Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted based on data collected from the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK. Resource use was measured over 12 months post-randomization using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the NHS and personal social service perspective. Methodological uncertainty was addressed using sensitivity analysis, while decision uncertainty was represented graphically using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. The base-case analysis showed that cemented implants were cost-saving (mean cost difference -£961 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£2,292 to £370)) and increased QALYs (mean QALY difference 0.010 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.017)) when compared to uncemented implants. The probability of the cemented implant being cost-effective approximated between 95% and 97% at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds held by decision-makers, and its net monetary benefit was positive. The findings remained robust against all the pre-planned sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. This study shows that cemented HA is cost-effective compared with hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA in older adults with displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):922–928

Aims

Cemented hemiarthroplasty is an effective form of treatment for most patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip. However, it remains unclear whether there are subgroups of patients who may benefit from the alternative operation of a modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty – the aim of this study was to investigate this issue. Knowledge about the heterogeneity of treatment effects is important for surgeons in order to target operations towards specific subgroups who would benefit the most.

We performed a case–control study to compare the rates of further surgery, revision and complications, operating time and survival in patients who were treated with either an uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated Corail bipolar femoral stem or a cemented Exeter stem for a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip. The mean age of the patients in the uncemented group was 82.5 years (53 to 97) and in the cemented group was 82.7 years (51 to 99) We used propensity score matching, adjusting for age, gender and the presence or absence of dementia and comorbidities, to produce a matched cohort receiving an Exeter stem (n = 69) with which to compare the outcome of patients receiving a Corail stem (n = 69). The Corail had a significantly lower all-cause rate of further surgery (p = 0.016; odds ratio (OR) 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.84) and number of hips undergoing major further surgery (p = 0.029; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.09). The mean operating time was significantly less for the Corail group than for the cemented Exeter group (59 min [12 to 136] vs 70 min [40 to 175], p = 0.001). The Corail group also had a lower risk of a peri-prosthetic fracture (p = 0.042; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.42) . There was no difference in the mortality rate between the groups. There were significantly fewer complications in the uncemented group, suggesting that the use of this stem would result in a decreased rate of morbidity in these frail patients. Whether this relates to an improved functional outcome remains unknown.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:299–305.