Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Osteoporosis International volume 23, pages 1711–1719 (2012)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1

Abbreviations

CUA:

Cost-utility analysis

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

ICER:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

QALY:

Quality-adjusted life year

References

  1. Parker M, Johansen A (2006) Hip fracture. BMJ 333:27–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnell O, Kanis JA (2004) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:897–902

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 13:565–571

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 17:1237–1244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lofthus CM, Osnes EK, Falch JA, Kaastad TS, Kristiansen IS, Nordsletten L et al (2001) Epidemiology of hip fractures in Oslo, Norway. Bone 29:413–418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7:407–413

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 79:583–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 85:1673–1681

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Parker MJ, Gurusamy K (2006) Internal fixation versus arthroplasty for intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD001708

    Google Scholar 

  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 77:359–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 76:15–25

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 87:1680–1688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 88:249–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 84:183–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 85:380–388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Frihagen F, Nordsletten L, Madsen JE (2007) Hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation for intracapsular displaced femoral neck fractures: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 335:1251–1254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Parker MJ, Myles JW, Anand JK, Drewett R (1992) Cost-benefit analysis of hip fracture treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:261–264

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 383:229–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 30:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 74:293–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 81:446–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A (1996) The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 5:141–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 11:473–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 York

    Google Scholar 

  26. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk

  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. Champbell MK, Torgerson DJ (1999) Bootstrapping: estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. Q J Med 92:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 33:358–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 39:1147–1156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19:175–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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:c2332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Kenneth Nilsen, Wender Figved, Silje Aspaas, Eivind Kaare Osnes, Bjørn Robstad, Wendy Hornum, and Kirsti Hildur Nielsen who participated considerably in the collection of data.

Conflicts of interest

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that (1) none of the authors have support from any company for the submitted work; (2) FF and LN have received consulting and lecturing fees from OrtoMedic who markets the orthopedic implants used in this trial and that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; (3) their spouses, partners, or children have no financial relationships that may be relevant to the submitted work; and (4) GW, EA, LN, FF, and JEM have no non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work.

Funding

Funding for this work was from the Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation through the Norwegian Osteoporosis Society, South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, the Norwegian Research Council, Nycomed, Smith and Nephew, and OrtoMedic. The researchers have worked independently and have not been influenced by the funders.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, 1089, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway

    G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv & E. Aas

  2. HEHØ—Health Economic Evaluations in the South-Eastern Regional Health Authority in Norway, University of Oslo, 0317, Oslo, Norway

    G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv

  3. Orthopaedic Department, Oslo University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, 0407, Oslo, Norway

    F. Frihagen, J. E. Madsen & L. Nordsletten

  4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    J. E. Madsen & L. Nordsletten

Authors
  1. G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Frihagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. E. Madsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Nordsletten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Aas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waaler Bjørnelv, G.M., Frihagen, F., Madsen, J.E. et al. 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. Osteoporos Int 23, 1711–1719 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1772-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1772-1

Keywords

search

Navigation