RESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of revision total knee arthroplasty compared to primary total knee arthroplasty in terms of cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY). METHODS: Data were retrieved for all primary and revision total knee replacement (TKA) procedures performed at a tertiary Swiss hospital between 2006 and 2019. A Markov model was created to evaluate revision risk and we calculated lifetime QALY gain and lifetime procedure costs through individual EuroQol 5 dimension (EQ-5D) scores, hospital costs, national life expectancy tables and standard discounting processes. Cost-per-QALY gain was calculated for primary and revision procedures. RESULTS: EQ-5D data were available for 1343 primary and 103 revision procedures. Significant QALY gains were seen following surgery in all cases. Similar, but significantly more QALYs were gained following primary TKA (PTKA) (5.67 ± 3.98) than following revision TKA (RTKA) (4.67 ± 4.20). Cost-per-QALY was 4686 for PTKA and 10,364 for RTKA. The highest average cost-per-QALY was seen in two-stage RTKA (12,292), followed by one-stage RTKA (8982). CONCLUSION: RTKA results in a similar QALY gain as PTKA. The costs of achieving health gain are two to three times higher in RTKA, but both procedures are highly cost-effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic level II.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) results in high costs with inadequately low reimbursement in different healthcare systems. Therefore, a financial analysis was performed comparing costs and reimbursements of primary total knee arthroplasty (PTKA) versus RTKA using financial and total knee arthroplasty-register data from a large tertiary hospital, the Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen (KSSG), Switzerland. METHODS: All PTKA and RTKA performed between January 2012 and September 2019 at the KSSG were included. Financial and TKA-register data for each case were collected, including detailed cost allocation, reimbursement, patients' insurance status, type and indication for surgery and length of hospital stay. RTKA was further subdivided in one-stage and two-stage RTKA. Direct hospital costs were analyzed and compared to reimbursement in both groups. Cost-coverage ratios were calculated. RESULTS: 730 PTKA and 106 RTKA were included. The RTKA group contained 66 one-stage and 40 two-stage RTKA. Cost-coverage ratio for PTKA and RTKA showed to be 110.9% and 81.3%, respectively. Cost-coverage ratio was lower for two-stage RTKA than for one-stage RTKA with 74.1% and 92.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: RTKA leads to financial deficits especially for tertiary hospitals within the Swiss healthcare system. Restructuring of the reimbursements for PTKA and RTKA should be considered in favor of RTKA. Otherwise, tertiary hospitals will face a growing financial burden with the constantly increasing annual number of RTKA procedures, predominantly performed in this type of hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.