William B Smith1, Joni Steinberg2, Stefan Scholtes3, Iain R Mcnamara4. 1. University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA. 3. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 4. Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, University of East Anglia, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 2UY, UK. imcnamara@doctors.org.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the age-based cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) for the treatment of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (MCOA). METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate theoretical cohorts of patients 40, 50, 60, and 70 years of age undergoing primary TKA, UKA, or HTO. Costs and outcomes associated with initial and subsequent interventions were estimated by following these virtual cohorts over a 10-year period. Revision and mortality rates, costs, and functional outcome data were estimated from a systematic review of the literature. Probabilistic analysis was conducted to accommodate these parameters' inherent uncertainty, and both discrete and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were utilized to assess the robustness of the model's outputs to changes in key variables. RESULTS: HTO was most likely to be cost-effective in cohorts under 60, and UKA most likely in those 60 and over. Probabilistic results did not indicate one intervention to be significantly more cost-effective than another. The model was exquisitely sensitive to changes in utility (functional outcome), somewhat sensitive to changes in cost, and least sensitive to changes in 10-year revision risk. CONCLUSIONS: HTO may be the most cost-effective option when treating MCOA in younger patients, while UKA may be preferred in older patients. Functional utility is the primary driver of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. For the clinician, this study supports HTO as a competitive treatment option in young patient populations. It also validates each one of the three interventions considered as potentially optimal, depending heavily on patient preferences and functional utility derived over time.
PURPOSE: To compare the age-based cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) for the treatment of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (MCOA). METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate theoretical cohorts of patients 40, 50, 60, and 70 years of age undergoing primary TKA, UKA, or HTO. Costs and outcomes associated with initial and subsequent interventions were estimated by following these virtual cohorts over a 10-year period. Revision and mortality rates, costs, and functional outcome data were estimated from a systematic review of the literature. Probabilistic analysis was conducted to accommodate these parameters' inherent uncertainty, and both discrete and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were utilized to assess the robustness of the model's outputs to changes in key variables. RESULTS: HTO was most likely to be cost-effective in cohorts under 60, and UKA most likely in those 60 and over. Probabilistic results did not indicate one intervention to be significantly more cost-effective than another. The model was exquisitely sensitive to changes in utility (functional outcome), somewhat sensitive to changes in cost, and least sensitive to changes in 10-year revision risk. CONCLUSIONS: HTO may be the most cost-effective option when treating MCOA in younger patients, while UKA may be preferred in older patients. Functional utility is the primary driver of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. For the clinician, this study supports HTO as a competitive treatment option in young patient populations. It also validates each one of the three interventions considered as potentially optimal, depending heavily on patient preferences and functional utility derived over time.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness; High tibial osteotomy; Medial compartment osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis; Total knee arthroplasty; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Authors: K M Jordan; N K Arden; M Doherty; B Bannwarth; J W J Bijlsma; P Dieppe; K Gunther; H Hauselmann; G Herrero-Beaumont; P Kaklamanis; S Lohmander; B Leeb; M Lequesne; B Mazieres; E Martin-Mola; K Pavelka; A Pendleton; L Punzi; U Serni; B Swoboda; G Verbruggen; I Zimmerman-Gorska; M Dougados Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Catherine Hui; Lucy J Salmon; Alison Kok; Heidi A Williams; Niels Hockers; Willem M van der Tempel; Rishi Chana; Leo A Pinczewski Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: James Slover; Birgitte Espehaug; Leif Ivar Havelin; Lars Birger Engesaeter; Ove Furnes; Ivan Tomek; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Annette W-Dahl; Otto Robertsson; Lars Lidgren; Lisa Miller; David Davidson; Stephen Graves Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Raghbir S Khakha; Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak; Kristian Kley; Ronald van Heerwaarden; Adrian J Wilson Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2021-10-01
Authors: Andrew J Porteous; James R A Smith; Rachel Bray; James R Robinson; Paul White; James R D Murray Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Codie A Primeau; Trevor B Birmingham; Kristyn M Leitch; Kevin R Willits; Robert B Litchfield; Peter J Fowler; Jacquelyn D Marsh; Bert M Chesworth; Stephanie N Dixon; Dianne M Bryant; J Robert Giffin Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 16.859
Authors: Codie A Primeau; Bryn O Zomar; Lyndsay E Somerville; Ishita Joshi; J Robert Giffin; Jacquelyn D Marsh Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-03-09