The application of decision analysis to the surgical treatment of early osteoarthritis of the wrist

Assessing New Technologies in Surgery: Case Example of Acute Primary Repair of the Thumb Ulnar Collateral Ligament

PURPOSE

Health technology assessment provides a means to assess the technical properties, safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and ethical/legal/social impact of a novel technology. An important component of health technology assessment is the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which can be performed using model-based CEA. This study used the CEA model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a novel ligament augmentation device with the standard technique for primary repair of complete ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears.

METHODS

A model was developed for complete UCL tear requiring acute surgical repair, comparing the cost-effectiveness of standard technique primary repair and repair using a ligament augmentation device from a societal perspective. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, net monetary benefit (NMB) and incremental NMB. A cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000/QALY was used to compare the 2 techniques. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the parameter uncertainty, specifically the impact of device cost, time off work, probability of complication, and postoperative outcome.

RESULTS

The NMB for the standard technique was CAD $42,598, and the NMB for repair using the ligament augmentation device was CAD $41,818. The standard technique was the preferred strategy for primary repair of complete UCL tears. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ligament augmentation device became cost-effective if individuals return to work in <18 days (base case 23 days). The device was also favored when the cost was less than CAD $50 and the difference in time to return to work was at least 1 day.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model demonstrates that there may be significant costs associated with the introduction of novel health technologies, and certain conditions, such as an earlier return to work, must be met for some devices to be a cost-effective option. This study provides an example of how model-based CEA is a useful tool to assess the cost-effectiveness of a novel device.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic/Decision Analysis II.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Motion-Preserving Operations for Wrist Arthritis

BACKGROUND

The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to answer the question: Which motion-preserving surgical strategy, (1) four-corner fusion, (2) proximal row carpectomy, or (3) total wrist arthroplasty, used for the treatment of wrist osteoarthritis, is the most cost-effective?

METHODS

A simulation model was created to model a hypothetical cohort of wrist osteoarthritis patients (mean age, 45 years) presenting with painful wrist and having failed conservative management. Three initial surgical treatment strategies-(1) four-corner fusion, (2) proximal row carpectomy, or (3) total wrist arthroplasty-were compared from a hospital perspective. Outcomes included clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years and cost) over a lifetime.

RESULTS

The highest complication rates were seen in the four-corner fusion cohort: 27.1 percent compared to 20.9 percent for total wrist arthroplasty and 17.4 percent for proximal row carpectomy. Secondary surgery was common for all procedures: 87 percent for four-corner fusion, 57 percent for proximal row carpectomy, and 46 percent for total wrist arthroplasty. Proximal row carpectomy generated the highest quality-adjusted life-years (30.5) over the lifetime time horizon, compared to 30.3 quality-adjusted life-years for total wrist arthroplasty and 30.2 quality-adjusted life-years for four-corner fusion. Proximal row carpectomy was the least costly; the mean expected lifetime cost for patients starting with proximal row carpectomy was $6003, compared to $11,033 for total wrist arthroplasty and $13,632 for four-corner fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' analysis suggests that proximal row carpectomy was the most cost-effective strategy, regardless of patient and parameter level uncertainties. These are important findings for policy makers and clinicians working within a universal health care system.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Corticosteroid Injections and Open Surgical Release for Trigger Finger

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of corticosteroid injection(s) versus open surgical release for the treatment of trigger finger.

METHODS

Using a US health care payer perspective, we created a decision tree model to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with 4 treatment strategies for trigger finger: offering up to 3 steroid injections before to surgery or immediate open surgical release. Costs were obtained from a large administrative claims database. We calculated expected quality-adjusted life-years for each treatment strategy, which were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Separate analyses were performed for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients. We performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations that simultaneously sampled from the uncertainty distributions of all model inputs.

RESULTS

Offering 3 steroid injections before surgery was the optimal strategy for both commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that this strategy was cost-effective 67% and 59% of the time for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients, respectively. Our results were sensitive to the probability of injection site fat necrosis, success rate of steroid injections, time to symptom relief after a steroid injection, and cost of treatment. Immediate surgical release became cost-effective when the cost of surgery was below $902 or $853 for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple treatment strategies exist for treating trigger finger, and our cost-effectiveness analysis helps define the relative value of different approaches. From a health care payer perspective, offering 3 steroid injections before surgery is a cost-effective strategy.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analyses II.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Proximal Row Carpectomy and Four-Corner Arthrodesis

Background:

The optimal surgical treatment for scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse (SNAC) remains unclear. To inform clinical decision-makers, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing proximal row carpectomy (PRC) and four-corner arthrodesis (FCA).

Methods:

A Markov microsimulation model was used to compare clinical outcomes, costs, and health utilities between PRC and FCA. The model used a 10-year time horizon and a 1-month cycle length, and it was evaluated from the societal perspective. Utilities and clinical parameters including transition probabilities for debridement for infection, removal of implants, conversion to total wrist arthrodesis, revision FCA, and revision total wrist arthrodesis were obtained from published literature. Timing of complications was estimated from the literature. Direct medical costs were derived from Medicare ambulatory surgical cost data, and indirect costs for missed work due to surgical procedures and complications were included. The effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 1-way threshold analysis for utilities were performed.

Results:

In the base-case model, PRC dominated FCA (i.e., PRC had lower cost and greater effectiveness). The mean (and standard deviation) for the total cost and QALYs per patient were $30,970 ± $5,931 and 8.24 ± 1.28, respectively, for PRC and $44,526 ± $11,205 and 8.23 ± 1.26, respectively, for FCA. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PRC dominated FCA in 57% of the 1 million iterations. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that PRC is the most cost-effective strategy regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold up to $100,000/QALY.

Conclusions:

PRC dominated FCA in the base-case analysis and in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. These results suggest that PRC is the optimal strategy for Stage-I or II SLAC and for SNAC in patients ≥55 years of age.

Level of Evidence:

Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Use of Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation in Upper Extremity Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Decision analysis allows clinicians to apply evidence-based medicine to guide objective decisions in uncertain scenarios. There is no comprehensive review summarizing the various decision analysis tools used. The authors aimed to appraise and review the decision analytic models used in hand surgery.

METHODS

A search of English articles on the PubMed, Ovid, and Embase databases was performed. All articles, regardless of date of publishing, were considered. Two reviewers, based on strict inclusion criteria, independently assessed each article.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 5525 abstracts, which yielded 30 studies that met inclusion criteria. Included studies were grouped according to medical indications, with scaphoid fractures (n = 6) and carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 5) being the most commonly reported. Included articles used decision analysis (n = 15) and/or economic analyses (n = 23) to discuss diagnostic strategies or compare treatments. The three most common outcomes reported were utility (n = 12), cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 16), and quality-adjusted life-years (n = 16). The decision analysis models compared diagnostic strategies, management options, and novel treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision analysis is increasingly popular in hand surgery. It is useful for comparing surgical strategies through evaluation of quality-of-life outcomes and costing data. The most common model was a simple decision tree. The quality of decision analysis models can be improved with the addition of sensitivity analysis. Surgeons should be familiar with the principles of decision analysis, so that complex decisions can be evaluated using rigorous probabilistic models that combine risks and benefits of multiple strategies.