The global economy has been facing a financial crisis. Healthcare costs are spiraling, and there is a projected £30 billion health funding gap by 2020 in the UK.¹ This has prompted a drive for efficiency in healthcare provision in the UK, and in 2012, the Health and Social Care Act was introduced, heralding a fundamental change to the structure of the National Health Service, especially in the way that healthcare is funded in England.²

What is happening in the UK is a reflection of a global problem. Rationing of healthcare is a topic of much discussion; as unless spending is capped, providing healthcare will become unsustainable. Who decides how money is spent, and which services should be rationed?

In this article we aim to discuss the impact that rationing may have on orthopaedic surgery, and we will discuss our own experiences of attempts to ration local services.³ We also seek to inform and educate the general orthopaedic community on this topic.

The aim of this study was to perform a cost–utility analysis of total hip (THR) and knee replacement (TKR). Arthritis is a disabling condition that leads to long-term deterioration in quality of life. Total joint replacement, despite being one of the greatest advances in medicine of the modern era, has recently come under scrutiny. The National Health Service (NHS) has competing demands, and resource allocation is challenging in times of economic restraint. Patients who underwent THR (n = 348) or TKR (n = 323) between January and July 2010 in one Scottish region were entered into a prospective arthroplasty database. A health–utility score was derived from the EuroQol (EQ-5D) score pre-operatively and at one year, and was combined with individual life expectancy to derive the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Two-way analysis of variance was used to compare QALYs gained between procedures, while controlling for baseline differences. The number of QALYs gained was higher after THR than after TKR (6.5 vs 4.0 years, p < 0.001). The cost per QALY for THR was £1372 compared with £2101 for TKR. The predictors of an increase in QALYs gained were poorer health before surgery (p < 0.001) and younger age (p < 0.001). General health (EQ-5D VAS) showed greater improvement after THR than after TKR (p < 0.001). This study provides up-to-date cost-effectiveness data for total joint replacement. THR and TKR are extremely effective both clinically and in terms of cost effectiveness, with costs that compare favourably to those of other medical interventions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:115–21.

The June 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Cruciate substituting versus retaining knee replacement; What’s behind the psychology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction?; Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is age the missing variable?; Satisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty; Is knee alignment dynamic?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cemented or cementless?; Can revision knee services pay?

We present an economic evaluation using data from the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (DRAFFT) to compare the relative cost effectiveness of percutaneous Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation and volar locking-plate fixation for patients with dorsally-displaced fractures of the distal radius.

The cost effectiveness analysis (cost per quality-adjusted life year; QALY) was derived from a multi-centre, two-arm, parallel group, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial which took place in 18 trauma centres in the United Kingdom. Data from 460 patients were available for analysis, which includes both a National Health Service cost perspective including costs of surgery, implants and healthcare resource use over a 12-month period after surgery, and a societal perspective, which includes the cost of time off work and the need for additional private care.

There was only a small difference in QALYs gained for patients treated with locking-plate fixation over those treated with K-wires. At a mean additional cost of £714 (95% confidence interval 588 to 865) per patient, locking-plate fixation presented an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £89 322 per QALY within the first 12 months of treatment. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess the ICER of locking-plate fixation compared with K-wires. These were greater than £30 000.

Compared with locking-plate fixation, K-wire fixation is a ‘cost saving’ intervention, with similar health benefits.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1082–9.

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.

This protocol describes a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic and open surgery in the management of rotator cuff tears. This trial began in 2007 and was modified in 2010, with the removal of a non-operative arm due to high rates of early crossover to surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:155–60.

The February 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: single posterior approach for severe kyphosis; risk factors for recurrent disc herniation; dysphagia and cervical disc replacement or fusion; hang on to your topical antibiotics; cost-effective lumbar disc replacement; anxiolytics no role to play in acute lumbar back pain; and surgery best for lumbar disc herniation.

Controversy continues to surround the management of patients with an open fracture of the lower limb and an associated vascular injury (Gustilo type IIIC). This study reports our 15-year experience with these fractures and their outcome in 18 patients (15 male and three female). Their mean age was 30.7 years (8 to 54) and mean Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS) at presentation was 6.9 (3 to 10). A total of 15 lower limbs were salvaged and three underwent amputation (two immediate and one delayed). Four patients underwent stabilisation of the fracture by external fixation and 12 with an internal device. A total of 11 patients had damage to multiple arteries and eight had a vein graft. Wound cover was achieved with a pedicled flap in three and a free flap in six. Seven patients developed a wound infection and four developed nonunion requiring further surgery. At a mean follow-up of five years (4.1 to 6.6) the mean visual analogue scale for pain was 64 (10 to 90). Depression and anxiety were common. Activities were limited mainly because of pain, and the MESS was a valid predictor of the functional outcome. Distal tibial fractures had an increased rate of nonunion when associated with posterior tibial artery damage, and seven patients (39%) were not able to return to their previous occupation.

We report the clinical and radiological outcome of 86 revisions of cemented hip arthroplasties using JRI-Furlong hydroxyapatite-ceramic-coated acetabular and femoral components. The acetabular component was revised in 62 hips and the femoral component in all hips. The mean follow-up was 12.6 years and no patient was lost to follow-up.

The mean age of the patients was 71.2 years. The mean Harris hip and Oxford scores were 82 (59 to 96) and 23.4 (14 to 40), respectively. The mean Charnley modification of the Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score was 5 (3 to 6) for pain, 4.9 (3 to 6) for movement and 4.4 (3 to 6) for mobility. Migration of the acetabular component was seen in two hips and the mean acetabular inclination was 42.6°. The mean linear polyethylene wear was 0.05 mm/year. The mean subsidence of the femoral component was 1.9 mm and stress shielding was seen in 23 (28%) with bony ingrowth in 76 (94%). Heterotopic ossification was seen in 12 hips (15%). There were three re-revisions, two for deep sepsis and one for recurrent dislocation and there were no re-revisions for aseptic loosening. The mean EuroQol EQ-5D description scores and health thermometer scores were 0.69 (0.51 to 0.89) and 79 (54 to 95), respectively. With an end-point of definite or probable loosening, the probability of survival at 12 years was 93.9% and 95.6% for the acetabular and femoral components, respectively. Overall survival at 12 years, with removal or further revision of either component for any reason as the end-point, was 92.3%.

Our study supports the continued use of this arthroplasty and documents the durability of hydroxyapatite-ceramic-coated components.

Several aspects of the management of an orthopaedic surgical patient are not directly related to the surgical technique but are nevertheless essential for a successful outcome. Blood management is one of these. This paper considers the various strategies available for the management of blood loss in patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery.