Dataset Information

Cost of Revision Total Knee Replacement: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A major limitation of total knee replacement (TKR), as with other joint replacements, is the risk of revision. Revision TKR is associated with high risk and economic burden to patients, healthcare providers, and societies. It will be worthwhile to assess the economic burden of revision TKR across countries or different study settings. This study aims to review the literature on the cost of revision TKR to assess costs across countries and studies, estimate a pooled cost estimate for homogenous data, and identify major cost components that contribute to the cost burden.

Methods

We will conduct a search of the MEDLINE (OvidSp), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies, and will use an optimally designed search approach to search for relevant studies. EndNote library will be used to manage the searched studies. Selection will be undertaken in two phases-screening and eligibility. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias will be performed in duplicate, after which the data will be analysed narratively and a meta-analysis performed for homogenous studies, if possible.

Discussion

This protocol provides a proposed stepwise plan for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cost of revision TKR. Findings from this systematic review will provide information about the cost across settings and identify the major cost drivers of revision TKR, which will, in turn, stimulate efforts to minimize the cost.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020171988.

SUBMITTER: Okafor CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8160044 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rehabilitation, with an emphasis on physiotherapy and exercise, is widely promoted after total knee replacement. However, provision of services varies in content and duration. The aim of this study is to update the review of Minns Lowe and colleagues 2007 using systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of post-discharge physiotherapy exercise in patients with primary total knee replacement.We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL to October 4(th) 2013 for randomised evaluations of physiotherapy exercise in adults with recent primary knee replacement. Outcomes were: patient-reported pain and function, knee range of motion, and functional performance. Authors were contacted for missing data and outcomes. Risk of bias and heterogeneity were assessed. Data was combined using random effects meta-analysis and reported as standardised mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD).Searches identified 18 randomised trials including 1,739 patients with total knee replacement. Interventions compared: physiotherapy exercise and no provision; home and outpatient provision; pool and gym-based provision; walking skills and more general physiotherapy; and general physiotherapy exercise with and without additional balance exercises or ergometer cycling. Compared with controls receiving minimal physiotherapy, patients receiving physiotherapy exercise had improved physical function at 3-4 months, SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.62, -0.12), and pain, SMD -0.45 (95% CI -0.85, -0.06). Benefit up to 6 months was apparent when considering only higher quality studies. There were no differences for outpatient physiotherapy exercise compared with home-based provision in physical function or pain outcomes. There was a short-term benefit favouring home-based physiotherapy exercise for range of motion flexion. There were no differences in outcomes when the comparator was hydrotherapy, or when additional balancing or cycling components were included. In one study, a walking skills intervention was associated with a long-term improvement in walking performance. However, for all these evaluations studies were under-powered individually and in combination.After recent primary total knee replacement, interventions including physiotherapy and exercise show short-term improvements in physical function. However this conclusion is based on meta-analysis of a few small studies and no long-term benefits of physiotherapy exercise interventions were identified. Future research should target improvements to long-term function, pain and performance outcomes in appropriately powered trials.

Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignSystematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies 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.Results60 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).ConclusionsTKA 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 registrationPROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

Project description:IntroductionHip and knee replacement represents a significant burden to the UK healthcare system. 'Enhanced recovery' pathways have been introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement, with the aim of improving outcomes and timely recovery after surgery. To support policymaking, there is a need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways across jurisdictions. Our aim is to systematically summarise the published cost-effectiveness evidence on enhanced recovery in hip and knee replacement, both as a whole and for each of the various components of enhanced recovery pathways.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Econlit and the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database. Separate search strategies were developed for each database including terms relating to hip and knee replacement/arthroplasty, economic evaluations, decision modelling and quality of life measures.We will extract peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2017 reporting economic evaluations of preoperative, perioperative or postoperative enhanced recovery interventions within hip or knee replacement. Economic evaluations alongside cohort studies or based on decision models will be included. Only studies with patients undergoing elective replacement surgery of the hip or knee will be included. Data will be extracted using a predefined pro forma following best practice guidelines for economic evaluation, decision modelling and model validation.Our primary outcome will be the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery (entire pathway and individual components) in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented, focussing on cost-effectiveness results, study design, quality and validation status.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review is exempted from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed academic journal and at conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42017059473.

Project description:There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5-10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24-1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5-10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56-1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5-10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of technology-assisted rehabilitation following total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR). METHODS:Six electronic databases were searched without language or time restrictions for relevant studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); from inception to November 7th, 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to select eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, compared with usual care or no intervention for people undergoing THR/TKR. Two reviewers independently extracted trial details (e.g. patients' profile, intervention, outcomes, attrition and adverse events). Study methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS:We identified 21 eligible studies assessing telerehabilitation, game- or web-based therapy. There were 17 studies (N?=?2188) in post-TKR rehabilitation and 4 studies (N?=?783) in post-THR rehabilitation. Compared to usual care, technology-based intervention was more effective in reducing pain (mean difference (MD): -?0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): -?0.48, -?0.02; moderate evidence) and improving function measured with the timed up-and-go test (MD: -7.03; 95% CI: -?11.18, -?2.88) in people undergoing TKR. No between-group differences were observed in rates of hospital readmissions or treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in those studies. CONCLUSION:There is moderate-quality of evidence showed technology-assisted rehabilitation, in particular, telerehabilitation, results in a statistically significant improvement in pain; and low-quality of evidence for the improvement in functional mobility in people undergoing TKR. The effects were however too small to be clinically significant. For THR, there is very limited low-quality evidence shows no significant effects.