Aims. Access to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is sometimes restricted for patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. ). This study compares the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with TKA in patients with a BMI above and below 40 kg/m. 2. to examine whether this is supported. Methods. This single-centre study compared 169 consecutive patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. ) (mean age 65.2 years (40 to 87); mean BMI 44.2 kg/m. 2. (40 to 66); 129/169 female) undergoing unilateral TKA to a propensity score matched (age, sex, preoperative Oxford Knee Score (OKS)) cohort with a BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. in a 1:1 ratio. Demographic data, comorbidities, and complications to one year were recorded. Preoperative and one-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were completed: EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), OKS, pain, and satisfaction. Using national life expectancy data with obesity correction and the 2020 NHS National Tariff, QALYs (discounted at 3.5%), and direct medical costs accrued over a patient’s lifetime, were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to model variation in cost/QALY for each cohort across 1,000 simulations. Results. All PROMs improved significantly (p < 0.05) in both groups without differences between groups. Early complications were higher in BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. : 34/169 versus 52/169 (p = 0.050). A total of 16 (9.5%) patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. were readmitted within one year with six reoperations (3.6%) including three (1.2%) revisions for infection. Assuming reduced life expectancy in severe obesity and revision costs, TKA in patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. costs a mean of £1,013/QALY (95% confidence interval £678 to 1,409) more over a lifetime than TKA in patients with BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. In PSA replicates, the maximum cost/QALY was £3,921 in patients with a BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. and £5,275 in patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. . Conclusion. Higher complication rates following TKA in severely obese patients result in a lifetime cost/QALY that is £1,013 greater than that for patients with BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. , suggesting that TKA remains a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in severely obese patients where the surgeon considers it appropriate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):452–463

Aims

The primary aim of the study was to perform an analysis to identify the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) relative to manual total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Secondary aims were to assess how case volume and length of hospital stay influenced the relative cost per QALY.

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012.

Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (sd 4514) vs £9655 (sd 599.7), p < 0.0001).

Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201.