UNLABELLED: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation for elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Over 2 years, patients treated with hemiarthroplasty gained more quality-adjusted life years than patients treated with internal fixation. In addition, costs for hemiarthroplasty were lower. Hemiarthroplasty was thus cost effective. INTRODUCTION: Estimating the cost utility of hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted alongside a clinical randomized controlled trial at a university hospital in Norway; 166 patients, 124 (75%) women with a mean age of 82 years were randomized to either internal fixation (n = 86) or hemiarthroplasty (n = 80). Patients were followed up at 4, 12, and 24 months. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EQ-5D, and in combination with time used to calculate patients' quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Resource use was identified, quantified, and valued for direct and indirect hospital costs and for societal costs. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Over the 2-year period, patients treated with hemiarthroplasty gained 0.15-0.20 more QALYs than patients treated with internal fixation. For the hemiarthroplasty group, the direct hospital costs, total hospital costs, and total costs were non-significantly less costly compared with the internal fixation group, with an incremental cost of €2,731 (p = 0.81), €2,474 (p = 0.80), and €14,160 (p = 0.07), respectively. Thus, hemiarthroplasty was the dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses by bootstrapping supported these findings. CONCLUSION:Hemiarthroplasty was a cost-effective treatment. Trial registration, NCT00464230.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation for elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Over 2 years, patients treated with hemiarthroplasty gained more quality-adjusted life years than patients treated with internal fixation. In addition, costs for hemiarthroplasty were lower. Hemiarthroplasty was thus cost effective. INTRODUCTION: Estimating the cost utility of hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted alongside a clinical randomized controlled trial at a university hospital in Norway; 166 patients, 124 (75%) women with a mean age of 82 years were randomized to either internal fixation (n = 86) or hemiarthroplasty (n = 80). Patients were followed up at 4, 12, and 24 months. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EQ-5D, and in combination with time used to calculate patients' quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Resource use was identified, quantified, and valued for direct and indirect hospital costs and for societal costs. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Over the 2-year period, patients treated with hemiarthroplasty gained 0.15-0.20 more QALYs than patients treated with internal fixation. For the hemiarthroplasty group, the direct hospital costs, total hospital costs, and total costs were non-significantly less costly compared with the internal fixation group, with an incremental cost of €2,731 (p = 0.81), €2,474 (p = 0.80), and €14,160 (p = 0.07), respectively. Thus, hemiarthroplasty was the dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses by bootstrapping supported these findings. CONCLUSION: Hemiarthroplasty was a cost-effective treatment. Trial registration, NCT00464230.
Authors: Torsten Johansson; Margareta Bachrach-Lindström; Per Aspenberg; Dick Jonsson; Ola Wahlström Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2005-12-23 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: John A Kanis; Olof Johnell; Chris De Laet; Bengt Jonsson; Anders Oden; Alan K Ogelsby Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Markus T Hongisto; Harri Pihlajamäki; Seppo Niemi; Maria Nuotio; Pekka Kannus; Ville M Mattila Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: S M Zielinski; C A M Bouwmans; M J Heetveld; M Bhandari; P Patka; E M M Van Lieshout Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Yao Lu; Zhilong Huang; Yibo Xu; Qiang Huang; Cheng Ren; Ming Li; Zhong Li; Liang Sun; Hanzhong Xue; Kun Zhang; Qian Wang; Teng Ma Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 3.940
Authors: Sharon R Lewis; Richard Macey; Jamie Stokes; Jonathan A Cook; William Gp Eardley; Xavier L Griffin Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-02-14
Authors: Ragnhild Øydna Støen; Cathrine M Lofthus; Lars Nordsletten; Jan Erik Madsen; Frede Frihagen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-08-24 Impact factor: 4.176