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

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

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

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.