Medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: age-stratified cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and high tibial osteotomy
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).
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsOsteoarthritis Medial compartment osteoarthritis Cost-effectiveness Total knee arthroplasty Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty High tibial osteotomy
- 7.Breeman S, Campbell M, Dakin H, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Grant A, Gray A, Johnston L, Maclennan G, Morris R, Murray D, KAT Trial Group (2011) Patellar resurfacing in total knee replacement: five-year clinical and economic results of a large randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1473–1481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M (2004) Decision modelling for health economic evaluation., kindle edition. Oxford Univ Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 10.Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M (2004) Decision modelling for health economic evaluation, Kindle edition. Oxford Univ Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 11.Brouwer RW, Raaij van TM, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Verhagen AP, Jakma TSC, Verhaar JAN (2007) Osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD004019Google Scholar
- 19.Dunbar MJ (2008) When should a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be considered? In: Evidence-based Orthopaedics: The Best Answers to Clinical Questions. Elsevier Inc, Chapter 87, pp 1–5Google Scholar
- 21.Fitz W, Scott R (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. In: Insall JN, Scott WN (eds) Surgery of the knee, 5th edn. Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier, London, pp 988–995Google Scholar
- 25.Gusi N, Olivares PR, Rajendram R (2009) The EQ-5D Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire, Springer, USA, pp 1–14Google Scholar
- 26.Hospital Episode Statistics (2010) Provisional monthly patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in England: April 2009–2010. The Health and Social Care Information Centre, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 28.Jonna VK, TriaJr AJ (2009) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. In: Brown TE (ed) Arthritis and Arthroplasty: The Knee Elsevier Inc., pp 62–68Google Scholar
- 29.Jordan KM (2003) EULAR recommendations 2003: an evidence based approach to the management of knee osteoarthritis: report of a Task Force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 62:1145–1155CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 39.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013, pp 1–93. http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9
- 42.NJR Editorial Board (2012) In: 9th Annual Report 2012. National Joint Registry for England and Wales pp 1–212Google Scholar
- 50.Research Facts Ltd (2010) The top 40 European manufacturers of Hip & Knee Implants. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/18/idUS112016+18-Oct-2010+BW20101018
- 54.Sculpher M (2004) Cost-effectiveness analysis for (NICE) decision making new guidelines and future challenges, pp 1–31, http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9
- 59.Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford Univ Press, KindleGoogle Scholar
- 61.Sundberg M, Lidgren L, W-Dahl A, Robertsson O (2012) Swedish knee arthroplasty register (SKAR). http://www.myknee.se
- 63.Transparency Market Research (2012) Knee Implants market—global industry size, share, trends, analysis and forecasts. http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/knee-implantsmarket.html
- 64.Treasury GBHM (2003) The Green Book. TSOGoogle Scholar