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

Background. The Arthroplasty Pain Experience (APEX) studies are two randomised controlled trials in primary total hip (THR) and knee replacement (TKR) at a large UK orthopaedics centre. APEX investigated the effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration (LAI), administered before wound closure, in addition to standard analgesia, on pain severity at 12 months. This abstract reports results of the within-trial economic evaluations. Methods. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social care payer perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient-completed postal questionnaires, and valued using unit cost estimates from local NHS Trust and national tariffs. Missing data were imputed using chained equations. Costs and outcomes were compared per trial arm and plotted in cost-effectiveness planes. The economic results were bootstrapped incremental net monetary benefit statistics (INMB) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses explored any methodological uncertainty. Results. In both trials, LAI was cost-saving and more effective than standard care. Using the £20,000 per QALY threshold, in THR, the INMB was £1,125 (95%BCI, £183 to £2,067) and the probability of being cost-effective was over 98%. In TKR, the INMB was £264 (95%BCI, −£710 to £1,238), with only 62% probability of being cost-effective. Considering an NHS perspective only, LAI was no longer dominant in THR, but still highly cost-effective, with an INMB of £961 (95%BCI, £50 to £1,873). Conclusions. Administering LAI is a cost-effective treatment option in THR and TKR surgeries. The evidence is stronger for THR, because of larger QALY gain. In TKR, there is more uncertainty around the economic result, and smaller QALY gains, but results point to LAI being cheaper than standard analgesia, which includes a femoral nerve block. Trial Registration. ISRCTN96095682, 29/04/2010. Funding. NIHR Programme Grant for Applied Research RP-PG-0407-10070

Objectives

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) model, and supplement the literature regarding this service as recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA).