cost difference of £1,942 (95% CI £849 to £3,145) in favour of FRA was found. Mean QALYs per patient over the 24 month trial period were 0.0522 (SD 0.0326) in the TC group and 0.1914 (SD 0.0398) in the FRA group, producing a significant difference of -0.1392 (95% CI 0.2349 to 0.0436). With regard to employment, incremental productivity costs were estimated at £185,171 in favour of FRA. Conclusion. From an NHS perspective, this data show that TC is not cost-effective in circumferential lumbar fusion. The use of FRA was both cheaper and generated greater QALY gains. FRA patients also reported a greater return to work rate

Aims

This study presents patient-reported quality of life (QoL) over the first year following surgical debridement of long bone osteomyelitis. It assesses the bone involvement, antimicrobial options, coverage of soft tissues, and host status (BACH) classification as a prognostic tool and its ability to stratify cases into ‘uncomplicated’ or ‘complex’.