Total knee arthroplasty is a successful procedure that reduces knee pain and improves function in most patients with knee osteoarthritis. Patient dissatisfaction however remains high, and along with implant longevity, may be affected by component positioning. Surgery in obese patients is more technically challenging with difficulty identifying appropriate landmarks for alignment and more difficult exposure of the joint. Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) has been introduced with the goal to increase accuracy of component positioning by custom fitting cutting guides to the patient using advanced imaging. A strong criticism of this new technology however, is the cost associated. The purpose of this study was to determine, using a prospective, randomized-controlled trial, the cost-effectiveness of PSI compared to standard instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty in an obese patient population.

Patients with a body mass index greater than 30 with osteoarthritis and undergoing a primary total knee arthroplasty were included in this study. We randomized patients to have their procedure with either standard instrumentation (SOC) or PSI. At 12-weeks post-surgery patients completed a self-reported cost questionnaire and the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). We performed a cost-effectiveness analyses from a public health payer and societal perspective. As we do not know the true cost of the PSI instrumentation, we estimated a value of $100 for our base case analysis and used one-way sensitivity analyses to determine the effect of different values (ranging from $0 to $500) would have on our conclusions.

A total of 173 patients were enrolled in the study with 86 patients randomized to the PSI group and 87 to the SOC group. We found the PSI group to be both less effective and more costly than SOC when using a public payer perspective, regardless of the cost of the PSI. From a societal perspective, PSI was both less costly, but also less effective, regardless of the cost of the PSI. The mean difference in effect between the two groups was −1.61 (95% CI −3.48, 026, p=0.091). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $485.71 per point increase in the WOMAC, or $7285.58 per clinically meaningful difference (15 points) in the WOMAC.

Overall, our results suggest that PSI is not cost-effective compared to standard of care from a public payer perspective. From a societal perspective, there is some question as to whether the decreased effect found with the PSI group is worth the reduced cost. The main driver of the cost difference appears to be time off of volunteer work, which will need to be investigated further. In future, we will continue to follow these patients out to one year to collect cost and effectiveness data to investigate whether these results remain past 12 weeks post-surgery.

The purpose of our study was to prospectively examine early functional differences in gait between the direct anterior and direct lateral surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty over the first three months postoperatively.

Forty participants were prospectively enrolled to either the direct anterior (20 patients) or direct lateral group (20 patients) based on their surgeon's expertise. Outcome measures were collected preoperatively at their preadmission appointment and postoperatively at discharge from the hospital, two weeks, six weeks and three months. We used the GAITRite® system to measure gait velocity, stride length, single-limb support and single-limb support symmetry. We also had participants complete the Timed Up and Go test and a series of questionnaires at each visit: WOMAC, SF-12, Harris Hip Score, and pain VAS.

Our primary outcome, gait velocity, was significantly greater in the direct anterior group at discharge and six weeks postoperatively with adjusted mean differences of 0.12m/s and 0.17m/s respectively. Single-limb support symmetry was also significantly better in the direct anterior group at two weeks, six weeks and three months with adjusted mean differences of 0.10, 0.09 and 0.04 respectively. The direct anterior group also had significantly shorter times to complete the Timed Up and Go test at two and six weeks with adjusted mean differences of −9.02s and −2.64s. There were no differences between the groups at any time point for the WOMAC, SF-12, Harris Hip Score, or pain VAS.

Preliminary results of our expertise-based study have found the direct anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty offers better early functional outcomes than the direct lateral approach.