Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-effectiveness and economic impact of the KineSpring® Knee Implant System in the treatment for knee osteoarthritis

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of the KineSpring System in the treatment for knee osteoarthritis in Germany.

Methods

Functional outcome scores of the general German population and knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients under surgical treatments (HTO, UKA and TKA), conservative treatments and treatment with the KineSpring System were used to derive the utility scores for each group. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of each group were estimated using the utility scores. Finally, cost-utility analysis was performed using cost and QALYs data. The economic impact of knee OA in Germany was assessed in terms of annual total direct cost and indirect cost, total diseased population and potential QALYs saved with the KineSpring System.

Results

Assuming the durability of 10 years, the cost-utility ratio of the KineSpring System, surgical treatments and conservative treatments compared to no treatment in 2012 was €3,402/QALY, €4,899/QALY and €9,996/QALY, respectively. With even a lesser durability of 5 years, the cost-utility ratio of the KineSpring System maintained superiority over surgical treatments and conservative treatments (€7,327/QALY, €9,706/QALY and €10,467/QALY, respectively). The KineSpring System is a highly cost-effective alternative for knee osteoarthritis compared with the current accepted cost-effective threshold (willingness to pay) of $50,000 US/QALY gained. Our models suggest KineSpring System, if adapted widely could save up to 2.0 ± 0.07 million QALY assuming it has a 5-year durability and save up to 3.9 ± 0.1 million QALY assuming it has a 10-year durability.

Conclusion

An economic advantage for using the KineSpring System over other surgical and conservative treatments in knee OA patients in Germany is suggested by our model. According to currently accepted cost-effectiveness guidelines, the KineSpring Knee Implant System for knee OA is a cost-effective strategy.

Level of evidence

Cost-effectiveness analysis, Level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albertsen PC, Nease RF Jr, Potosky AL (1998) Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer. J Urol 159:158–163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Barmer gek (2010) Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse, Band 3. Barmer Gek Report Krankenhaus 2010. www.barmer-gek.de

  3. Bohm P, Holy T, Pietsch-Breitfeld B, Meisner C (2000) Mortality after total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthrosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120:75–78

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Clifford A, O’Connell M, Gabriel S, Miller LE, Block JE (2011) The KineSpring load absorber implant: rationale, design and biomechanical characterization. J Med Eng Technol 35:65–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Culliford DJ, Maskell J, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Price AJ, Arden NK (2010) Temporal trends in hip and knee replacement in the United Kingdom: 1991 to 2006. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:130–135

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Das Informationssystem der Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. www.gbe-bund.de (Federal Health Monitoring)

  7. Dominick KL, Ahern FM, Gold CH, Heller DA (2004) Health-related quality of life among older adults with arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2:5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Feeny D, Blanchard C, Mahon JL, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Stitt L, Webster-Bogaert S (2003) Comparing community-preference-based and direct standard gamble utility scores: evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty. Int J Technol Assess 19:362–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Feeny D, Furlong W, Saigal S, Sun J (2004) Comparing directly measured standard gamble scores to HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores: group- and individual-level comparisons. Soc Sci Med 58:799–809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Feeny D, Townsend M, Furlong W, Tomkins DJ, Robinson GE, Torrance GW, Mohide PT, Wang Q (2000) Assessing health-related quality-of-life in prenatal diagnosis comparing Chorionic Villi Sampling and Amniocentesis: a technical report. Center for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton

    Google Scholar 

  11. Felson DT, Naimark A, Anderson J, Kazis L, Castelli W, Meenan RF (1987) The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the elderly. The Framingham osteoarthritis study. Arthritis Rheum 30:914–918

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Goldsmith C, DePauw S, Zhu Z, Denton M, Boyle M (1998) Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3) system: a technical report. Center for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gabriel SE, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ 3rd, Moncur MM, Ettinger B, Tosteson AN (1999) Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should we use? Med Decis Making 19:141–148

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Germany DRG cost data in 2010. InEK G-DRG HA V2010/2012 Report-Browser. www.g-drg.de

  15. Grootendorst P, Marshall D, Pericak D, Bellamy N, Feeny D, Torrance GW (2007) A model to estimate health utilities index mark 3 utility scores from WOMAC index scores in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol 34:534–542

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta S, Hawker GA, Laporte A, Croxford R, Coyte PC (2005) The economic burden of disabling hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) from the perspective of individuals living with this condition. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44:1531–1537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hermans J, Koopmanschap MA, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, van Linge JH, Verhaar JA, Reijman M, Burdorf A (2012) Productivity costs and medical costs among working patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 64:853–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. ICD-10-GM: M15-M19 Osteoarthritis (2008) German Federal Health Reporting Institute

  19. Konig HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC (2005) Health status of the German population: results of a representative survey using the EuroQol questionnaire. Gesundheitswesen 67:173–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ (1997) The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 45:1641–1652

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Krummenauer F, Wolf C, Gunther KP, Kirschner S (2009) Clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the older patient. Eur J Med Res 14:76–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lavernia C, Lee DJ, Hernandez VH (2006) The increasing financial burden of knee revision surgery in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:221–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Le Galès C, Buron C, Costet N, Rosman S, Slama G (2001) Développement d’un index d’états de santé pondéré par les utilités en population française. Économie et Prévision 150–1:71–78

    Google Scholar 

  24. Leigh JP, Fries JF (1994) Arthritis and mortality in the epidemiological follow-up to the national health and nutrition examination survey I. Bull N Y Acad Med 71:69–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. London NJ, Miller LE, Block JE (2011) Clinical and economic consequences of the treatment gap in knee osteoarthritis management. Med Hypotheses 76:887–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Losina E, Walensky RP, Kessler CL, Emrani PS, Reichmann WM, Wright EA, Holt HL, Solomon DH, Yelin E, Paltiel AD, Katz JN (2009) Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and hospital volume. Arch Intern Med 169:1113–1121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Losina E, Walensky RP, Reichmann WM, Holt HL, Gerlovin H, Solomon DH, Jordan JM, Hunter DJ, Suter LG, Weinstein AM, Paltiel AD, Katz JN (2011) Impact of obesity and knee osteoarthritis on morbidity and mortality in older Americans. Ann Intern Med 154:217–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Loza E, Lopez-Gomez JM, Abasolo L, Maese J, Carmona L, Batlle-Gualda E (2009) Economic burden of knee and hip osteoarthritis in Spain. Arthritis Rheum 61:158–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Maetzel A, Li LC, Pencharz J, Tomlinson G, Bombardier C (2004) The economic burden associated with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and hypertension: a comparative study. Ann Rheum Dis 63:395–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Moximed (2011) Moximed clinical trials. http://www.moximed.com/ous/medpros/clinicaltrials.php

  31. Nichol G, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Thiel EC, Naylor CD (1996) The relationship between cardiac functional capacity and patients’ symptom-specific utilities for angina: some findings and methodologic lessons. Med Decis Making 16:78–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Nichol MB, Sengupta N, Globe DR (2001) Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med Decis Making 21:105–112

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Parmet S, Lynm C, Glass RM (2003) JAMA patient page. Osteoarthritis of the knee. JAMA 289:1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Phillips C, Thompson G (2009) What is a QALY? In: Health economics, 2nd edn. Hayward Medical Communications. http://www.whatisseries.co.uk/

  35. Rabenda V, Manette C, Lemmens R, Mariani AM, Struvay N, Reginster JY (2006) Direct and indirect costs attributable to osteoarthritis in active subjects. J Rheumatol 33:1152–1158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rachlis M, Kushner C (1989) Second opinion: what’s wrong in Canada’s health care system and how to fix it. Collins, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rand JA, Trousdale RT, Ilstrup DM, Harmsen WS (2003) Factors affecting the durability of primary total knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:259–265

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N (2007) EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide, vol 2. EuroQol Group Monographs

  39. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Graham JD (1995) Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 15:369–390

    Google Scholar 

  40. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W (2001) Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 21:329–334

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q (1996) Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health utilities index mark 2. Med Care 34:702–722

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wolfson AD, Bombardier C, McGeer A (1982) Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: interrater and intertechnique comparisons. In: Kane RL (ed) Values in long term care. DC Heath & Co, Toronto, pp 191–214

    Google Scholar 

  43. Woolf AD, Pfleger B (2003) Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81:646–656

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the research grant from Moximed, Inc. (Hayward, California, USA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Global Research Solutions Inc, Burlington, ON, L7N 3H8, Canada

    Chuan Silvia Li

  2. Medalliance Consulting, Auggen, Germany

    Thomas Seeger

  3. Head of Medical Controlling Department, BG Trauma Center, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Thomas C. Auhuber

  4. Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics, McMaster University, 293 Wellington St. N, Suite 110, Hamilton, ON, L8L 8E7, Canada

    Mohit Bhandari

Authors
  1. Chuan Silvia Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Seeger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas C. Auhuber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohit Bhandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chuan Silvia Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Li, C.S., Seeger, T., Auhuber, T.C. et al. Cost-effectiveness and economic impact of the KineSpring® Knee Implant System in the treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2629–2637 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2427-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2427-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation