Bryn O Zomar1, Edward M Vasarhelyi2, Lyndsay E Somerville3, Brent A Lanting2, James L Howard2, Jacquelyn D Marsh1. 1. Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Bone and Joint Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 2. Bone and Joint Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; Department of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 3. Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been introduced in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with the goal of increased accuracy of component positioning by custom fitting cutting guides to the patient's bony anatomy. A criticism of this technology is the associated cost. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine the cost-utility of PSI compared with standard of care (SOC) instrumentation for TKA in an obese population. METHODS:Patients with body mass index greater than 30 with osteoarthritis and undergoing primary TKA were randomized to SOC or PSI. Patients completed a health care resource use diary and the EuroQol-5D at three, six, nine, and 12 months and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at three and 12 months postsurgery. We performed cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses from public health care payer and societal perspectives. RESULTS:One hundred seventy-three patients were included in the analysis with 86 patients randomized to PSI and 87 to SOC. PSI was dominated (more costly and less effective) by SOC from a health care payer perspective. From a societal perspective, an incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated at $11,230.00 per quality-adjusted life year gained, which is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. Net benefit analyses found PSI was not significantly cost-effective at any willingness to pay value from either perspective. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that widespread adoption of PSI may not be economically attractive or clinically indicated. Future considerations are to compare long-term clinical outcomes and radiographic alignment between the groups.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been introduced in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with the goal of increased accuracy of component positioning by custom fitting cutting guides to the patient's bony anatomy. A criticism of this technology is the associated cost. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine the cost-utility of PSI compared with standard of care (SOC) instrumentation for TKA in an obese population. METHODS:Patients with body mass index greater than 30 with osteoarthritis and undergoing primary TKA were randomized to SOC or PSI. Patients completed a health care resource use diary and the EuroQol-5D at three, six, nine, and 12 months and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at three and 12 months postsurgery. We performed cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses from public health care payer and societal perspectives. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-three patients were included in the analysis with 86 patients randomized to PSI and 87 to SOC. PSI was dominated (more costly and less effective) by SOC from a health care payer perspective. From a societal perspective, an incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated at $11,230.00 per quality-adjusted life year gained, which is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. Net benefit analyses found PSI was not significantly cost-effective at any willingness to pay value from either perspective. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that widespread adoption of PSI may not be economically attractive or clinically indicated. Future considerations are to compare long-term clinical outcomes and radiographic alignment between the groups.