Direct Hospital Costs per Case of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Joint Infections in Europe - A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The rise of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) due to aging populations is steadily increasing the number of arthroplasties and treatment costs. This study analyzed the direct health care costs of PJI for total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Europe. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were systematically screened for direct costs of PJI in Europe. Publications that defined the joint site and the procedure performed were further analyzed. Mean direct health care costs were calculated for debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), one-stage, and 2-stage revisions for hip and knee PJI, respectively. Costs were adjusted for inflation rates and reported in US-Dollar (USD). RESULTS: Of 1,374 eligible publications, 12 manuscripts were included in the final analysis after an abstract and full-text review. Mean direct costs of $32,933 were identified for all types of revision procedures for knee PJI. The mean direct treatment cost including DAIR for TKA after PJI was $19,476. For 2-stage revisions of TKA, the mean total cost was $37,980. For all types of hip PJI procedures, mean direct hospital costs were $28,904. For hip DAIR, one-stage and 2-stage treatment average costs of $7,120, $44,594, and $42,166 were identified, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic joint infections are associated with substantial direct health care costs. As detailed reports on the cost of PJI are scarce and of limited quality, more detailed financial data on the cost of PJI treatment are urgently required.

Adoption of New Medical Technologies: The Case of Customized Individually Made Knee Implants.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of insurance coverage on the adoption of customized individually made (CIM) knee implants and to compare patient outcomes and cost effectiveness of off-the-shelf and CIM implants. METHODS: A system dynamics simulation model was developed to study adoption dynamics of CIM and meet the research objectives. The model reproduced the historical data on primary and revision knee replacement implants obtained from the literature and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Then the dynamics of adoption of CIM implants were simulated from 2018 to 2026. The rate of 90-day readmission, 3-year revision surgery, recovery period, time savings in operating rooms, and the associated cost within 3 years of primary knee replacement implants were used as performance metrics. RESULTS: The simulation results indicate that by 2026, an adoption rate of 90% for CIM implants can reduce the number of readmissions and revision surgeries by 62% and 39%, respectively, and can save hospitals and surgeons 6% on procedure time and cut down cumulative healthcare costs by approximately $38 billion. CONCLUSIONS: CIM implants have the potential to deliver high-quality care while decreasing overall healthcare costs, but their adoption requires the expansion of current insurance coverage. This work presents the first systematic study to understand the dynamics of adoption of CIM knee implants and instrumentation. More broadly, the current modeling approach and systems thinking perspective could be used to consider the adoption of any emerging customized therapies for personalized medicine.

Functional outcome of total knee replacement: a study protocol for a prospective, double-blinded, parallel-group randomized, clinical controlled trial of novel, personalized and conventional implants.

BACKGROUND: The development of total knee replacement (TKR) implant designs aims to improve outcome regarding pain, function, joint stiffness, instability, patellar problems, and ultimately wear of the implant. Recently, two major orthopaedic implant manufacturers launched a new generation of TKR implants which, according to the manufacturers, provide improved functional outcome. However, the benefits of these new TKR designs claimed by the manufacturers in terms of improved functional outcome still lack scientific documentation. The present randomized controlled trial has been designed to compare three fixed bearing, cemented cruciate-retaining (CR) designs; one of the new personalized TKR design with two conventional TKR designs with the main emphasis being on functional outcome. METHODS: The present study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, single-center intervention trial. A total of 240 patients will be recruited to participate in a parallel-group study at Coxa Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland. We will compare the short-term functional outcome of TKR performed with a novel personalized TKR design (Persona CR, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) against TKRs performed with two conventional designs (PFC CR, DePuy, Warsaw, IN, USA and Nexgen CR, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA). In total, 80 patients will be randomized in each of the three study arms. The primary outcome in this study is the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), which is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Secondary outcome measures include the Forgotten Joint Score, the 15D, the UCLA activity score, and the VAS pain scale. The results will be analyzed after 2-year follow-up. DISCUSSION: This paper presents a prospective, randomized, single-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient randomization, PROMs, follow-up, methods of analysis of the material, and publication plan. An important aspect that will be considered in the study will be the economic effects of the novel designs as they are substantially more expensive, and the benefits of the added costs remain unknown. In addition, it is especially important to carry out evaluative studies in independent centers that are not biased by the interests of the manufacturers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered, November, 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03339557 .

Risk Adjustment Is Necessary in Value-based Outcomes Models for Infected TKA.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 provides the framework to link reimbursement for providers based on outcome metrics. Concerns exist that the lack of risk adjustment for patients undergoing revision TKA for an infection may cause problems with access to care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) After controlling for confounding variables, do patients undergoing revision TKA for infection have higher 30-day readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates than those undergoing revision TKA for aseptic causes? (2) Compared with patients undergoing revision TKA who are believed not to have infections, are patients undergoing revision for infected TKAs at increased risk for complications? METHODS: We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for patients undergoing revision TKA from 2012 to 2015 identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 27486, 27487, and 27488. Of the 10,848 patients identified, four were excluded with a diagnosis of malignancy (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision code 170.7, 170.9, 171.8, or 198.5). This validated, national database records short-term outcome data for inpatient procedures and does not rely on administrative coding data. Demographic variables, comorbidities, and outcomes were compared between patients believed to have infected TKAs and those undergoing revision for aseptic causes. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent factors associated with complications, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality. RESULTS: After controlling for demographic factors and medical comorbidities, TKA revision for infection was independently associated with complications (odds ratio [OR], 3.736; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.198-4.365; p < 0.001), 30-day readmission (OR, 1.455; 95% CI, 1.207-1.755; p < 0.001), 30-day reoperation (OR, 1.614; 95% CI, 1.278-2.037; p < 0.001), and 30-day mortality (OR, 3.337; 95% CI, 1.213-9.180; p = 0.020). Patients with infected TKA had higher rates of postoperative infection (OR, 3.818; 95% CI, 3.082-4.728; p < 0.001), renal failure (OR, 36.709; 95% CI, 8.255-163.231; p < 0.001), sepsis (OR, 7.582; 95% CI, 5.529-10.397; p < 0.001), and septic shock (OR, 3.031; 95% CI, 1.376-6.675; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers should be aware of the higher rate of mortality, readmissions, reoperations, and complications in patients with infected TKA. Without appropriate risk adjustment or excluding these patients all together from alternative payment and quality reporting models, fewer providers will be incentivized to care for patients with infected TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Economic benefits of microprocessor controlled prosthetic knees: a modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced prosthetic knees allow for more dynamic movements and improved quality of life, but payers have recently started questioning their value. To answer this question, the differential clinical outcomes and cost of microprocessor-controlled knees (MPK) compared to non-microprocessor controlled knees (NMPK) were assessed. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of the clinical and economic impacts of prosthetic knees, convened technical expert panel meetings, and implemented a simulation model over a 10-year time period for unilateral transfemoral Medicare amputees with a Medicare Functional Classification Level of 3 and 4 using estimates from the published literature and expert input. The results are summarized as an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) from a societal perspective, i.e., the incremental cost of MPK compared to NMPK for each quality-adjusted life-year gained. All costs were adjusted to 2016 U.S. dollars and discounted using a 3% rate to the present time. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that compared to NMPK over a 10-year time period: for every 100 persons, MPK results in 82 fewer major injurious falls, 62 fewer minor injurious falls, 16 fewer incidences of osteoarthritis, and 11 lives saved; on a per person per year basis, MPK reduces direct healthcare cost by $3676 and indirect cost by $909, but increases device acquisition and repair cost by $6287 and total cost by $1702; on a per person basis, MPK is associated with an incremental total cost of $10,604 and increases the number of life years by 0.11 and quality adjusted life years by 0.91. MPK has an ICER ratio of $11,606 per quality adjusted life year, and the economic benefits of MPK are robust in various sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prosthetics for transfemoral amputees, specifically MPKs, are associated with improved clinical benefits compared to non-MPKs. The economic benefits of MPKs are similar to or even greater than those of other medical technologies currently reimbursed by U.S. payers.

Cost Analysis of All-Polyethylene Compared to Metal-Backed Implants in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The growing trends of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) foreshadow an inevitable increase in the financial burden on healthcare expenditure estimated to almost nine billion dollars annually. This study aims to demonstrate the potential savings when using all-polyethylene (AP) compared to metal-backed (MB) tibial components and describes the cost variability amongst three major commercially available implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost of AP versus MB implants was analyzed using a large nationwide database, Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI). Cost of femoral components and patellar buttons were excluded. The three manufacturers included in the study were DePuy, Smith&Nephew, and Stryker (Zimmer data was not available for analysis). RESULTS: Our results show that AP components were significantly less costly in comparison to other manufacturers, and the average AP price was $1,009. The average MB (baseplate plus liner) price was $2,054 (p<0.01). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the means of the AP components showed no significant difference in prices among the three studied manufacturers (p=0.946). DISCUSSION: Our results demonstrate that, regardless of the manufacturing company, AP tibial components are significantly cheaper than their MB counterparts. A literature review revealed that, when indicated, AP implants are not inferior to MB in terms of survivorship or outcome. The average savings was more than $1,000 per TKA when multiplied even by a small portion of the large volume of TKAs completed annually. This can translate into millions of dollars in savings in healthcare expenditures. With the impending legislation of the bundled-payment initiative, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of less costly implant options that can positively impact outcomes and/or quality of care.

Current status of cost utility analyses in total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA), although considered to be highly beneficial, is associated with substantial costs to the US healthcare system. Cost utility analysis has become an increasingly important means to objectively evaluate the value of a healthcare intervention from the perspective of both extending the quantity and improving the quality of life. Relatively little is known about the overall cost utility analysis evidence base in TJA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The goals of this review were to (1) determine the cost utility of TJA interventions; (2) critically assess the quality of published US-based cost utility analyses using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument; and (3) determine what characteristics were common among studies receiving a high quality score. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile findings and critically appraise US-based cost utility analysis studies for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Based on review of 676 identified articles, 23 studies were included. We used the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess study quality and one-sided Fisher's exact tests were applied to analyze the predictors of high-quality cost utility analysis. RESULTS: Very few studies compare the cost utility of TJA versus nonoperative intervention; however, the available evidence suggests that TJA can be cost-saving and is highly cost-effective compared with conservative management of end-stage arthritis. The majority of identified studies are focused on the cost utility of new implant technologies or comparisons among surgical alternatives. These studies suggest that the upfront costs associated with new technologies are cost-effective when there is a major reduction in a future cost. The quality of identified studies is quite high (Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument score: mean 86.5; range, 63-100). National funding source (p = 0.095) and lifetime horizon for analysis (p = 0.07) correlate with high-quality evidence but do not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 15 years, there has been a major increase in the volume of cost utility analyses published in total hip and knee arthroplasty. The quality of cost utility analyses published during that period is good. As increasing attention is paid to value in US health care, more attention should be paid to understanding the cost utility of TJA compared with nonoperative treatment modalities. Future studies may also look to incorporate patient willingness to pay.

Systematic review of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: new but not improved.

BACKGROUND: Patient-specific cutting blocks have been touted as a more efficient and reliable means of achieving neutral mechanical alignment during TKA with the proposed downstream effect of improved clinical outcomes. However, it is not clear to what degree published studies support these assumptions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Do patient-specific cutting blocks achieve neutral mechanical alignment more reliably during TKA when compared with conventional methods? (2) Does patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) provide financial benefit through improved surgical efficiency? (3) Does the use of patient-specific cutting blocks translate to improved clinical results after TKA when compared with conventional instrumentation? METHODS: We performed a systematic review in accordance with Cochrane guidelines of controlled studies (prospective and retrospective) in MEDLINE® and EMBASE® with respect to patient-specific cutting blocks and their effect on alignment, cost, operative time, clinical outcome scores, complications, and survivorship. Sixteen studies (Level I-III on the levels of evidence rubric) were identified and used in addressing the first question, 13 (Level I-III) for the second question, and two (Level III) for the third question. Qualitative assessment of the selected Level I studies was performed using the modified Jadad score; Level II and III studies were rated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. RESULTS: The majority of studies did not show an improvement in overall limb alignment when PSI was compared with standard instrumentation. Mixed results were seen across studies with regard to the prevalence of alignment outliers when PSI was compared with conventional cutting blocks with some studies demonstrating no difference, some showing an improvement with PSI, and a single study showing worse results with PSI. The studies demonstrated mixed results regarding the influence of PSI on operative times. Decreased operative times were not uniformly observed, and when noted, they were found to be of minimal clinical or financial significance. PSI did reliably reduce the number of instrument trays required for processing perioperatively. The accuracy of the preoperative plan, generated by the PSI manufacturers, was found lacking, often leading to multiple intraoperative changes, thereby disrupting the flow of the operation and negatively impacting efficiency. Limited data exist with regard to the effect of PSI on postoperative function, improvement in pain, and patient satisfaction. Neither of the two studies we identified provided strong evidence to support an advantage favoring the use of PSI. No identified studies addressed survivorship of components placed with PSI compared with those placed with standard instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: PSI for TKA has not reliably demonstrated improvement of postoperative limb or component alignment when compared with standard instrumentation. Although decisive evidence exists to support that PSI requires fewer surgical trays, PSI has not clearly been shown to improve overall surgical efficiency or the cost-effectiveness of TKA. Mid- and long-term data regarding PSI's effect on functional outcomes and component survivorship do not exist and short-term data are scarce. Limited available literature does not clearly support any improvement of postoperative pain, activity, function, or ROM when PSI is compared with traditional instrumentation.

The indirect cost of Patient-Specific Instruments.

PURPOSE: To calculate the indirect costs of Patient Specific Instruments (PSI) based on an opportunity cost, cost of efforts and a supply chain cost model to compare PSI for value with conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: In 81 patients the total (direct+indirect) cost of PSI-assisted TKA was compared with conventional TKA. Surgical times and coronal mechanical alignment were measured to evaluate the effectiveness of the PSI system. RESULTS: Indirect costs (459 euro) make up 40% of the total cost that can run up to 1142 euro for a patient operated with PSI guides. No difference in surgical times or coronal alignment was observed in between both groups. CONCLUSION: Considering the total cost of PSI no value was found for the use of PSI in primary TKA as measured by surgical times or for obtaining a neutral mechanical axis in the coronal plane.

Increased rates of periprosthetic joint infection in patients with cirrhosis undergoing total joint arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is becoming more prevalent, with additional increases in procedure rates expected as the US population ages. Small series have suggested increased risk of periprosthetic joint infections in patients with liver cirrhosis after TJA. However, the rates of periprosthetic joint infections and use of TJA for patients with cirrhosis have not been evaluated on a larger scale. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to (1) measure the rate of periprosthetic joint infections after THAs and TKAs in patients with cirrhosis of the liver; (2) assess mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, and other clinical factors among patients with cirrhosis who have had a TJA; and (3) evaluate the use of TJA in the United States among patients with liver cirrhosis during the past decade. METHODS: National and state-level databases were used to identify patients with and without liver cirrhosis who underwent TJAs. The rate of periprosthetic joint infections within 6 months was assessed using the Statewide Inpatient Database, which identified 306,946 patients undergoing THAs (0.3% with cirrhosis) and 573,840 patients undergoing TKAs (0.2% with cirrhosis). To evaluate trends in the use of TJAs, 16,634 patients with cirrhosis who underwent TJAs were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2010. RESULTS: Periprosthetic joint infections after THA were more common in patients with cirrhosis for hip fracture (6.3% versus 1.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 5.8; p < 0.001) and nonhip fracture diagnoses (3.7% versus 0.7%; HR, 5.4; p < 0.001). Periprosthetic joint infections were more common after TKA in patients with cirrhosis (2.7% versus 0.8%; HR, 3.4; p < 0.001). Use of TJA increased faster for patients with cirrhosis than for patients without cirrhosis for THAs (140% versus 80%; p = 0.011) and TKAs (213% versus 128%; p < 0.001), and also increased faster than the general increase in use of TJAs. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic joint infections were more common among patients with cirrhosis who had TJAs. Additionally, patients with cirrhosis had longer length of hospital stay, increased costs, and higher rates of mortality, readmission, and reoperation. Finally, national use of TJAs for patients with cirrhosis has increased during the past decade. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The reduction of implant-related errors and waste in total knee arthroplasty using a novel, computer based, e.Label and compatibility system.

Implant related errors and wasted arthroplasty implants represent a significant problem in the healthcare system. Studies estimate that an implant is wasted in two to five percent of total joint replacement procedures. After the introduction of a standardized time-out procedure, our institution still had a wasted implant in one out of every 20 arthroplasty surgeries. We then implemented a computer based, e.Label and compatibility system which standardized the implant labeling, confirmed correct size and side, and ensured compatibility within implant systems. Use of this system decreased wasted implants from 5.7% to 0.8% of total knee arthroplasty cases. This translated to an annualized cost savings of over $75,000 over our study period which could extrapolate to over $82 million per year in savings to the US healthcare system.

Patient specific instrumentation.

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) has recently been developed as a replacement for traditional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The study aim was to assess efficiency via the mean total OR time using the PSI versus computer-assisted (CAS) TKAs with accuracy as a secondary endpoint. Sixty patients were randomized to CAS or PSI. A formula was developed to derive a profit ratio (PR) that incorporated costs, revenue, and total OR time. The PSI cases were 1.45 times more profitable than CAS allowing for approximately 3 PSI cases versus 2 CAS cases in one 8 hour OR day. Results from this series show that PSI improves OR efficiency, but does not improve accuracy.

Total joint arthroplasty: trends in medicare reimbursement and implant prices.

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) continues to be a popular target of cost control efforts. In order to provide a unique overview of financial trends facing TJA, we analyzed Medicare databases including 100% of beneficiaries, as well as industry surveys of implant list prices. Although there was a substantial increase in TJA utilization over the period 2000-2011 (+26.9%), growth has been stagnant since 2005. New coding schemes have made complicated cases more lucrative for hospitals (+2.5% to 6.5% per year), while reimbursements for uncomplicated cases have fallen (-0.7% to -0.6%). Physician reimbursements have declined on all case types (-2.5% to -2.1% per year), while list prices of orthopedic implants have risen (+4.8% to 5.5%). These trends should be kept in mind while contemplating future changes to TJA payment.

Role of primary bearing type in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Although it has been shown that mobile- and fixed-bearing (FB) prostheses yield equivalent functional outcomes, wear patterns and debris types associated with mobile-bearing (MB) knees have been correlated to an increased prevalence of osteolysis. The complexity of revision surgery was compared between both designs. Several markers, including operative time, use of augmentation, bone grafts, and level of constraint, were analyzed. Data support that for failed total knee arthroplasty, there is a significant difference in mean time to revision between the MB (54.7 months) and FB types (80.6 months) (p ≤ 0.0001). MB knees more frequently required hinged implants during revision, potentially increasing the complexity of the procedure. This study raises concern for use of the MB implants, especially in younger patients who are more likely to require a future revision.

Are Femoral Stems in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Cost Effective in High Fracture Risk Patients? A Risk Model and Cost Analysis.

Femoral stemmed total knee arthroplasty (FS TKA) may be used in patients deemed higher risk for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) to reduce PPF risk. However, the cost effectiveness of FS TKA has not been defined. Using a risk modeling analysis, we investigate the cost effectiveness of FS in primary TKA compared with the implant cost of revision to distal femoral replacement (DFR) following PPF. A model of risk categories was created representing patients at increasing fracture risk, ranging from 2.5 to 30%. The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated for each risk category, which was multiplied by the increased cost of FS TKA and compared with the cost of DFR. The 50th percentile implant pricing data for primary TKA, FS TKA, and DFR were identified and used for the analysis. FS TKA resulted in an increased cost of $2,717.83, compared with the increased implant cost of DFR of $27,222.29. At 50% relative risk reduction with FS TKA, the NNT for risk categories of 2.5, 10, 20, and 30% were 80, 20, 10, and 6.67, respectively. At 20% risk, FS TKA times NNT equaled $27,178.30. A 10% absolute risk reduction in fracture risk obtained with FS TKA is needed to achieve cost neutrality with DFR. FS TKA is not cost effective for low fracture risk patients but may be cost effective for patients with fracture risk more than 20%. Further study is needed to better define the quantifiable risk reduction achieved in using FS TKA and identify high-risk PPF patients.

Cost-effectiveness and economic impact of the KineSpring ® Knee Implant System in the treatment for knee osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of the KineSpring System in the treatment for knee osteoarthritis in Germany. METHODS: Functional outcome scores of the general German population and knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients under surgical treatments (HTO, UKA and TKA), conservative treatments and treatment with the KineSpring System were used to derive the utility scores for each group. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of each group were estimated using the utility scores. Finally, cost-utility analysis was performed using cost and QALYs data. The economic impact of knee OA in Germany was assessed in terms of annual total direct cost and indirect cost, total diseased population and potential QALYs saved with the KineSpring System. RESULTS: Assuming the durability of 10 years, the cost-utility ratio of the KineSpring System, surgical treatments and conservative treatments compared to no treatment in 2012 was euro>3,402/QALY, euro 4,899/QALY and euro 9,996/QALY, respectively. With even a lesser durability of 5 years, the cost-utility ratio of the KineSpring System maintained superiority over surgical treatments and conservative treatments (euro 7,327/QALY, euro 9,706/QALY and euro 10,467/QALY, respectively). The KineSpring System is a highly cost-effective alternative for knee osteoarthritis compared with the current accepted cost-effective threshold (willingness to pay) of $50,000 US/QALY gained. Our models suggest KineSpring System, if adapted widely could save up to 2.0 ± 0.07 million QALY assuming it has a 5-year durability and save up to 3.9 ± 0.1 million QALY assuming it has a 10-year durability. CONCLUSION: An economic advantage for using the KineSpring System over other surgical and conservative treatments in knee OA patients in Germany is suggested by our model. According to currently accepted cost-effectiveness guidelines, the KineSpring Knee Implant System for knee OA is a cost-effective strategy.

Factors influencing patients' willingness to pay for new technologies in hip and knee implants.

Rising implant prices and evolving technologies are important factors contributing to the increased cost of arthroplasty. Assessing how patients value arthroplasty, new technologies, and their perceived outcomes is critical in planning cost-effective care, as well as evaluating new-technologies. One hundred one patients undergoing arthroplasty took part in the survey. We captured demographics, spending practices, knowledge of implants, patient willingness to pay for implants, and preferences related to implant attributes. When patients were asked if they would be satisfied with "standard of care" prosthesis, 80% replied "no". When asked if they would pay for a higher than "standard of care" prosthesis, 86% replied "yes". The study demonstrated that patients, regardless of their socio-economic status, are not satisfied with standard of care implants when newer technologies are available, and they may be willing to share in the cost of their prosthesis. Patients also prefer the option to choose what they perceive to be a higher quality or innovative implant even if the "out of pocket" cost is higher.

Implant use for primary hip and knee arthroplasty: are we getting it right first time?

Implants used for hip and knee arthroplasties have recently come under increased scrutiny. In England, a large variety of prostheses are currently being used. With the need for savings within the NHS of up to £20 billion over the next five years, we should be 'getting it right first time' by using the most reliable implants with proven survivorship. The 8th Annual Report from the NJR (2011) reporting on prostheses used in 2010 was analysed to determine whether implants had published survivorship data. This study demonstrates that the majority of implants did have long-term results but a small percentage had no published data. The cost of these implants was calculated to see if the implants provided best value for money based on survivorship. Implant choice was also correlated to revision rates published in the NJR report (2011) to help determine whether their continued use was justified.

Do modern total knee replacements offer better value for money? A health economic analysis.

PURPOSE: Cost effectiveness is an increasingly important factor in today's healthcare environment, and selection of arthroplasty implant is not exempt from such concerns. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) are the typical tool for this type of evaluation. Using this methodology, joint arthroplasty has been shown to be cost effective; however, studies directly comparing differing prostheses are lacking. METHODS: Data was gathered in a single-centre prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing the outcome of modern and traditional knee implants, using the Short Form 6 dimensional (SF-6D) score and quality adjusted life year (QALY) methodology. RESULTS: There was significant improvement in the SF-6D score for both groups at one year (p < 0.0001). The calculated overall life expectancy for the study cohort was 15.1 years, resulting in an overall QALY gain of 2.144 (95% CI 1.752-2.507). The modern implant group demonstrated a small improvement in SF-6D score compared to the traditional design at one year (0.141 versus 0.143, p = 0.94). This difference resulted in the modern implant costing £298 less per QALY at one year. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that modern implant technology does not influence the cost-effectiveness of TKA using the SF-6D and QALY methodology. This type of analysis however assesses health status, and is not sensitive to joint specific function. Evolutionary design changes in implant technology are thus unlikely to influence QALY analysis following joint replacement, which has important implications for implant procurement.