Cost-effectiveness of dual-mobility components in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures.

AIMS: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with dual-mobility components (DM-THA) has been shown to decrease the risk of dislocation in the setting of a displaced neck of femur fracture compared to conventional single-bearing THA (SB-THA). This study assesses if the clinical benefit of a reduced dislocation rate can justify the incremental cost increase of DM-THA compared to SB-THA. METHODS: Costs and benefits were established for patients aged 75 to 79 years over a five-year time period in the base case from the Canadian Health Payer's perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the base case model conclusions. RESULTS: DM-THA was found to be cost-effective, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD $46,556 (£27,074) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analysis revealed DM-THA was not cost-effective across all age groups in the first two years. DM-THA becomes cost-effective for those aged under 80 years at time periods from five to 15 years, but was not cost-effective for those aged 80 years and over at any timepoint. To be cost-effective at ten years in the base case, DM-THA must reduce the risk of dislocation compared to SB-THA by at least 62%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed DM-THA was 58% likely to be cost-effective in the base case. CONCLUSION: Treating patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture using DM-THA components may be cost-effective compared to SB-THA in patients aged under 80 years. However, future research will help determine if the modelled rates of adverse events hold true. Surgeons should continue to use clinical judgement and consider individual patients' physiological age and risk factors for dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1783-1790.

Cost Analysis of Dual-Mobility Versus Large Femoral Head Constructs in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to report healthcare payer costs of dual-mobility (DM) and large femoral head (LFH) constructs in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to analyze costs of re-interventions incurred by Medicare and private payers over a 3-year time horizon in patients who underwent unilateral revision THA with DM (n = 126) or LFH (n = 176) implants. Model states and probabilities were derived from prospectively collected registry data. Medicare costs were estimated as the weighted-average national Medicare payment for revision THA. Private payer costs were estimated by using a multiplier of Medicare costs. RESULTS: Over a 3-year period following revision THA, re-interventions were performed in 11 (9%) DM patients and 34 (19%) LFH patients, costing $263-$1898 in DM THAs and $1285-$3946 in LFH THAs for Medicare. When compared to LFH implants, DM constructs were less costly to Medicare and private payers, resulting in cost differentials of $1536 and $2611, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At mid-term follow-up, DM constructs utilized in revision THAs were associated with 11% lower absolute risk of re-intervention and payer savings of $1500-$2500 per case when compared to LFH constructs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analysis, Level III.

The cost-effectiveness of dual mobility in a spinal deformity population with high risk of dislocation: a computer-based model.

AIMS: The routine use of dual-mobility (DM) acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) may not be cost-effective, but an increasing number of patients undergoing THA have a coexisting spinal disorder, which increases the risk of postoperative instability, and these patients may benefit from DM articulations. This study seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of DM components as an alternative to standard articulations in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using DM components in patients who would be at high risk for dislocation within one year of THA. Direct and indirect costs of dislocation, incremental costs of using DM components, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values, and the probabilities of dislocation were derived from published data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was established with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis was used to examine the impact of variation. RESULTS: In the base case, patients with a spinal deformity were modelled to have an 8% probability of dislocation following primary THA based on published clinical ranges. Sensitivity analysis revealed that, at its current average price ($1000), DM is cost-effective if it reduces the probability of dislocation to 0.9%. The threshold cost at which DM ceased being cost-effective was $1180, while the ICER associated with a DM THA was $71 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that under specific clinical and economic thresholds, DM components are a cost-effective form of treatment for patients with spinal deformity who are at high risk of dislocation after THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1297-1302.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Dual Mobility Implants for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Computer-Based Cost-Utility Model.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation remains a clinically important problem following primary total hip arthroplasty, and it is a common reason for revision total hip arthroplasty. Dual mobility (DM) implants decrease the risk of dislocation but can be more expensive than conventional implants and have idiosyncratic failure mechanisms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of DM implants compared with conventional bearings for primary total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Markov model analysis was conducted from the societal perspective with use of direct and indirect costs. Costs, expressed in 2013 U.S. dollars, were derived from the literature, the National Inpatient Sample, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The model was populated with health state utilities and state transition probabilities derived from previously published literature. The analysis was performed for a patient's lifetime, and costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% annually. The principal outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore relevant uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, DM total hip arthroplasty showed absolute dominance over conventional total hip arthroplasty, with lower accrued costs ($39,008 versus $40,031 U.S. dollars) and higher accrued utility (13.18 versus 13.13 QALYs) indicating cost-savings. DM total hip arthroplasty ceased being cost-saving when its implant costs exceeded those of conventional total hip arthroplasty by $1,023, and the cost-effectiveness threshold for DM implants was $5,287 greater than that for conventional implants. DM was not cost-effective when the annualized incremental probability of revision from any unforeseen failure mechanism or mechanisms exceeded 0.29%. The probability of intraprosthetic dislocation exerted the most influence on model results. CONCLUSIONS: This model determined that, compared with conventional bearings, DM implants can be cost-saving for routine primary total hip arthroplasty, from the societal perspective, if newer-generation DM implants meet specific economic and clinical benchmarks. The differences between these thresholds and the performance of other contemporary bearings were frequently quite narrow. The results have potential application to the postmarket surveillance of newer-generation DM components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[Are Higher Prices for Larger Femoral Heads in Total Hip Arthroplasty Justified from the Perspective of Health Care Economics? An Analysis of Costs and Effects in Germany]. / Sind höhere Preise für größere Kopfdurchmesser in der Hüftendoprothetik medizinökonomisch vertretbar? Eine Analyse der Kosten und Effekte in Deutschland.

Background: In total hip arthroplasty (THA), femoral head diameter has not been regarded as a key parameter which should be restored when reconstructing joint biomechanics and geometry. Apart from the controversial discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of using larger diameter heads, their higher cost is another important reason that they have only been used to a limited extent. The goal of this study was to analyse the price structure of prosthetic heads in comparison to other components used in THA. A large group of patients with hip endoprostheses were evaluated with respect to the implanted socket diameter and thus the theoretically attainable head diameter. Materials and Methods: The relative prices of various THA components (cups, inserts, stems and ball heads) distributed by two leading German manufacturers were determined and analysed. Special attention was paid to different sizes and varieties in a series of components. A large patient population treated with THA was evaluated with respect to the implanted cup diameter and therefore the theoretically attainable head diameter. Results: The pricing analysis of the THA components of two manufacturers showed identical prices for cups, inserts and stems in a series. In contrast to this, the prices for prosthetic heads with a diameter of 36-44 mm were 11-50 % higher than for 28 mm heads. Identical prices for larger heads were the exception. The distribution of the head diameter in 2719 THA cases showed significant differences between the actually implanted and the theoretically attainable heads. Conclusion: There are proven advantages in using larger diameter ball heads in THA and the remaining problems can be solved. It is therefore desirable to correct the current pricing practice of charging higher prices for larger components. Instead, identical prices should be charged for all head diameters in a series, as is currently established practice for all other THA components. Thus when reconstructing biomechanics and joint geometry in THA, it should be possible to recover not only leg length, femoral offset and antetorsion of the femoral neck, but also to approximately restore the diameter of the femoral head and thereby optimise the functional outcome.

The functional and financial impact of isolated and recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty.

The aims of this study were to determine the functional impact and financial burden of isolated and recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our secondary goal was to determine whether there was a difference between patients who were treated non-operatively and those who were treated operatively. We retrospectively reviewed 71 patients who had suffered dislocation of a primary THA. Their mean age was 67 years (41 to 92) and the mean follow-up was 3.8 years (2.1 to 8.2). Because patients with recurrent dislocation were three times more likely to undergo operative treatment (p < 0.0001), they ultimately had a significantly higher mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) (p = 0.0001), lower mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (p = 0.001) and a higher mean SF-12 score (p < 0.0001) than patients with a single dislocation. Likewise, those who underwent operative treatment had a higher mean HHS (p < 0.0001), lower mean WOMAC score (p < 0.0001) and a higher mean SF-12 score (p < 0.0001) than those who were treated non-operatively. Recurrent dislocation and operative treatment increased costs by 300% (£11 456; p < 0.0001) and 40% (£5217; p < 0.0001), respectively. The operative treatment of recurrent dislocation results in significantly better function than non-operative management. Moreover, the increase in costs for operative treatment is modest compared with that of non-operative measures.

A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty: the economic burden in relation to the national tariff.

Revision arthroplasty of the hip is expensive owing to the increased cost of pre-operative investigations, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay and drugs. We compared the costs of performing this surgery for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1999 and 2008. The mean total costs for revision surgery in aseptic cases (n = 194) were £11 897 (sd 4629), for septic revision (n = 76) £21 937 (sd 10 965), for peri-prosthetic fracture (n = 24) £18 185 (sd 9124), and for dislocation (n = 11) £10 893 (sd 5476). Surgery for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with longer operating times, increased blood loss and an increase in complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly longer on average (p < 0.001). Financial costs vary significantly by indication, which is not reflected in current National Health Service tariffs.

Hospital cost of treating early dislocation following hip arthroplasty.

Dislocation is a frequent and costly complication of hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to assess the financial impact on the treating institution of this complication in patients with primary hemiarthroplasty (HA), total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision surgery (RTHA). Between October 2001 and August 2009, 2014 consecutive hip arthroplasties were performed at our institution, of which 87 (18 HA, 44 THA and 25 RTHA) dislocated within 6 weeks of the primary operation. The average cost of treating implant dislocation by closed reduction, open reduction or revision was assessed and expressed as a percentage cost increase compared to an uncomplicated procedure. Of the 87 dislocated implants all needed one or more closed reductions and 52 eventually required revision surgery. An early dislocation increased the cost of HA, THA and RTHA by 472%, 342% and 352%, respectively.

[Imaging of traumatic injuries of the hip]. / Imagerie des traumatismes de la hanche.

Traumatic injuries of the hip, mostly fractures of the proximal femur, are in constant progression. Though morbidity has decreased due to improved surgical and anesthesiologic techniques and postsurgical rehabilitation, mortality from hip fractures remains significant. Radiographs of the hip remain helpful, but MDCT and MRI have become indispensable tools. Findings on imaging studies must be well characterized to ensure rapid and cost-effective management. Difficult or cases with imaging features that are difficult to interpret or misleading will be presented to avoid incorrect interpretations that could lead to inadequate management of patients.

Hospital cost of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty usually requires the use of expensive hospital resources and sometimes requires revision surgery. The hospital costs associated with treating this complication have not been previously analyzed, to our knowledge. The purpose of this study was to assess the financial impact of treating dislocations at our institution. METHODS: Between 1997 and 2001, 3671 patients underwent a total of 4054 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties at our institution. The patients were prospectively followed at regular intervals, and their follow-up data were recorded in an institutional total joint registry. Ninety-nine hips (2.4%) in ninety-nine patients dislocated. The costs to our institution to treat these dislocations were evaluated by determining the cost of each treatment episode required to reestablish hip stability and were expressed as the percent increase in cost compared with that of an uncomplicated primary total hip replacement. RESULTS: Of the ninety-nine hips that dislocated, sixty-two (63%) remained stable after one or more closed reductions and thirty-seven (37%) ultimately required revision surgery. The hospital cost of each closed reduction episode represented 19% of the hospital cost of an uncomplicated total hip replacement. When revision surgery was eventually needed, the average hospital costs of one or more closed reductions and the subsequent revisions represented 148% of the hospital cost of an uncomplicated primary total hip replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Dislocation after primary hip replacement continues to be a prevalent and costly complication that diminishes the cost-effectiveness of an otherwise very successful surgical procedure.

Ultrasound screening for hips at risk in developmental dysplasia. Is it worth it?

Between May 1992 and April 1997, there were 20,452 births in the Blackburn District. In the same period 1107 infants with hip 'at-risk' factors were screened prospectively by ultrasound. We recorded the presence of dislocation and dysplasia detected under the age of six months using Graf's alpha angle. Early dislocation was present in 36 hips (34 dislocatable and 2 irreducible). Of the 36 unstable hips, 30 (83%) were referred as being Ortolani-positive or unstable; 25 (69%) of these had at least one of the risk factors. Only 11 (31%) were identified from the 'at-risk' screening programme alone (0.54 per 1000 live births). Eight cases of 'late' dislocation presented after the age of six months (0.39 per 1000 live births). The overall rate of dislocation was 2.2 per 1000 live births. Only 31% of the dislocated hips belonged to a major 'at-risk' group. Statistical analysis confirmed that the risk factors had a relatively poor predictive value if used as a screening test for dislocation. In infants referred for doubtful clinical instability, one dislocation was detected for every 11 infants screened (95% confidence interval (CI) 8 to 17) whereas in infants referred because of the presence of any of the major 'at-risk' factors the rate was one in 75 (95% CI 42 to 149). Routine ultrasound screening of the 'at-risk' groups on their own is of little value in significantly reducing the rate of 'late' dislocation in DDH, but screening clinically unstable hips alone or associated with 'at-risk' factors has a high rate of detection.

Cost-benefit analysis of hip fracture treatment.

We have determined the quality-adjusted-life-years and cost of such in several types of hip fracture and various treatment options. Operative treatment proved more cost-effective than other methods for displaced subcapital fractures and for extracapsular fractures. For undisplaced subcapital fractures conservative treatment was almost as cost-effective as surgery.