Aims

Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research.

Aims. A pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial, UK FROzen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), was conducted in the UK NHS comparing the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments for adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR), and early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection (ESP) in costs (2018 GBP price base) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments using regression methods. Results. ACR was £1,734 more costly than ESP ((95% confidence intervals (CIs) £1,529 to £1,938)) and £1,457 more costly than MUA (95% CI £1,283 to £1,632). MUA was £276 (95% CI £66 to £487) more expensive than ESP. Overall, ACR had worse QALYs compared with MUA (-0.0293; 95% CI -0.0616 to 0.0030) and MUA had better QALYs compared with ESP (0.0396; 95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0800). At a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MUA had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.8632) then ESP (0.1366) and ACR (0.0002). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. While ESP was less costly, MUA was the most cost-effective option. ACR was not cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):685–695

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of age on the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Patients and Methods. A total of 112 patients were prospectively monitored for two years after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Complications and use of healthcare resources were recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to express the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Propensity score-matching was used to compare those aged below and above 65 years of age. Satisfaction was determined using the Net Promoter Score (NPS). Linear regression was used to identify variables that influenced the outcome at two years postoperatively. Results. A total of 92 patients (82.1%) completed the follow-up. Their mean age was 59.5 years (. sd. 9.7, 41 to 78). There were significant improvements in the mean DASH (preoperative 47.6 vs one-year 15.3; p < 0.001) and OSS scores (26.5 vs 40.5; p < 0.001). Functional improvements were maintained with no significant change between one and two years postoperatively. The mean preoperative EQ-5D was 0.54 increasing to 0.81 at one year (p < 0.001) and maintained at 0.86, two years postoperatively. There was no significant difference between those aged below or above 65 years of age with regards to postoperative shoulder function or EQ-5D gains. Smoking was the only characteristic that significantly adversely influenced the EQ-5D at two years postoperatively (p = 0.005). A total of 87 were promoters and five were passive, giving a mean NPS of 95 (87/92). The total mean cost per patient was £3646.94 and the mean EQ-5D difference at one year was 0.2691, giving a mean ICER of £13 552.36/QALY. At two years, this decreased further to £5694.78/QALY. This was comparable for those aged below or above 65 years of age (£5209.91 vs £5525.67). Smokers had an ICER that was four times more expensive. Conclusion. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair results in excellent patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness, regardless of age. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:860–866

Aims. The aims of this study were to compare the use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with subacromial decompression, arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), and no treatment for subacromial pain in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS), and to estimate their cost-effectiveness. Patients and Methods. The use of resources, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed in the trial at six months and one year. Results were extrapolated to two years after randomization. Differences between treatment arms, based on the intention-to-treat principle, were adjusted for covariates and missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, with uncertainty around the values estimated using bootstrapping. Results. Cumulative mean QALYs/mean costs of health care service use and surgery per patient from baseline to 12 months were estimated as 0.640 (standard error (. se. ) 0.024)/£3147 (. se. 166) in the decompression arm, 0.656 (. se. 0.020)/£2830 (. se. 183) in the arthroscopy only arm and 0.522 (. se. 0.029)/£1451 (. se. 151) in the no treatment arm. Statistically significant differences in cumulative QALYs and costs were found at six and 12 months for the decompression versus no treatment comparison only. The probabilities of decompression being cost-effective compared with no treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY were close to 0% at six months and approximately 50% at one year, with this probability potentially increasing for the extrapolation to two years. Discussion. The evidence for cost-effectiveness at 12 months was inconclusive. Decompression could be cost-effective in the longer-term, but results of this analysis are sensitive to the assumptions made about how costs and QALYs are extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the trial

Aims. A trial-based comparison of the use of resources, costs and quality of life outcomes of arthroscopic and open surgical management for rotator cuff tears in the United Kingdom NHS was performed using data from the United Kingdom Rotator Cuff Study (UKUFF) randomised controlled trial. Patients and Methods. Using data from 273 patients, healthcare-related use of resources, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated at 12 months and 24 months after surgery on an intention-to-treat basis with adjustment for covariates. Uncertainty about the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for arthroscopic versus open management at 24 months of follow-up was incorporated using bootstrapping. Multiple imputation methods were used to deal with missing data. Results. There were no significant differences between the arthroscopic and open groups in terms of total mean use and cost of resources or QALYs at any time post-operatively. Open management dominated arthroscopic management in 59.8% of bootstrapped cost and effect differences. The probability that arthroscopic management was cost-effective compared with open management at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained was 20.9%. Conclusion. There was no significant overall difference in the use or cost of resources or quality of life between arthroscopic and open management in the trial. There was uncertainty about which strategy was most cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1648–55

The ageing population and an increase in both the incidence and prevalence of cancer pose a healthcare challenge, some of which is borne by the orthopaedic community in the form of osteoporotic fractures and metastatic bone disease. In recent years there has been an increasing understanding of the pathways involved in bone metabolism relevant to osteoporosis and metastases in bone. Newer therapies may aid the management of these problems. One group of drugs, the antibody mediated anti-resorptive therapies (AMARTs) use antibodies to block bone resorption pathways. This review seeks to present a synopsis of the guidelines, pharmacology and potential pathophysiology of AMARTs and other new anti-resorptive drugs.

We evaluate the literature relating to AMARTs and new anti-resorptives with special attention on those approved for use in clinical practice.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody against Receptor Activator for Nuclear Factor Kappa-B Ligand. It is the first AMART approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the US Food and Drug Administration. Other novel anti-resorptives awaiting approval for clinical use include Odanacatib.

Denosumab is indicated for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of the complications of bone metastases. Recent evidence suggests, however, that denosumab may have an adverse event profile similar to bisphosphonates, including atypical femoral fractures. It is, therefore, essential that orthopaedic surgeons are conversant with these medications and their safe usage.

Take home message: Denosumab has important orthopaedic indications and has been shown to significantly reduce patient morbidity in osteoporosis and metastatic bone disease.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:160–5.