Total or partial knee replacement? Cost-utility analysis in patients with knee osteoarthritis based on a 2-year observational study

Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the past years, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been implemented and routinely used. No clear answer has been given on its associated cost and cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI) for TKA.

AIM

To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of PSI TKA compared to CI TKA.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in healthcare, economical healthcare, and medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit). It was conducted in April 2021 and again in January 2022. Relevant literature included randomised controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies, observational studies, and case control studies. All studies were assessed on methodological quality. Relevant outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, quality-adjusted life years, total costs, imaging costs, production costs, sterilization associated costs, surgery duration costs and readmission rate costs. All eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with sufficient data.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included into the systematic review. Two were included in the meta-analysis. 3994 PSI TKAs and 13267 CI TKAs were included in the sample size. The methodological quality of the included studies, based on Consensus on Health Economic Criteria-scores and risk of bias, ranged from average to good. PSI TKA costs less than CI TKA when considering mean operating room time and its associated costs and tray sterilization per patient case. PSI TKA costs more compared to CI TKA when considering imaging and production costs. Considering total costs per patient case, PSI TKA is more expensive in comparison to CI TKA. Meta-analysis comparing total costs for PSI TKA, and CI TKA showed a significant higher cost for PSI TKA.

CONCLUSION

Cost for PSI and CI TKA can differ when considering distinct aspects of their implementation. Total costs per patient case are increased for PSI TKA when compared to CI TKA.

Clinical Course of Pain and Function Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely considered a successful intervention for osteoarthritis and other degenerative knee diseases. This study addresses the need for a high-quality meta-analysis that outlines the clinical course of pain and function post-TKA.

METHODS

The review included prospective cohort studies assessing pain or function of patients undergoing primary TKA at baseline (preoperatively) and at least 2 additional time points including one at least 12 months postoperatively. Two reviewers independently screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. The time course of recovery of pain and function was modeled using fractional polynomial meta-regression.

RESULTS

In total, 191 studies with 59,667 patients were included, most with low risk of bias. The variance-weighted mean pain score (/100, 0 = no pain) was 64.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.2-67.7) preoperatively, 24.1 (95% CI 20.3-27.9) at 3 months, 20.4 (95% CI 16.7-24.0) at 6 months, and 16.9 (95%CI 13.6-20.3) at 12 months, and remained low (10.1; 95% CI 4.8-15.4) at 10 years postoperatively. The variance-weighted mean function score (/100, 0 = worst function) was 47.1 (95% CI 45.7-48.4) preoperatively, 72.8 (95% CI 71.3-74.4) at 3 months, 76.3 (95% CI 74.7-77.8) at 6 months, and 78.1 (95%CI 76.4-79.7) at 12 months. Function scores were good (79.7; 95% CI 77.9-81.5) at 10 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing primary TKA can expect a large and rapid but incomplete recovery of pain and function in the first postoperative year. At 10 years, the gains in pain scores may still remain while there is an improvement in function.

How Are We Measuring Cost-Effectiveness in Total Joint Arthroplasty Studies? Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

As volumes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to rise, it is important to understand their economic impact. No systematic review on cost-effectiveness of THA/TKA has been performed since 2016 despite recent changes in the healthcare environment. The purpose of the study is to provide a contemporary analysis of the cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty and the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed from 2005 to 2020. Online databases (OVID Medline, PubMed, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Google Scholar, Elton B. Stephens Co) were queried to identify economic analyses that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of THA/TKA.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies met the screening criteria. Study designs were primarily Markov models (68%), cohort studies (16%), and randomized trials (8%). Most studies adopted either a societal perspective (45%) or a health system perspective (39%). Analysis revealed that THA/TKA was strongly cost-effective compared to nonsurgical treatment. THA/TKA procedures that were not delayed were more cost-effective than delayed intervention. The majority of studies used QALYs as the primary quality metric (82%); in all these studies there was a significant improvement in QALYs gained.

CONCLUSION

Given the high economic impact of arthroplasty, ongoing assessment of cost-effectiveness is needed. Twenty-four percent of studies included in this systematic review were published in the last 4 years of this 15-year study period, highlighting the need for continuous assessment of aggregate data. Future studies should incorporate the cost-effectiveness of THA and TKA with respect to the work-value provided by surgeon providers to support health policy and reimbursement.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review

Objective

Osteoarthritis causes a significant healthcare burden and the number of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures is predicted to increase significantly in the coming years. We conducted a systematic review to assess the scope and quality of all current TKA cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies, identify trends, and identify areas for improvement.

Methods

An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, the CEA registry and Scopus was used to identify all CEA studies where TKA was used with a comparator. Studies were included from January 1, 1997 to February 2, 2020. The Quality of Health Economic Analysis Studies (QHES) instrument was used to assess their quality. Thirty-three studies were included that offered both a QALY and cost calculation. The main findings, incremental-cost effectiveness ratios and other important study characteristics were then ascertained, and trends identified.

Results

Certain surgical interventions were suggested to be more cost-effective than TKA. This included unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis, computer-assisted TKA compared to conventional TKA, and resurfacing the patella compared to no resurfacing. TKA was more cost-effective compared to non-operative management regardless of specific patient variables.

Conclusions

The analyses of the CEAs included in the study have to be interpreted with caution. Overall, certain surgical methods within TKA and alternative methods to TKA appear to be favoured for treating particular knee osteoarthritic conditions due to their suggested greater cost-effectiveness but this should be interpreted within local contexts. Our results should help guide future policy-making as healthcare associated costs continue to rise.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, an enigma, and the ten enigmas of medial UKA

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a bone- and ligament-sparing alternative to total knee arthroplasty in the patients with end-stage single-compartment degeneration of the knee. Despite being a successful procedure, the multiple advantages of UKA do not correlate with its usage, most likely due to the concerns regarding prosthesis survivability, patient selection, ideal bearing design, and judicious use of advanced technology among many others. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to review and summarize the debated literature and discuss the controversies as “Ten Enigmas of UKA.”

Gene therapy in hemophilia A: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Gene therapy provides a potential phenotypic cure for hemophilia, yet the cost of this novel treatment is high, tempering enthusiasm and raising questions regarding cost vs benefit. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gene therapy treatment of severe hemophilia A compared with prophylaxis with factor VIII (FVIII), we developed a Markov state-transition model to estimate the costs and effectiveness of severe hemophilia A treatment strategies from a United States health care system perspective. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were the effectiveness measure. In the base case, hypothetical cohorts of 30-year-old patients received gene therapy or FVIII prophylaxis. We obtained model probabilities and utilities from the literature and costs from Medicare reimbursement data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of results. Over a 10-year time horizon, total per-person gene therapy strategy costs were $1.0M and resulted in 8.33 QALYs, whereas prophylaxis cost $1.7M and resulted in 6.62 QALYs. Thus, gene therapy dominated prophylaxis (costs less and was more effective). Gene therapy remained dominant unless initial costs exceeded $1.6M and were <$100 000 per 1 QALY gained compared with prophylaxis if initial costs were <$1.7M. Results were not sensitive to variation of all other parameters over clinically plausible ranges. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis simultaneously varying all parameters 3000 times over parameter distributions, gene therapy was dominant in 92% of model iterations. Treatment of severe hemophilia A with gene therapy is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective compared with FVIII prophylaxis.

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making.

DESIGN

Systematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available.

RESULTS

60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (-1.20 days (95% confidence interval -1.67 to -0.73), -1.43 (-1.53 to -1.33), and -1.73 (-2.30 to -1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (mean difference -0.58 (-0.88 to -0.27) and -0.32 (-0.48 to -0.15), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

Choosing Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement: What Can Economic Evaluations Tell Us? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients with anteromedial arthritis who require a knee replacement could receive either a unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or a total knee replacement (TKR). This review has been undertaken to identify economic evaluations comparing UKR and TKR, evaluate the approaches that were taken in the studies, assess the quality of reporting of these evaluations, and consider what they can tell us about the relative value for money of the procedures.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database was undertaken in January 2016 to identify relevant studies. Study characteristics were described, the quality of reporting and methods assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, and study findings summarised.

RESULTS

Twelve studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five were within-study analyses, while another was based on a literature review. The remaining six studies were model-based analyses. All studies were informed by observational data. While methodological approaches varied, studies generally had either limited follow-up, did not fully account for baseline differences in patient characteristics or relied on previous research that did not. The quality of reporting was generally adequate across studies, except for considerations of the settings to which evaluations applied and the generalisability of the results to other decision-making contexts. In the short-term, UKR was generally associated with better health outcomes and lower costs than TKR. Initial cost savings associated with UKR seem to persist over patients' lifetimes even after accounting for higher rates of revision. For older patients, initial health improvements also appear to be maintained, making UKR the dominant treatment choice. However, for younger patients findings for health outcomes and overall cost effectiveness are mixed, with the difference in health outcomes depending on the lifetime risk of revision and patient outcomes following revision.

CONCLUSIONS

UKR appears to be less costly than TKR. For older patients, UKR is also expected to lead to better health outcomes, making it the dominant choice; however, for younger patients health outcomes are more uncertain. Future research should better account for baseline differences in patient characteristics and consider how the relative value of UKR and TKR varies depending on patient and surgical factors.

Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review of the literature

Background

The primary purpose of this study is to assess the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for the management of knee and hip osteoarthritis by systematically reviewing published economic evaluation studies.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted for the period 2004 to 2016. Electronic databases were searched to identify both trial and model based economic evaluation studies that evaluated surgical interventions for knee and hip osteoarthritis.

Results

A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria and an assessment of these studies showed that total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) showed evidence of cost-effectiveness and improvement in quality of life of the patients when compared to non-operative and non-surgical procedures. On the other hand, even though delaying TKA and THA may lead to some cost savings in the short-run, the results from the study showed that this was not a cost-effective option.

Conclusions

TKA and THA are cost-effective and should be recommended for the management of patients with end stage/severe knee and hip OA. However, there needs to be additional studies to assess the cost-effectiveness of other surgical interventions in order for definite conclusions to be reached.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1540-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Role of Patient Characteristics on the Choice of Unicompartmental versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients With Medial Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are both viable treatment options for medial osteoarthritis (OA). However, it remains unclear when to choose for which arthroplasty treatment. Goals of this study were therefore to (1) compare outcomes after both treatments and (2) assess which treatment has superior outcomes in different patient subgroups.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 166 patients received the RESTORIS MCK Medial UKA and 63 patients the Vanguard TKA and were radiographically matched on isolated medial OA. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores were collected preoperatively and postoperatively (mean: 3.0 years, range: 2.0-5.0 years).

RESULTS

Preoperatively, no differences were observed, but medial UKA patients reported better functional outcomes than TKA (89.7 ± 13.6 vs 81.2 ± 18.0, P = .001) at follow-up.Better functional outcomes were noted after medial UKA in patients younger than age 70 years (89.5 ± 14.2 vs 78.6 ± 20.0, P = .001), with body mass index below 30 (90.3 ± 11.4 vs 83.6 ± 14.9, P = .005), with body mass index above 30 (88.3 ± 17.5 vs 78.8 ± 21.0, P = .034) and in females (90.6 ± 11.0 vs 78.1 ± 19.4, P = .001) when compared with TKA. No differences were found in males and older patients between both arthroplasties.

CONCLUSION

Superior functional outcomes were noted after medial UKA over TKA in patients presenting with medial OA with these prostheses. Subgroup analyses suggest that medial UKA is the preferred treatment in younger patients and females while no differences were noted in older patients and males after medial UKA and TKA. This might help the orthopedic surgeon in individualizing arthroplasty treatment for patients with medial OA.

Comparative Analysis of Direct Hospital Care Costs between Aseptic and Two-Stage Septic Knee Revision

BACKGROUND

The most common intermediate and long-term complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) include aseptic and septic failure of prosthetic joints. These complications cause suffering, and their management is expensive. In the future the number of revision TKA will increase, which involves a greater financial burden. Little concrete data about direct costs for aseptic and two-stage septic knee revisions with an in depth-analysis of septic explantation and implantation is available.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

A retrospective consecutive analysis of the major partial costs involved in revision TKA for aseptic and septic failure was undertaken to compare 1) demographic and clinical characteristics, and 2) variable direct costs (from a hospital department's perspective) between patients who underwent single-stage aseptic and two-stage septic revision of TKA in a hospital providing maximum care. We separately analyze the explantation and implantation procedures in septic revision cases and identify the major cost drivers of knee revision operations.

METHODS

A total of 106 consecutive patients (71 aseptic and 35 septic) was included. All direct costs of diagnosis, surgery, and treatment from the hospital department's perspective were calculated as real purchase prices. Personnel involvement was calculated in units of minutes.

RESULTS

Aseptic versus septic revisions differed significantly in terms of length of hospital stay (15.2 vs. 39.9 days), number of reported secondary diagnoses (6.3 vs. 9.8) and incision-suture time (108.3 min vs. 193.2 min). The management of septic revision TKA was significantly more expensive than that of aseptic failure ($12,223.79 vs. $6,749.43) (p <.001). On the level of the separate hospitalizations the mean direct costs of explantation stage ($4,540.46) were lower than aseptic revision TKA ($6,749.43) which were again lower than those of the septic implantation stage ($7,683.33). All mean costs of stays were not comparable as they differ significantly (p <.001). Major cost drivers were the cost of the implant and general staff. The septic implantation part was on average $3,142.87 more expensive than septic explantations (p <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study for the first time provides a detailed analysis of the major direct case costs of aseptic and septic revision TKA from the hospital-department's perspective which is the basis for long-term orientated decision making. In the future, our cost analysis has to be interpreted in relation to reimbursement estimates. This is important to check whether revision TKA lead to a financial loss for the operating department.

Establishing Age-Specific Cost-Effective Annual Revision Rates for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Improved survivorship has contributed to the increased use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. However, heterogeneity among cost-effectiveness analysis studies comparing UKA to TKA has prevented the derivation of discrete implant survivorship targets. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the age-stratified annual revision rate (ARR) threshold for UKA to become consistently cost-effective for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed for cost-effectiveness analysis studies of UKA vs TKA. Selected publications were rated by evidence level and assessed for methodological quality. Target UKA survivorship values determined by sensitivity analysis were retrieved, converted to ARR, and combined by age category (<65, 65-74, and ≥75 years) to estimate age-specific cost-effectiveness thresholds.

RESULTS

Four studies met all inclusion criteria. All publications were evidence level I-B, with high methodological quality. Combined data indicated median threshold cost-effective ARR of 1.471% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.415-1.833; age <65), 1.135% (IQR, 1.011-1.260; age 65-74), and 1.760% (IQR, 1.660-2.880; age ≥75). Current revision rates are already below the cost-effective threshold for patients aged ≥75, but exceed recommended values in younger patients.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that implant survivorship is a limiting factor toward achieving cost-effective UKA in patients aged <65. Strategies to improve UKA survivorship, such as shifting procedures to high-volume centers, may render UKA cost-effective in younger patients. This presents an opportunity for resource reallocation within health systems to achieve cost-effective utilization of UKA across a broader population segment.

Safety and Feasibility of a KineSpring Knee System for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Case Series

The treatment gap between conservative management and total knee arthroplasty may leave patients with moderate cases of knee osteoarthritis (OA) without an ideal treatment option. The KineSpring(®) Knee Implant System may be a viable treatment option to fill the treatment gap for patients with knee OA who are not willing or inappropriate candidates for total knee arthroplasty, yet do not demonstrate relief with conservative treatments. This current paper reports a series of patients who received the KineSpring System and were followed for five years. Twelve patients were included in the case series. All 12 patients were diagnosed with symptomatic OA of the medial compartment of the knee. Pain and functional problems associated with OA improved with treatment using the KineSpring System. Furthermore, these improvements were seen over the course of five years. The findings of this study show the KineSpring System as a promising intervention for early-onset OA and warrant further investigation regarding its effectiveness.

The cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis in younger patients: a computer model-based evaluation

BACKGROUND

Surgical options for the management of medial compartment osteoarthritis of the varus knee include high tibial osteotomy, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and total knee arthroplasty. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as alternatives to total knee arthroplasty for patients fifty to sixty years of age.

METHODS

We built a probabilistic state-transition computer model with health states defined by pain, postoperative complications, and subsequent surgical procedures. We estimated transition probabilities from published literature. Costs were determined from Medicare reimbursement schedules. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We conducted analyses over patients' lifetimes from the societal perspective, with health and cost outcomes discounted by 3% annually. We used probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in data inputs.

RESULTS

The estimated discounted QALYs were 14.62, 14.63, and 14.64 for high tibial osteotomy, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and total knee arthroplasty, respectively. Discounted total direct medical costs were $20,436 for high tibial osteotomy, $24,637 for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and $24,761 for total knee arthroplasty (in 2012 U.S. dollars). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $231,900 per QALY for total knee arthroplasty and $420,100 per QALY for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY, high tibial osteotomy was cost-effective 57% of the time; total knee arthroplasty, 24%; and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, 19%. At a WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY, high tibial osteotomy was cost-effective 43% of time; total knee arthroplasty, 31%; and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, 26%.

CONCLUSIONS

In fifty to sixty-year-old patients with medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, high tibial osteotomy is an attractive option compared with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty. This finding supports greater utilization of high tibial osteotomy for these patients. The cost-effectiveness of high tibial osteotomy and of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty depend on rates of conversion to total knee arthroplasty and the clinical outcomes of the conversions.

Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial Uniglide® unicompartmental knee arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Results of knee replacement registries have shown that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a significantly higher revision and failure rate than current state-of-the-art TKA. The aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the long-term outcomes and to calculate the 10 year survival of knees with medial osteoarthritis treated with Uniglide® UKA.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty-four patients were assessed by an independent clinical observer using the American Knee Society Clinical Rating System, a validated outcome measure. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the 10 year survival rates using revision surgery for any cause as the end point.

RESULTS

There were no revisions due to progression of lateral osteoarthritis or polyethylene failure. There were one traumatic and three non-traumatic bearing dislocations and two revisions due to aseptic loosening of the tibial component. One joint was revised for traumatic ligament rupture, one for synovitis from bearing impingement, one due to femoral component mal-positioning and one for infection. A total of 10 cases were revised due to failures for any cause in the 61 patients withdrawn because they had died, thus giving a cumulative survival rate at 10 years of 95.57%. The knee (function) score showed an increase from 33.4 (54.7) pre-operatively to 94 (83.4) points post-operatively. The average range of motion increased from 107 to 122° (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings we believe that the Uniglide® unicompartmental knee prosthesis offers a safe and effective solution for the treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis.

Cost-effectiveness of unicondylar versus total knee arthroplasty: a Markov model analysis

BACKGROUND

Unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is believed to lead to less morbidity and enhanced functional outcomes when compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Conversely, UKA is also associated with a higher revision risk than TKA. In order to further clarify the key differences between these separate procedures, the current study assessing the cost-effectiveness of UKA versus TKA was undertaken.

METHODS

A state-transition Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of UKA versus TKA for unicondylar osteoarthritis using a Belgian payer's perspective. The model was designed to include the possibility of two revision procedures. Model estimates were obtained through literature review and revision rates were based on registry data. Threshold analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the model's robustness.

RESULTS

UKA was associated with a cost reduction of €2,807 and a utility gain of 0.04 quality-adjusted life years in comparison with TKA. Analysis determined that the model is sensitive to clinical effectiveness, and that a marginal reduction in the clinical performance of UKA would lead to TKA being the more cost-effective solution.

CONCLUSION

UKA yields clear advantages in terms of costs and marginal advantages in terms of health effects, in comparison with TKA.

The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review of published literature

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the state of the literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness of elective total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses of THA and TKA. To limit our search to high-quality published papers, we selected those papers included in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (created by the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts University) and augmented the search with papers listed in PubMed. The data abstracted included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, perspective of the analysis, time frame, sensitivity analyses conducted, and utility assessment. All cost-effectiveness ratios were converted to 2011 USD.

RESULTS

Seven studies presenting cost-effectiveness ratios for TKA and six studies for THA were included in our review. All economic evaluations of TKA were published between 2006 and 2012. By contrast, THA studies were published between 1996 and 2008. Out of the 13 studies evaluated in this review, four were from the societal perspective and eight were from the payer perspective. Five studies spanned the lifetime horizon. Of the selected studies, six used probabilistic sensitivity analysis to address uncertainty in data parameters. Both procedures have been shown to be highly cost-effective from the societal perspective over the entire lifespan.

CONCLUSION

THA and TKA have been found to be highly cost-effective in a number of high-quality studies. Further analyses are needed on the cost-effectiveness of alternative surgical options, particularly osteotomy. Future economic evaluations should address the expanding indications of THA and TKA to younger, more physically active individuals.

Resource utilization and costs before and after total joint arthroplasty

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare pre- and post-surgical healthcare costs in commercially insured total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients with osteoarthritis (OA) in the United States (U.S.).

Methods

Using a large healthcare claims database, we identified patients over age 39 with hip or knee OA who underwent unilateral primary TJA (hip or knee) between 1/1/2006 and 9/30/2007. Utilization of healthcare services and costs were aggregated into three periods: 12 months "pre-surgery," 91 days "peri-operative," and 3 to 15 month "follow-up," Mean total pre-surgery costs were compared with follow-up costs using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

14,912 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. The mean total number of outpatient visits declined from pre-surgery to follow-up (18.0 visits vs 17.1), while the percentage of patients hospitalized increased (from 7.5% to 9.8%) (both p < 0.01). Mean total costs during the follow-up period were 18% higher than during pre-surgery ($11,043 vs. $9,632, p < 0.01), largely due to an increase in the costs of inpatient care associated with hospital readmissions ($3,300 vs. $1,817, p < 0.01). Pharmacotherapy costs were similar for both periods ($2013 [follow-up] vs. $1922 [pre-surgery], p = 0.33); outpatient care costs were slightly lower in the follow-up period ($4338 vs. $4571, p < 0.01). Mean total costs for the peri-operative period were $36,553.

Conclusions

Mean total utilization of outpatient healthcare services declined slightly in the first year following TJA (exclusive of the peri-operative period), while mean total healthcare costs increased during the same time period, largely due to increased costs associated with hospital readmissions. Further study is necessary to determine whether healthcare costs decrease in subsequent years.

An economic analysis of outcomes and complications of treating distal radius fractures in the elderly

PURPOSE

There is a lack of scientific data regarding which treatment provides the best outcome for distal radius fractures (DRFs) in the elderly. Currently, casting is used to treat the majority of these fractures, although open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been used increasingly in recent years. Given the recent emphasis on the wise use of medical resources, we conducted a cost-utility analysis to assess which of 4 common DRF treatments (casting, wire fixation, external fixation, or ORIF) optimizes the cost-to-patient preference ratio.

METHODS

We created a decision tree to model the process of choosing a DRF treatment and experiencing a final outcome. Fifty adults aged 65 and older were surveyed in a time trade-off, one-on-one interview to obtain utilities for DRF treatments and possible complications. We gathered Medicare reimbursement rates and calculated the incremental cost-utility ratio for each treatment.

RESULTS

Participants rated DRF treatment relatively high, assigning utility values close to perfect health to all treatments. The ORIF was the most preferred treatment (utility, 0.96), followed by casting (utility, 0.94), wire fixation (utility, 0.94), and external fixation (utility, 0.93). The ORIF was the most expensive treatment (reimbursement, $3,516), whereas casting was the least expensive (reimbursement, $564). The incremental cost-utility ratio for ORIF, when compared to casting, was $15,330 per quality-adjusted life years, which is less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year, thereby indicating that, from the societal perspective, ORIF is considered a worthwhile alternative to casting.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a slight preference for the faster return to minimally restricted activity provided by ORIF. Overall, patients show little preference for one DRF treatment over another. Because Medicare patients pay similar out-of-pocket costs regardless of procedure, they are not particularly concerned with procedure costs. Considering the similar long-term outcomes, this study adds to the uncertainty surrounding the choice of DRF treatment in the elderly, further indicating the need for a high-powered, randomized trial.

Clinical and economic consequences of the treatment gap in knee osteoarthritis management

Osteoarthritis affects 27 million American adults of all ages and is a leading cause of disability in middle-aged and older adults. Initial management of knee osteoarthritis symptoms utilizes conservative care although long-term efficacy is poor. Arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy may be considered for patients with severe pain or disability. We hypothesize that a distinct treatment gap exists for the patient with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis who is unresponsive to conservative care (including simple surgical treatments) yet refuses to undergo or is not an appropriate candidate for more invasive surgical procedures. This treatment gap represents a protracted period in which the patient experiences debilitating pain, reduced quality of life, and a significant financial burden. Approximately 3.6 million Americans linger in the knee osteoarthritis treatment gap and this number will grow to about 5 million people by 2025. The typical knee osteoarthritis treatment gap extends 20 years although the younger osteoarthritis patient is faced with the treatment gap throughout the majority of their adult life. There is great need for a safe, effective, and cost effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis that enjoys high patient acceptance.

Cost effectiveness of the type II Boston keratoprosthesis

PURPOSE

Despite demonstrated cost effectiveness, not all corneal disorders are amenable to type I Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation. This includes patients with autoimmune diseases, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Type II KPro is implanted through the eyelids in severe dry eye and cicatricial diseases, and its cost effectiveness was sought.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective chart review, 29 patients who underwent type II KPro surgery at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary between the years 2000 and 2009 were identified. A total of 11 patients had 5-year follow-up data. Average cost effectiveness was determined by cost-utility analysis, comparing type II KPro surgery with no further intervention.

RESULTS

Using the current parameters, the cost utility of KPro from third-party insurer (Medicare) perspective was 63,196 $/quality-adjusted life year .

CONCLUSION

Efforts to refer those less likely to benefit from traditional corneal transplantation or type I KPro, for type II KPro surgery, may decrease both patient and societal costs.