Dataset Information

An economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The use of Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS) for knee replacements is intended to improve the alignment of knee prostheses in order to reduce the number of revision operations. Is the cost effectiveness of computer assisted surgery influenced by patient volume and age? METHODS: By employing a Markov model, we analysed the cost effectiveness of computer assisted surgery versus conventional arthroplasty with respect to implant survival and operation volume in two theoretical Norwegian age cohorts. We obtained mortality and hospital cost data over a 20-year period from Norwegian registers. We presumed that the cost of an intervention would need to be below NOK 500,000 per QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) gained, to be considered cost effective. RESULTS: The added cost of computer assisted surgery, provided this has no impact on implant survival, is NOK 1037 and NOK 1414 respectively for 60 and 75-year-olds per quality-adjusted life year at a volume of 25 prostheses per year, and NOK 128 and NOK 175 respectively at a volume of 250 prostheses per year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the 10-year implant survival in cohort 1 needs to rise from 89.8% to 90.6% at 25 prostheses per year, and from 89.8 to 89.9% at 250 prostheses per year for computer assisted surgery to be considered cost effective. In cohort 2, the required improvement is a rise from 95.1% to 95.4% at 25 prostheses per year, and from 95.10% to 95.14% at 250 prostheses per year. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of using computer navigation for total knee replacements may be acceptable for 60-year-old as well as 75-year-old patients if the technique increases the implant survival rate just marginally, and the department has a high operation volume. A low volume department might not achieve cost-effectiveness unless computer navigation has a more significant impact on implant survival, thus may defer the investments until such data are available.

SUBMITTER: Gothesen O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3722089 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway.

Gøthesen Øystein Ø Slover James J Havelin Leif L Askildsen Jan Erik JE Malchau Henrik H Furnes Ove O

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20130706

<h4>Background</h4>The use of Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS) for knee replacements is intended to improve the alignment of knee prostheses in order to reduce the number of revision operations. Is the cost effectiveness of computer assisted surgery influenced by patient volume and age?<h4>Methods</h4>By employing a Markov model, we analysed the cost effectiveness of computer assisted surgery versus conventional arthroplasty with respect to implant survival and operation volume in two theoretical ...[more]

PMID: 23829478

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely recognized as an effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). Compared with conventional TKA, robotic-arm assisted TKA may improve patients’ functionality and resulting quality of life by more accurate and precise component placement. Currently, the literature on cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA in the US is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA relative to TKA in the Medicare-aged population including exploring the impact of hospital volume on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Methods We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the costs, health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of robotic-arm assisted TKA vs TKA in Medicare population with OA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We sourced costs from the literature including episode-of-care (EOC) costs from a Medicare study. We assessed cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA by hospital procedure volume and conducted deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Results For the average patient treated in a hospital with an annual volume of 50 procedures, robotic-arm assisted TKA resulted in a total QALY of 6.18 relative to 6.17 under conventional TKA. Total discounted costs per patient were $32,535 and $31,917 for robotic-arm assisted TKA and conventional TKA, respectively. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective in the base case with an ICER of $41,331/QALY. In univariate DSA, cost-effectiveness outcomes were most sensitive to the annual hospital procedure volume. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a WTP of $50,000/QALY only when hospital volume exceeded 49 procedures per year. In PSA, robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a $50,000/QALY WTP threshold in 50.4% of 10,000 simulations. Conclusions Despite high robotic purchase costs, robotic-arm assisted TKA is likely to be cost-effective relative to TKA in the Medicare population with knee OA in high-volume hospitals through lowering revision rates and decreasing post-acute care costs. Higher-volume hospitals may deliver higher value in performing in robotic-arm assisted TKA.

Project description:Introduction:The aim of this work is to compare in a retrospective study, the radiological results of three series of different total knee replacements performed using Orthopilot computer-based alignment system (Group A, 31 patients), a totally intramedullary alignment system (Group B, 34 patients) and a totally extramedullary alignment system (Group C, 32 patients). Materials and methods:At a medium follow-up of 15 years, all patients underwent call interview for clinical update. Of the 115 patients initially enrolled in the study, only 97 were available for radiological assessment. Both standing long-leg antero-posterior radiographs and lateral radiographs of the knee had been taken for every patient at 1 year-follow-up and at the last follow-up. Results:At the last follow-up, the mean hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) was 179.1° (range: 176°-184°) for group A, 178.6° (range: 173°-186°) for group B and 177.8° (range: 172°-186°) for group C with no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups. The mean frontal femoral component angle (FFC) was 90.5° (range: 87°-94°) for group A, 91.05° (range: 85°-95°) for group B and 91.19° (range: 85°-96°) for group C and there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups. The mean frontal tibial component angle (FTC) was 89.9° (range: 83°-97°) for group A, 90.6° (range: 87°-95°) for group B and 90.8° (range: 86°-95°) for group C and there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups. The mean tibial component inclination in the sagittal plane was 1° (range: 3°-0°) for group A, 3.6° (range: 7°-0°) for group B and 3.1° (range: 6°-0°) for group C. Discussion and conclusion:Our results demonstrated statistically significant differences between computer-assisted and extramedullary group, in favour of navigated group in terms of implant position and mechanical alignment. Computer-assisted group showed superior but not statistically significant differences compared to intramedullary alignment system in terms of implant position and mechanical alignment. We advocate the use of computer-assisted system routinely in total knee replacement. As an alternative, we suggest the use of intramedullary system.

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:Objectives To evaluate the impact of total knee replacement on quality of life in people with knee osteoarthritis and to estimate associated differences in lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) according to use by level of symptoms.Design Marginal structural modeling and cost effectiveness analysis based on lifetime predictions for total knee replacement and death from population based cohort data.Setting Data from two studies-Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) and the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST)-within the US health system.Participants 4498 participants with or at high risk for knee osteoarthritis aged 45-79 from the OAI with no previous knee replacement (confirmed by baseline radiography) followed up for nine years. Validation cohort comprised 2907 patients from MOST with two year follow-up.Intervention Scenarios ranging from current practice, defined as total knee replacement practice as performed in the OAI (with procedural rates estimated by a prediction model), to practice limited to patients with severe symptoms to no surgery.Main outcome measures Generic (SF-12) and osteoarthritis specific quality of life measured over 96 months, model based QALYs, costs, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios over a lifetime horizon.Results In the OAI, total knee replacement showed improvements in quality of life with small absolute changes when averaged across levels of confounding variables: 1.70 (95% uncertainty interval 0.26 to 3.57) for SF-12 physical component summary (PCS); -10.69 (-13.39 to -8.01) for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities arthritis index (WOMAC); and 9.16 (6.35 to 12.49) for knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) quality of life subscale. These improvements became larger with decreasing functional status at baseline. Provision of total knee replacement to patients with SF-12 PCS scores <35 was the optimal scenario given a cost effectiveness threshold of $200?000/QALY, with cost savings of $6974 ($5789 to $8269) and a minimal loss of 0.008 (-0.056 to 0.043) QALYs compared with current practice. These findings were reproduced among patients with knee osteoarthritis from the MOST cohort and were robust against various scenarios including increased rates of total knee replacement and mortality and inclusion of non-healthcare costs but were sensitive to increased deterioration in quality of life without surgery. In a threshold analysis, total knee replacement would become cost effective in patients with SF-12 PCS scores ?40 if the associated hospital admission costs fell below $14?000 given a cost effectiveness threshold of $200?000/QALY.Conclusion Current practice of total knee replacement as performed in a recent US cohort of patients with knee osteoarthritis had minimal effects on quality of life and QALYs at the group level. If the procedure were restricted to more severely affected patients, its effectiveness would rise, with practice becoming economically more attractive than its current use.

Project description:Objectives Many UK primary care trusts have recently introduced eligibility criteria restricting total knee replacement (TKR) to patients with low pre-operative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) to cut expenditure. We evaluate these criteria by assessing the cost-effectiveness of TKR compared with no knee replacement for patients with different baseline characteristics from an NHS perspective. Design The cost-effectiveness of TKR in different patient subgroups was assessed using regression analyses of patient-level data from the Knee Arthroplasty Trial, a large, pragmatic randomised trial comparing knee prostheses. Setting 34 UK hospitals. Participants 2131 osteoarthritis patients undergoing TKR. Interventions and outcome measures Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) observed in the Knee Arthroplasty Trial within 5 years of TKR were compared with conservative assumptions about the costs and outcomes that would have been accrued had TKR not been performed. Results On average, primary TKR and 5 years of subsequent care cost £7458 per patient (SD: £4058), and patients gained an average of 1.33 (SD: 1.43) QALYs. As a result, TKR cost £5623/QALY gained. Although costs and health outcomes varied with age and sex, TKR cost <£20?000/QALY gained for patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists grades 1-2 who had baseline OKS <40 and for American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade 3 patients with OKS <35, even with highly conservative assumptions about costs and outcomes without TKR. Body mass index had no significant effect on costs or outcomes. Restricting TKR to patients with pre-operative OKS <27 would inappropriately deny a highly cost-effective treatment to >10?000 patients annually. Conclusions TKR is highly cost-effective for most current patients if the NHS is willing to pay £20?000-£30?000/QALY gained. At least 97% of TKR patients in England have more severe symptoms than the thresholds we have identified, suggesting that further rationing by OKS is probably unjustified. Trial registration number ISRCTN 45837371.

Project description:BackgroundKidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a lifesaving but costly treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The objective of this study was to review full economic evaluations comparing KRT modalities specified as hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and kidney transplantation (KT) for patients with ESKD.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature from PubMed, Embase, EconLit (EBSCO), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and CRD Health Technology Assessment Database from inception until 5 January 2020. Full economic evaluations were included if they compared three forms of KRT specified as PD, HD, and KT. The reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsTen studies were identified in the review. The majority of the studies were model-based evaluations and included a cost-utility analysis. Four studies were conducted from a public healthcare perspective, three from a societal perspective, and three from a third-party payer perspective. None of the studies adequately addressed all the applicable items of the CHEERS checklist. The most infrequently reported items were characterizing heterogeneity, target population, and characterizing uncertainty. There is a lack of studies that conduct from a societal perspective and take into account characterizing heterogeneity. All included studies indicate that KT is the most cost-effective KRT modality, with either a dominant position over HD and PD or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well below the accepted willingness-to-pay threshold. The majority of studies suggest that PD is less costly and offers comparable or better health outcomes than HD.ConclusionsOur systematic review suggests that KT is the most cost-effective KRT modality, but there is no firm conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of HD and PD. Further economic evaluations can be conducted from a societal perspective and detail the evidence for subsets of patients with different characteristics.

Dataset Information

An economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway.

Publications

An economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets