Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 12 of 12
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_12 | Pages 49 - 49
1 Dec 2022
Khalik HA Wood T Tushinski D Gazendam A Petruccelli D Bali K
Full Access

Primary hip and knee joint replacements in Canada have been estimated to cost over $1.4 billion dollars annually, with revision surgery costing $177 million. The most common cause of revision arthroplasty surgery in Canada is infection. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a devastating though preventable complication following arthroplasty. Though variably used, antibiotic laden bone cement (ALBC) has been demonstrated to decrease PJIs following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Unfortunately, ALBC is costlier than regular bone cement (RBC). Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if the routine use of ALBC in primary TKA surgery is a cost-effective practice from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system. A decision tree was constructed using a decision analysis software (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, Massachusetts) to a two-year time horizon comparing primary TKA with either ALBC or RBC from the perspective of a single-payer healthcare system. All costs were in 2020 Canadian dollars. Health utilities were in the form of quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs for cost were derived from regional and national databases. Health utilities and probability parameters were derived from the latest literature. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed on all model parameters. The primary outcome of this analysis was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY. Primary TKA with ALBC (TKA-ALBC) was found to be more cost-effective compared to primary TKA with RBC (TKA-RBC). More specifically, TKA-ALBC dominated TKA-RBC as it was less costly on the long term ($11,160 vs. $11,118), while providing the same QALY (1.66). The ICER of this cost-utility analysis (CUA) was $-11,049.72 per QALY, much less than the WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The model was sensitive to costs of ALBC-TKA as well as the probability of PJI following ALBC-TKA and RBC-TKA. ALBC ceased to be cost effective once the cost of ALBC was greater than $223.08 CAD per bag of cement. The routine use of ALBC in primary TKA is a cost-effective practice in the context of the Canadian healthcare system as long as the cost of ALBC is maintained at a reasonable price and the published studies to-date keep supporting the efficacy of ALBC in decreasing PJI following primary TKA. Further, this analysis is very conservative, and ALBC is likely much more cost-effective than presented. This is due to this model's revision surgery cost parameter being based on the average cost of all revision TKA surgery in Canada, regardless of etiology. Considering many PJIs require two-stage revisions, the cost parameter used in this analysis for revision surgery is an underestimate of true cost. Ultimately, this is the first cost-effectiveness study evaluating this topic from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system and can inform future national guidelines on the subject matter


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_1 | Pages 30 - 30
1 Feb 2021
Cubillos P Fava E Azambuja L Santos VD More ADO De Mello Roesler C
Full Access

Introduction. Total knee and hip arthroplasty were the main arthroplasty surgery performed in Brazil. In Brazil, around 50% of arthroplasty surgeries are performed by the public health system, knowing as SUS . 1. SUS is the biggest public and universal health system in the world, attending 100% of the Brazilian population (220 million), with 2020's expected budget of US$ 31 billion . 2,3. . The National Institute of Clinical Excellence utilizes the QALY system (Quality adjustment year life)to calculate the best cost-benefit between medical interventions . 4. In compliance with the study, an operated person has a QALY index of £5000 while a non-operated person has an index of £7182. In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemics, the Brazilian Health Ministry oriented for the postponing of elective surgery, to prioritize combating the virus . 5. This postponing, it was important but will cause an impact in the economy at the public health system from Brazil this year and in the next years. Therefore, this study aims to present the economic impact caused by COVID-19 pandemics in the public heal system, SUS, of Brazil. Methods. Data about total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Brazil were collected from the TABNET portal of the Brazilian Health Ministry/Datasus . 6. It was collected information per month about hospitalization authorization (AIH), and total cost per AIH. The information regards the period of January to June from years 2015 to 2020. Results and Discussion. After the orientation in march 2020 to postpone elective surgery, there was a reduction of up to 91% in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 76% in total hip arthroplasty (THA), compared to the same period in the previous years (see Figure 1). This represents a reduction of more than 5000 surgeries in the first semester. According to Brazilian doctors, the retention of surgeries will result in excessive demand for the sector in the upcoming months . 7. . Due to the reduction of the AIH, which occurs a reduction US$3,881,494 of the budget destined for arthroplasty surgeries in the first semester of 2020 (see Figure 2), being used to the combat of COVID-19. Consequently, the purchase of new hip and knee prostheses decreases, harming the implant sales sector in Brazil. Furthermore, by the QALY system, the cost of a non-operated patient is up to 43% bigger than that of an operated patient. Thus, this will generate an increase in the expenses of the SUS in the upcoming months or years. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemics generate the need of postponing elective surgery of the SUS, such as total hip and knee arthroplasty. Because of this, there was a reduction of 67% of the number and expense of knee and hip arthroplasties in the first semester of 2020. This generates an economic loss for the implants companies and it will increase overly the demand for new surgeries in the upcoming months or years. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 102-B, Issue SUPP_6 | Pages 58 - 58
1 Jul 2020
Hamilton D Simpson H Beard D Barker K MacFarlane G Stoddart A Murray G
Full Access

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


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_20 | Pages 78 - 78
1 Nov 2016
Huang A Thavorn K Katwyk S Lapner P
Full Access

The optimal approach to arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff is controversial, and both single row and double row fixation methods are commonly used. Which construct yields the highest efficacy is not clear. Given the current era of increasing costs in which health care delivery models are aiming for improved efficiencies and optimal outcomes, a cost-effectiveness study was performed to inform the decision making process of the utilisation of single versus double row repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single row versus double row constructs in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. A cost-utility analysis was performed. Health resource use and outcome data were obtained from a previous prospective randomised controlled trial in which 90 patients were randomised to two treatment arms, single row rotator cuff repair (n=48) and double row (n=42). The patients were followed over a two-year span from the time of initial surgery. Unit cost data were captured using case costs collected from the hospital database and the Ontario Schedule of Benefits. Utility values were derived from published literature. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in cost between the two types of rotator cuff fixation divided by the difference in quality adjusted life years (QALY), was determined. Double row fixation was more costly ($2,279.94 versus $1,587.37) but was more effective than the single row method (QALY of 4.073 versus 4.055). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be $38,504.92 per QALY for double row fixation relative to single row. This is well below the commonly used willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm) had a lower ICER, suggesting that double-row fixation may be more cost-effective in more severe tears. Double row rotator cuff fixation is a cost-effective option compared to single row rotator cuff repair with an ICER of $38,504.92/QALY, well within the accepted willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Furthermore, the ICER between single and double row fixation improved with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm), suggesting an additional benefit of a double row construct in those cases


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 31 - 31
1 May 2016
Barlow B Mclawhorn A Westrich G
Full Access

Introduction. Postoperative dislocation remains a vexing problem for patients and surgeons following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is the commonest reason for revision THA in the US. Dual mobility (DM) THA implants markedly decrease the risk of THA instability. However, DM implants are more expensive than those used for conventional THA. The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of DM implants compared to conventional bearing couples for unilateral primary THA using a computer model-based evaluation. Methods. A state-transition Markov computer simulation model was developed to compare the cost-utility of dual mobility versus conventional THA for hip osteoarthritis from a societal perspective (Figure 1). The model was populated with health outcomes and probabilities from registry and published data. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Direct costs were derived from the literature and from administrative claims data, and indirect costs reflected estimated lost wages. All costs were expressed in 2013 US dollars. Health and cost outcomes were discounted by 3% annually. The base case modeled a 65-year-old patient undergoing THA for unilateral hip osteoarthritis. A lifetime time horizon was analyzed. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. Threshold, one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model uncertainty. Results. DM THA exhibited absolute dominance over conventional THA with lower accrued costs (US$45,960 versus $47,103) and higher accrued utility (12.08 QALY versus 11.84 QALY). The ICER was -$4,771/QALY, suggesting that DM THA is cost-saving compared to conventional THA. The cost threshold at which dual mobility implants were cost-ineffective was $25,000 (Figure 2), and the threshold at which DM implants ceased being cost-saving was $12,845. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the probability of intraprosthetic dislocation, primary THA utility, and age at index THA most influenced model results. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 90% of model iterations resulted in cost savings for DM THA (Figure 3). Discussion. Dual mobility components showed clear cost-utility advantages over conventional THA components, and DM implants are cost-saving for primary unilateral THA from a societal perspecitve. Model results suggest that DM THA need not be limited to only high-risk patients, although patient age and risk of dislocation are important determinants of its cost-utility


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 54 - 54
1 May 2016
Brown G
Full Access

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


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVIII | Pages 185 - 185
1 Sep 2012
Slobogean GP Marra C Sanders DW
Full Access

Purpose. A recent multicentre randomized control trial (RCT) failed to demonstrate superior quality of life at one year following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) compared to nonoperative treatment for unstable isolated fibular fractures. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of ORIF compared to non-operative management of unstable fibular fractures. Method. A decision tree was used to model the results of a multicentre trial comparing ORIF versus nonoperative treatment for isolated fibular fractures. A single payer, governmental perspective was used for the analysis. Utilities (a measure of preference for a health state) were obtained from the subjects Short-Form-6D scores and used to calculated Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Probabilities for each strategy were taken from the one-year trial endpoint. Costs were obtained from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Sensitivity analysis was performed for all model variables to determine when ORIF is a cost-effective treatment (incremental cost per QALY gained < $75,000). Results. Nonoperative management was the preferred treatment during the one-year time-horizon. The nonoperative treatment strategy had an average cost of $2,099 $885 for an average gain of 0.717 0.064 QALYs. ORIF had an average cost of $6,455 $3,589 for an average gain of 0.734 0.051 QALYs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the ORIF treatment was $256,235 per QALY. ORIF becomes the preferred treatment at extreme values for its costs (< $1,450) and its effectiveness (QALY > 0.81). Conclusion. From a single-payer, governmental perspective open reduction and internal fixation does not appear to be cost-effective; however, if operative fixation decreases the lifetime incidence of post-traumatic ankle arthrosis or a broader societal perspective with a higher willingness to pay threshold is adopted, then the economic attractiveness of ORIF would improve


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 102-B, Issue SUPP_1 | Pages 39 - 39
1 Feb 2020
Okamoto Y Otsuki S Wakama H Okayoshi T Neo M
Full Access

Introduction. The global rapid growth of the aging population has some likelihood to create a serious crisis on health-care and economy at an unprecedented pace. To extend Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE) in a number of countries, it is desired more than ever to investigate characteristic and prognosis of numerous diseases. This enlightenment and recent studies on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) will drive the increasing interest in the quality of life among the world. The demand for primary THAs by 2030 would rise up to 174% in USA. It is expected that the number of the elderly will surge significantly in the future, thus more septuagenarian and octogenarian are undergoing THA. Moreover, HALE of Japanese female near the age of 75 years, followed to Singapore, is still increasing. Therefore, concerns exist about the PROMs of performing THA in this age-group worldwide. Nevertheless almost the well-established procedure, little agreement has been reached to the elderly. We aimed to clarify the mid-term PROMs after THA over 75-year old. Methods. Between 2005 and 2013, we performed 720 consecutive primary cemented THAs through a direct lateral approach. Of these, 503 female patients (655 hips) underwent THA for treatment of osteoarthritis, with a minimum follow-up of 5 years, were retrospectively enrolled into the study. We excluded 191 patients (252 hips) aged less than 65-year at the time of surgery and 58 patients (60) because of post-traumatic arthritis or previous surgery (37), or lack of data (23). Thus, 343 hips remained eligible for our study, contributed by 254 patients. We investigated Quality-adjusted life year (QALY), EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level scale (EQ-5D) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip-Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ, which was a disease-specific and self-administered questionnaire, reflecting the specificity of the Japanese cultural lifestyle) in patients aged 75 years or older (154 hips, Group-E) compared with those aged 65 to 74 years (189 hips, Group-C) retrospectively. We evaluated the association between patients aged 75 years or older and the following potential risk factors, using logistic regression analysis: age, number of vertebral fractures (VFs), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant for the Mann-Whitney U test. Results. At a mean follow-up duration of 7.2 years, QALY, EQ-5D and JHEQ for the domain of patient satisfaction were significantly greater for Group-E than Group-C; however, there were no significant differences in JHEQ for pain, movement and mental-health between groups. On multivariate analysis, the age (odds ratio [OR] 2.48, p < .01 for EQ-5D; OR .32, p < .01 for JHEQ satisfaction), VFs (OR 1.63, p < .01 for satisfaction) and ASA-PS (OR .64, p = .31 for EQ-5D) were independent predictive risk factors for patients aged 75-year or older. Conclusions. Based on mid-term follow-up of PROMs study, we suggest that cemented THA can lead to the extension of HALE towards the super aged society and our results can be applied to a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study related frailty


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_5 | Pages 69 - 69
1 Apr 2018
Chawla H Nwachukwu B van der List J Eggman A Pearle A Ghomrawi H
Full Access

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


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_21 | Pages 8 - 8
1 Dec 2016
Slobogean G Osterhoff G O'Hara N D'Cruz J Sprague S Bansback N Evaniew N
Full Access

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


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_IV | Pages 18 - 18
1 Mar 2012
Steele N Freeman B Sach T Hegarty J Soegaard R
Full Access

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


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 5, Issue 1 | Pages 30 - 31
1 Feb 2016