Antibiotic-impregnated bone cement (ABC) is infrequently used in the North America for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to concerns with cost, performance, and the possible development of antibiotic resistance. The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of using ABC in primary THA for osteoarthritis compared to the use of cement without antibiotics.

A Markov decision model was used to determine if ABC is a cost-effective strategy for primary THA in patients with osteoarthritis. The model tabulates costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accumulated by each patient to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each strategy. Rates of revision for infection and aseptic loosening were estimated from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, and were used to determine the probability of transitioning to a revision arthroplasty for either infection or aseptic loosening. The model was also used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ABC when only revisions for infection are considered. Peri-operative mortality rates, utilities, and disutilities were estimated from the arthroplasty literature. Costs were also estimated from the literature using in-hospital resource use as the method of measurement for primary THA. The additional cost of using ABC ($600) was then added to the average cost of the initial procedure ($21,654).

ABC is less expensive and more effective than standard cement when all revisions are considered, making the use of ABC the dominant strategy. When only revision for infection is considered, the use of ABC has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37.335 per QALY compared to cement without antibiotics – which compares favorably with the cost-effectiveness of accepted medical procedures. Sensitivity analyses reveal that for all revisions the additional cost of ABC would need to be greater than $1500, or the average age of patients undergoing primary THA would need to be greater than eighty-three before the use of ABC would cost more than $50,000 per QALY gained. When only revision for infection is considered, the additional cost of ABC would need to exceed $650 before the cost of ABC would exceed $50,000 per QALY gained.

Use of ABC for primary THA is cost-effective over a wide range of assumptions. Notably, when all revisions are considered, ABC is less costly and more effective than use of standard cement over the life span of the patients.