Osteoporosis International

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1711–1719

Hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation with percutaneous cannulated screws as treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: cost-utility analysis performed alongside a randomized, controlled trial

  • G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv
  • F. Frihagen
  • J. E. Madsen
  • L. Nordsletten
  • E. Aas
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

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.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness analysis EQ-5D Femoral neck fractures Hemiarthroplasty Internal fixation Sensitivity analysis Surgical treatment 

Abbreviations

CUA

Cost-utility analysis

HRQoL

Health-related quality of life

ICER

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

QALY

Quality-adjusted life year

References

  1. 1.
    Parker M, Johansen A (2006) Hip fracture. BMJ 333:27–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2004) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:897–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ismail AA, Pye SR, Cockerill WC, Lunt M, Silman AJ, Reeve J et al (2002) Incidence of limb fracture across Europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Osteoporos Int 13:565–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Ogelsby AK (2002) International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17:1237–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lofthus CM, Osnes EK, Falch JA, Kaastad TS, Kristiansen IS, Nordsletten L et al (2001) Epidemiology of hip fractures in Oslo, Norway. Bone 29:413–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7:407–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gjertsen JE, Engesaeter LB, Furnes O, Havelin LI, Steindal K, Vinje T et al (2008) The Norwegian Hip Fracture Register: experiences after the first 2 years and 15,576 reported operations. Acta Orthop 79:583–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P III, Obremskey W, Koval KJ et al (2003) Internal fixation compared with arthoplasty for displaced fractures in the femoral neck. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg 85:1673–1681PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parker MJ, Gurusamy K (2006) Internal fixation versus arthroplasty for intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD001708Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogmark C, Johnell O (2006) Primary arthroplasty is better than internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a meta-analysis of 14 randomized studies with 2,289 patients. Acta Orthop 77:359–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu-Yao GL, Keller RB, Littenberg B, Wennberg JE (1994) Outcomes after displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis of one hundred and six published reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:15–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blomfeldt R, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S, Soderqvist A, Tidermark J (2005) Comparison of internal fixation with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures. Randomized, controlled trial performed at four years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1680–1688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF (2006) Randomized comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in healthy older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:249–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rogmark C, Carlsson A, Johnell O, Sernbo I (2002) A prospective randomised trial of internal fixation versus arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the neck of the femur. Functional outcome for 450 patients at 2 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:183–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tidermark J, Ponzer S, Svensson O, Soderqvist A, Tornkvist H (2003) Internal fixation compared with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. A randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:380–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frihagen F, Nordsletten L, Madsen JE (2007) Hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation for intracapsular displaced femoral neck fractures: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 335:1251–1254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parker MJ, Myles JW, Anand JK, Drewett R (1992) Cost-benefit analysis of hip fracture treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:261–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iorio R, Healy WL, Lemos DW, Appleby D, Lucchesi CA, Saleh KJ (2001) Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: outcomes and cost effectiveness. Clin Orthop Relat Res 383:229–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johansson T, Bachrach-Lindstrom M, Aspenberg P, Jonsson D, Wahlstrom O (2006) The total costs of a displaced femoral neck fracture: comparison of internal fixation and total hip replacement. A randomised study of 146 hips. Int Orthop Feb 30:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rogmark C, Carlsson A, Johnell O, Sembo I (2003) Costs of internal fixation and arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized study of 68 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 74:293–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frihagen F, Waaler GM, Madsen JE, Nordsletten L, Aspaas S, Aas E (2010) The cost of hemiarthroplasty compared to that of internal fixation for femoral neck fractures. Acta Orthop 81:446–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    EuroQol-group (2009) EQ-5D—a standardised instrument for use as a measure of health outcome. [Online]. Available from: www.euroqol.org. Accessed 11 March 2009
  23. 23.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A (1996) The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 5:141–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tidermark J, Zethraeus N, Svensson O, Thörnkvist H, Ponzer S (2002) Femoral neck fractures in the elderly: functional outcome and quality of life according to EuroQol. Qual Life Res 11:473–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk
  27. 27.
    Ministry of finance (2010) Veileder isamfunnsøkonomiske analyser (Guidelines in socioeconomic analyses). [Online]. Available from: Oslo: www.regjeringen.no/opload/FIN/Vedlegg/okstyring/Veileder_i_samfunnsokonomiske_analyser.pdf. Accessed June 2010
  28. 28.
    Champbell MK, Torgerson DJ (1999) Bootstrapping: estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. Q J Med 92:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA (2001) A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 33:358–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frihagen F, Grotle M, Madsen JE, Wyller TB, Mowinckel P, Nordsletten L (2008) Outcome after femoral neck fractures: a comparison of Harris Hip Score, EQ-5D and Barthel Index. Injury 39:1147–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Iorio R, Healy WL, Appleby D, Milligan J, Dube M (2004) Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: disposition and outcome after 3- to 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 19:175–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parker MJ, Gurusamy KS, Azegami S. Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;16:CD001706.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johansson T, Jacobsson SA, Ivarsson I, Knutsson A, Wahlström O. Internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study of 100 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:597–602.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hopley C, Stengel D, Ekkernkamp A, Wich M (2010) Primary total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older patients: systematic review. BMJ 340:c2332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. Frihagen
    • 3
  • J. E. Madsen
    • 3
    • 4
  • L. Nordsletten
    • 3
    • 4
  • E. Aas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Management and Health EconomicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.HEHØ—Health Economic Evaluations in the South-Eastern Regional Health Authority in NorwayUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Orthopaedic DepartmentOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations