Aims

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a very successful and cost-effective operation, yet debate continues about the optimum fixation philosophy in different age groups. The concept of the 'cementless paradox' and the UK 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative encourage increased use of cemented fixation due to purported lower revision rates, especially in elderly patients, and decreased cost.

Aims

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with dual-mobility components (DM-THA) has been shown to decrease the risk of dislocation in the setting of a displaced neck of femur fracture compared to conventional single-bearing THA (SB-THA). This study assesses if the clinical benefit of a reduced dislocation rate can justify the incremental cost increase of DM-THA compared to SB-THA.

Aims

The current study aimed to compare robotic arm-assisted (RA-THA), computer-assisted (CA-THA), and manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty regarding in-hospital metrics including length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, in-hospital complications, and cost of RA-THA versus M-THA and CA-THA versus M-THA, as well as trends in use and uptake over a ten-year period, and future projections of uptake and use of RA-THA and CA-THA.

Aims. The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. Methods. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA. Results. At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years. Conclusion. The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135

Aims

The routine use of dual-mobility (DM) acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) may not be cost-effective, but an increasing number of patients undergoing THA have a coexisting spinal disorder, which increases the risk of postoperative instability, and these patients may benefit from DM articulations. This study seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of DM components as an alternative to standard articulations in these patients.

There is little evidence on the cost effectiveness of different brands of hip prostheses. We compared lifetime cost effectiveness of frequently used brands within types of prosthesis including cemented (Exeter V40 Contemporary, Exeter V40 Duration and Exeter V40 Elite Plus Ogee), cementless (Corail Pinnacle, Accolade Trident, and Taperloc Exceed) and hybrid (Exeter V40 Trilogy, Exeter V40 Trident, and CPT Trilogy). We used data from three linked English national databases to estimate the lifetime risk of revision, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost.

For women with osteoarthritis aged 70 years, the Exeter V40 Elite Plus Ogee had the lowest risk of revision (5.9% revision risk, 9.0 QALYs) and the CPT Trilogy had the highest QALYs (10.9% revision risk, 9.3 QALYs). Compared with the Corail Pinnacle (9.3% revision risk, 9.22 QALYs), the most commonly used brand, and assuming a willingness-to-pay of £20 000 per QALY gain, the CPT Trilogy is most cost effective, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £876. Differences in cost effectiveness between the hybrid CPT Trilogy and Exeter V40 Trident and the cementless Corail Pinnacle and Taperloc Exceed were small, and a cautious interpretation is required, given the limitations of the available information.

However, it is unlikely that cemented brands are among the most cost effective. Similar patterns of results were observed for men and other ages. The gain in quality of life after total hip arthroplasty, rather than the risk of revision, was the main driver of cost effectiveness.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:762–70.

Many different designs of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with varying performance and cost are available. The identification of those which are the most cost-effective could allow significant cost-savings. We used an established Markov model to examine the cost effectiveness of five frequently used categories of THA which differed according to bearing surface and mode of fixation, using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Kaplan–Meier analyses of rates of revision for men and women were modelled with parametric distributions. Costs of devices were provided by the NHS Supply Chain and associated costs were taken from existing studies. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) and the probability of a device being cost effective at a willingness to pay £20 000/QALY were included in the models. The differences in QALYs between different categories of implant were extremely small (<  0.0039 QALYs for men or women over the patient’s lifetime) and differences in cost were also marginal (£2500 to £3000 in the same time period). As a result, the probability of any particular device being the most cost effective was very sensitive to small, plausible changes in quality of life estimates and cost. . Our results suggest that available evidence does not support recommending a particular device on cost effectiveness grounds alone. We would recommend that the choice of prosthesis should be determined by the rate of revision, local costs and the preferences of the surgeon and patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:449–57