Aims. Prior cost-effectiveness analyses on osseointegrated prosthesis for transfemoral unilateral amputees have analyzed outcomes in non-USA countries using generic quality of life instruments, which may not be appropriate when evaluating disease-specific quality of life. These prior analyses have also focused only on patients who had failed a socket-based prosthesis. The aim of the current study is to use a disease-specific quality of life instrument, which can more accurately reflect a patient’s quality of life with this condition in order to evaluate cost-effectiveness, examining both treatment-naïve and socket refractory patients. Methods. Lifetime Markov models were developed evaluating active healthy middle-aged male amputees. Costs of the prostheses, associated complications, use/non-use, and annual costs of arthroplasty parts and service for both a socket and osseointegrated (OPRA) prosthesis were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using the questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA) until death. All costs and Q-TFA were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses on those cost variables which affected a change in treatment (OPRA to socket, or socket to OPRA) were evaluated to determine threshold values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results. For treatment-naïve patients, the lifetime ICER for OPRA was $279/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For treatment-refractory patients the ICER was $273/QALY. In sensitivity analysis, the variable thresholds that would affect a change in the course of treatment based on cost (from socket to OPRA), included the following for the treatment-naïve group: yearly replacement components for socket > $8,511; cost yearly replacement parts OPRA < $1,758; and for treatment-refractory group: yearly replacement component for socket of > $12,467. Conclusion. The use of the OPRA prosthesis in physically active transfemoral amputees should be considered as a cost-effective alternative in both treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory socket prosthesis patients. Disease-specific quality of life assessments such as Q-TFA are more sensitive when evaluating cost-effectiveness. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):218–226

Abstract

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 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. Methods. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model from a United Kingdom NHS perspective, informed by published analyses of patient-level data. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of THA and TKA in adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis compared with having no arthroplasty surgery during the ten-year time horizon. Results. THA and TKA cost < £7,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at all preoperative scores below the absolute referral thresholds calculated previously (40 for OHS and 41 for OKS). Furthermore, THA cost < £20,000/QALY for patients with OHS of ≤ 45, while TKA was cost-effective for patients with OKS of ≤ 43, since the small improvements in quality of life outweighed the cost of surgery and any subsequent revisions. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that there is little uncertainty around the conclusions. Conclusion. If society is willing to pay £20,000 per QALY gained, THA and TKA are cost-effective for nearly all patients who currently undergo surgery, including all patients at and above our calculated absolute referral thresholds. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):950–958

Aims. The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. Methods. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA. Results. At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years. Conclusion. The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135

While pre-soaking grafts in vancomycin has demonstrated to be effective in observational studies for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) infection prevention, the economic benefit of the technique is uncertain. The primary aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin pre-soaking during primary ACLR to prevent post-operative joint infections. The secondary aims of the study were to establish the breakeven cost-effectiveness threshold of the technique. A Markov model was used to determine cost effectiveness and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio of additional vancomycin pre-soaking compared to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone. A repeated meta-analysis of nine cohort studies (Level III evidence) was completed to determine the odds ratio of infection with vancomycin pre-soaking compared to intravenous antibiotics alone. Estimated costs and transitional probabilities for further surgery were obtained from the literature. Breakeven threshold analysis was performed. The vancomycin soaking technique provides an expected cost saving of $600AUD per patient. There was an improvement in the quality-adjusted life years of 0.007 compared to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone (4.297 versus 4.290). If the infection rate is below 0.023% with intravenous antibiotics alone or the additional intervention cost more than $1000AUD, the vancomycin wrap would no longer be cost-effective. For $30AUD, the vancomycin soaking technique provides a $600AUD cost saving by both reducing the risk of ACLR related infection and economic burden of infection. Treating septic arthritis represents a mean cost per patient of 6 times compared to that of the primary surgery. There has been no previous cost-effectiveness study of the vancomycin wrap technique. The vancomycin pre-soaking technique is a highly cost-effective method to prevent post-operative septic arthritis following primary ACLR

Two-stage revisions for the infected THA are associated with lower re-infection rates than directexchange (one-stage) revisions, and for this reason are favored in the U.S. However, the twostage approach may result in increased, but poorly quantified, surgical morbidity. We developed a decision analysis to compare direct-exchange revision to the two-stage approach for treating the infected THA. We performed a systematic literature search for papers that analyzed direct-and two-stage revisions for the treatment of chronic infections after THA, with a > 2 years follow-up. This provided frequencies of the most common postoperative (interim and final) health states. These were converted to monthly probabilities to permit decision analysis. We conducted and previously published two surveys to obtain utility values, one in experienced arthroplasty surgeons and another in patients. Using those probabilities and utilities, we created a Markov cohort modeling the postoperative health states seen during treatment of the infected THA. Sensitivity analysis was performed for each variable in the tree to verify the models robustness. Using a 12-month cycle, the Markov model favored direct-exchange revision over the twostage approach, regardless of whether surgeon-or patient-derived utilities were used (0.941 vs. 0.642 expected value (EV), and 0.889 vs. 0.551 EV, for patient-and surgeon-derived utilities, respectively; p< 0.01). These findings were also significant in a lifetime model with a ten-year life expectancy (p< 0.01). The findings were robust in sensitivity analyses using a clinically salient range of input variables. This decision analysis, which used a systematic review of the literature (for complication and outcome frequencies) and published study-specific survey data from patients and experienced surgeons (for utility values of those health states) found direct-exchange arthroplasty to be superior to the two-stage revision for treating the infected THA. This finding was unexpected, in that this is not our typical approach nor is it favored in this country

Many different designs of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with varying performance and cost are available. The identification of those which are the most cost-effective could allow significant cost-savings. We used an established Markov model to examine the cost effectiveness of five frequently used categories of THA which differed according to bearing surface and mode of fixation, using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Kaplan–Meier analyses of rates of revision for men and women were modelled with parametric distributions. Costs of devices were provided by the NHS Supply Chain and associated costs were taken from existing studies. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) and the probability of a device being cost effective at a willingness to pay £20 000/QALY were included in the models. The differences in QALYs between different categories of implant were extremely small (<  0.0039 QALYs for men or women over the patient’s lifetime) and differences in cost were also marginal (£2500 to £3000 in the same time period). As a result, the probability of any particular device being the most cost effective was very sensitive to small, plausible changes in quality of life estimates and cost. . Our results suggest that available evidence does not support recommending a particular device on cost effectiveness grounds alone. We would recommend that the choice of prosthesis should be determined by the rate of revision, local costs and the preferences of the surgeon and patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:449–57

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment with an osseointegrated percutaneous (OI-) prosthesis and a socket-suspended (S-) prosthesis for patients with a transfemoral amputation. Patients and Methods. A Markov model was developed to estimate the medical costs and changes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) attributable to treatment of unilateral transfemoral amputation over a projected period of 20 years from a healthcare perspective. Data were collected alongside a prospective clinical study of 51 patients followed for two years. Results. OI-prostheses had an incremental cost per QALY gained of €83 374 compared with S-prostheses. The clinical improvement seen with OI-prostheses was reflected in QALYs gained. Results were most sensitive to the utility value for both treatment arms. The impact of an annual decline in utility values of 1%, 2%, and 3%, for patients with S-prostheses resulted in a cost per QALY gained of €37 020, €24 662, and €18 952, respectively, over 20 years. Conclusion. From a healthcare perspective, treatment with an OI-prosthesis results in improved quality of life at a relatively high cost compared with that for S-prosthesis. When patients treated with S-prostheses had a decline in quality of life over time, the cost per QALY gained by OI-prosthesis treatment was considerably reduced. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:527–34

Background. Prosthetic implants used in primary total hip replacements have a range of bearing surface combinations (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, metal-on-metal); head sizes (small <36mm, large 36mm+); and fixation techniques (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, reverse hybrid), which influence prosthesis survival, patient quality of life, and healthcare costs. This study compared the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implants to determine the optimal choice for patients of different age and gender profiles. Methods. In an economic decision Markov model, the probability that patients required one or more revision surgeries was estimated from analyses of UK and Swedish hip joint registries, for males and females aged <55, 55–64, 65–74, 75–84, and 85+ years. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from hospital procurement prices, national tariffs, and the literature. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated using utility estimates, taken from Patient-Reported Outcome Measures data for hip procedures in the UK. Results. Optimal choices varied between traditionally used cemented metal-on-polyethylene and cemented ceramic-on-polyethylene implants. Small head cemented ceramic-on-polyethylene implants were optimal for males and females aged under 65. The optimal choice for adults aged 65 and older was small head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants. Conclusions. The older the patient, the higher the probability that small head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants are optimal. Small head cemented ceramic-on-polyethelyne implants are optimal for adults aged under 65. Our findings can influence NICE guidance, clinical practice, and commissioning of services. Funding. NIHR Research for Patient Benefit programme PB-PG-0613-31032

Introduction. The purpose of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of performing total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus nonoperative management (NM) in non-obese (BMI 18.5–24.9), overweight (25–29.9), obese (30–34.9), severely-obese (35–39.9), morbidly-obese (40–49.9), and super-obese (50+) patients. Methods. We constructed a state-transition Markov model to compare the cost-utility of THA and NM in the six above-mentioned BMI groups over a 15-year time period. Model parameters for transition probability (i.e. risk of revision, re-revision, death), utility, and costs (inflation adjusted to 2017 US dollars) were estimated from the literature. Direct medical costs of managing hip arthritis were accounted in the model. Indirect societal costs were not included. A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of THA versus NM. One-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the model parameters were performed to determine the robustness of the model. Results. Over the 15-year time period, the ICERs for THA versus NM were: normal-weight ($6,043/QALY), overweight ($5,770/QALY), obese ($5,425/QALY), severely-obese ($7,382/QALY), morbidly-obese ($8,338/QALY), and super-obese ($16,651/QALY). The two highest BMI groups had higher incremental QALYs and incremental costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that THA would be cost-effective in 100% of the normal, overweight, obese, severely-obese, and morbidly-obese simulations, and 99.95% of super-obese simulations at an ICER threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusion. Even at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, which is considered low for the United States, our model showed that THA would be cost effective for all obesity levels. Therefore, invoking BMI cut-offs for THA may lead to unjustifiable loss of healthcare access for obese patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis

There is ongoing debate regarding the optimal surgical treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) compared to hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the management of these fractures. A cost–utility analysis using decision tree and Markov modelling based on data from the published literature was conducted. A single-payer perspective with a lifetime time horizon was adopted. A willingness to pay threshold of CAD $50,000 was used. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the study's primary outcome measure. In comparison to HA, the incremental cost per QALY gained for RTSA was $13,679. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed the model to be sensitive to the RTSA implant cost and the RTSA procedural costs. Two-way sensitivity analysis suggested RTSA could also be cost-effective within the first two years of surgery with an early complication rate as high as 25% (if RTSA implant cost was approximately $3,000); or conversely, RTSA implant cost could be as high as $8,500 if its early complication rates were 5%. The ICER of $13,679 is well below the WTP threshold of $50,000 and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 92.6% of model simulations favoured RTSA. Our economic analysis found that RTSA for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly is the preferred economic strategy when compared to HA. The ICER of RTSA is well-below standard willingness to pay thresholds, and its estimate of cost-effectiveness is similar to other highly successful orthopaedic strategies such as total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of hip arthritis

Patient-specific instruments for total knee arthroplasty shift the bone landmark registration and implant positioning of computer navigation from intraoperative to the pre-operative setting. A preoperative MRI or CT scan is mandatory, with the specifications determined by the instrument manufacturer. Default implant sizing and alignment targets must be templated by the surgeon and mapped onto the virtual knee. The surgeon must also review and modify the preoperative computer plan to incorporate any clinical findings, such as flexion contracture or fixed deformity. The finalised preoperative plan is sent back to the implant vendor for fabrication of patient-specific cutting blocks in 4–6 weeks. The supposed advantages of these instruments include more accurate coronal alignment, fewer outliers, no instrumentation of intramedullary canal, decreased operative time, and decreased hospital costs to clean-sterilise instruments. There are many disadvantages of patient-specific instruments, including: cost, preoperative scheduling of imaging, the learning curve for the surgeon, and the uncalculated preoperative planning time. A set of conventional instruments should be available if the custom instruments do not fit properly. One study of 66 knees using PSI reported that frequent surgeon-directed changes were required, 2.4 per knee, implant sizes were changed in 77% of femurs and 53% of tibias, and tourniquet time was not improved. A Markov model study reported an increased cost of $4600 for 4.6 QALYs for patient-specific instruments and that the rate of revision must be reduced by 50% or more for these instruments to be cost-effective. There is little evidence to support the claims made by the manufacturers of these instruments. We advise against the widespread use of these instruments for total knee arthroplasty

Introduction and Objective. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a frequently and increasingly performed surgery in the treatment of disabling knee osteoarthritis. The rising number of procedures and related revisions pose an increasing economic burden on health care systems. In an attempt to lower the revision rate due to component malalignment and soft tissue imbalance in TKA, robotic assistance (RA) has been introduced in the operating theatre. The primary objective of this study is to provide the results of a theoretical, preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of RA TKA. Materials and Methods. A Markov state-transition model was designed to model the health status of sixty-seven-year-old patients in need of TKA due to primary osteoarthritis over a twenty-year period following their knee joint replacement. Transitional probabilities and independent variables were extracted from existing literature. Patients’ state in the transition model was able to change on an annual basis. The main differences between the conventional and RA TKA were the outlier rate in the coronal plane and the cost of the procedure. In RA TKA, it was hypothesized that there were lower revision rates due to a lower outlier rate compared to conventional TKA. Results. The value attributed to the utility both for primary and revision surgery has the biggest impact on the ICER, followed by the rate of successful primary surgery and the cost of RA-technology. Only 2.18–2.34% of the samples yielded from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis proved to be cost-effective (threshold set at $50000/QALY). A calculated surgical volume of at least 191–253 cases per robot per year is needed to prove cost-effective taking the predetermined parameter values into account. Conclusions. Robot-assisted TKA might be a cost-effective procedure compared to conventional TKA if a minimum of 191 cases are performed on a yearly basis, depending on the cost of the robot. The cost-benefit of the robotic TKA surgery is mainly based on a decreased revision rate. This study is based on the assumption that alignment is a predictor of success in total knee arthroplasty. Until there is data confirming the assertion that alignment predicts success robot-assisted surgery cannot be recommended

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

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).

Purpose. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has experienced significant improvements in implant survivorship with second-generation designs. This has renewed interest in PFA as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for younger, active patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PF OA). The decision to select PFA over TKA balances the clinical benefits of sparing healthy knee compartments and ligaments against the risk of downstream conversion arthroplasty. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of PFA versus TKA for the surgical management of isolated PF OA. Methods. We used a Markov transition-state model (Figure 1) to compare cost-effectiveness between PFA and TKA. Cohorts were aged 60 (base case) and 50 years. Lifetime costs (2015 USD), quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated from a healthcare payer perspective. Annual revision rates were derived from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry and validated against the highest quality literature available. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed for all parameters against a $50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay. Results for the 50 year-old cohort were similar to those of the base case simulation. Results. PFA was more expensive ($49,811 versus $46,632) but more effective (14.3 QALYs versus 13.3 QALYs) over a lifetime horizon (Figures 2 and 3). The ICER associated with the additional effectiveness of PFA was $3,097. The model was mainly sensitive to utility values and implant survivorship, with PFA remaining cost-effective provided that its utility exceeds that of TKA by at least 1.0%. PFA achieved dominance (lower cost and higher utility) at an annual revision rate of 1.63%, representing a 24.5% decrease from baseline. The results were not sensitive to costs of rehabilitation, perioperative complications or inpatient hospitalization. Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed PFA to be cost-effective from a healthcare payer perspective in 96.2% of simulations. Conclusions. Recent improvements in implant survivorship rates makes PFA an economically beneficial joint-preserving procedure in younger patients, potentially delaying TKA until implant failure or tibiofemoral OA progression. The present study quantifies the minimum required marginal benefit for PFA to be cost-effective compared to TKA (1.0%) and identifies survivorship targets for PFA to become both less expensive and more effective. These cost-effectiveness benchmarks may be used to assess clinical outcomes of PFA from an economic standpoint within the United States healthcare system as updated clinical data becomes available. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Economic evaluation provides a framework for assessing the costs and consequences of alternative programmes or interventions. One common vehicle for economic evaluations in the healthcare context is the decision-analytic model, which synthesizes information on parameter inputs (for example, probabilities or costs of clinical events or health states) from multiple sources and requires application of mathematical techniques, usually within a software program. A plethora of decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations of orthopaedic interventions have been published in recent years. This annotation outlines a number of issues that can help readers, reviewers, and decision-makers interpret evidence from decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations of orthopaedic interventions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):17–20.

Aims

To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty.