Summary Statement. Using current analysis/methodology, new implant technology is unlikely to demonstrate a large enough change in patient function to impact on the cost-effectiveness of the procedure. Purpose. Cost effectiveness is an increasingly important metric in today's healthcare environment, and decisions surrounding which arthroplasty prosthesis to implant are not exempt from such health economic concerns. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) are the typical assessment tool for this type of evaluation. Using this methodology, joint arthroplasty has been shown to be cost effective, however studies directly comparing the QALY achieved by differing prostheses are lacking. Methods. Data was gathered in a single centre prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing the outcome a modern implant, the Triathlon total knee replacement, with its traditionally designed predecessor the Kinemax, using the Short Form 6 dimensional (SF-6D) score and quality adjusted life year (QALY) methodology. The study cohort consisted of 64 patients that were randomised to a Triathlon and 60 randomised to a Kinemax. Results. There was a significant improvement in the SF-6D score for both groups at one year compared with pre-operative scores (p<0.0001). The calculated overall life expectancy for the study cohort was 15.1 years, which resulted in an overall QALY gain of 2.144 (95% CI 1.752–2.507). The modern implant group demonstrated only a small improvement in the SF-6D score compared to the traditional design at one year (0.141 versus 0.143, p=0.94). This difference in health gain resulted in the modern implant costing £298 less per QALY at one year, however this saving diminished to less than £30 per year over the lifetime of the cohort. Discussion. This study demonstrates that despite comparing 2nd and 4th generation design, modern implant technology does not influence the cost-effectiveness of TKA using the SF-6D and QALY methodology. As most implants demonstrate similar longevity, differences in patient function will likely carry the greatest influence on QALY. This type of analysis however assesses health status, and is not sensitive to joint specific function. Dramatic differences in patient outcome would be required to influence QALY score. Evolutionary design changes in implant technology are thus unlikely to influence QALY analysis following joint replacement, which has important implication for implant procurement

Open lower limb fractures are resource-intensive fractures, accounting for a significant proportion of the workload and cost of orthopaedic trauma units. A recent study has evaluated that the median cost of direct inpatient treatment of open lower-limb fractures in the National Health Service (NHS) is steep, at £19189 per patient. Healthcare providers are expected to be aware of the costs of treatments, although there is very limited dissemination of this information, neither on a national or local level. Older adults (>65 years old) are at an increased risk of the types of high-energy injuries that can result in open lower limb fractures. Generally, there remains a significant lack of literature surrounding the cost of open fracture management, especially in specific patient groups that are disproportionately affected by these fractures. This study has calculated the direct inpatient care costs of older adults with open lower limb fractures.

Open lower limb fractures in adult patients over 65 years old treated at Addenbrooke's Hospital of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust were identified over the period of March 2014-March 2019. Isolated fractures of the femur, tibia and fibula over this time period were included. Direct inpatient care costs were calculated using information about the sustained fracture, operative time, implant(s) and theatre kit(s) used, the number of patient bed-days on the orthopaedic ward and critical care unit, and the number of hours of inpatient physiotherapy received. Direct inpatient care costs were compared with the income received by our centre for each of these cases, according to Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) cost codes. Our data was also compared with existing literature on Patient Level Costing (PLC) figures for open lower limb fractures.

We extracted data from 58 patients over the age of 65 years treated for open isolated lower limb fractures at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, between March 2014 and March 2019. The median cost of inpatient care calculated in this study was £20,398 per patient, resulting in a financial loss to the hospital of £5113 per patient. When the results were disaggregated by sex, the median cost for an open lower limb fracture in a male patient was £20,886 compared to £19,304 in a female patient. Data were also disaggregated by the site of injury, which produced a median cost for an open femur fracture of £23,949, and £24,549 and £15,362 for open tibia and ankle fractures, respectively.

The absence of published primary literature and clinical audits on this topic continues to hinder the inclusion of cost-effectiveness as an important factor in clinical decision-making. This study provides valuable insight into the true cost of open lower limb fractures in a key patient population in a Major Trauma Centre in England and highlights the large losses incurred by hospitals in treating these cases. These results support the revision of the remuneration structures in the NHS for the treatment of elderly patients with these injuries.

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.

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 edition of the Cochrane Corner looks at the three reviews that were published in the second half of 2023: surgical versus non-surgical interventions for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures; cryotherapy following total knee arthroplasty; and physical activity and education about physical activity for chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents.

Objectives

This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group.

Objectives

We sought to determine if a durable bilayer implant composed of trabecular metal with autologous periosteum on top would be suitable to reconstitute large osteochondral defects. This design would allow for secure implant fixation, subsequent integration and remodeling.

This protocol describes a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic and open surgery in the management of rotator cuff tears. This trial began in 2007 and was modified in 2010, with the removal of a non-operative arm due to high rates of early crossover to surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:155–60.