Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A Cost-Utility Analysis of Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty: Using Robotic Data from the Private Sector and Manual Data from the National Health Service.
Clement, N D; Gaston, P; Hamilton, D F; Bell, A; Simpson, P; Macpherson, G J; Patton, J T.
Affiliation
  • Clement ND; Edinburgh Orthopaedics, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, SCT, UK.
  • Gaston P; Department of Orthopaedics, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, SCT, UK.
  • Hamilton DF; Edinburgh Orthopaedics, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, SCT, UK.
  • Bell A; Department of Orthopaedics, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, SCT, UK.
  • Simpson P; Spire Murrayfield Hospital, 122 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 6UD, SCT, UK.
  • Macpherson GJ; Edinburgh Orthopaedics, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, SCT, UK.
  • Patton JT; Department of Orthopaedics, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, SCT, UK.
Adv Orthop ; 2022: 5962260, 2022.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35265378
ABSTRACT

Purpose:

The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) compared with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) and to assess the influence of annual volume on the relative cost-effectiveness of rTHA.

Methods:

A database of both rTHA (n = 48 performed in a private centre) and mTHA (n = 512 performed in the National Health Service) was used. Patient demographics, preoperative Oxford hip score, forgotten joint score, EuroQol 5-dimensional 3-level (EQ-5D), and postoperative EQ-5D were recorded. Two models for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for rTHA were calculated based on a unit performing 100 rTHAs per year 10-year follow-up and a lifetime time horizon (remaining life expectancy of a 69-year-old patient).

Results:

When adjusting for confounding factors, rTHA was independently associated with a 0.091 (p=0.029) greater improvement in the EQ-5D compared to mTHA. This resulted in a 10-year time horizon cost per QALY for rTHA of £1,910 relative to mTHA, which increased to £2,349 per QALY when discounted (5%/year). When using the 10-year time horizon cost per QALY was approximately £3,000 for a centre undertaking 50 rTHAs per year and decreased to £1,000 for centre undertaking 200 rTHAs per year. Using a lifetime horizon, the incremental unadjusted cost per QALY gained was £980 and £1432 when discounted (5%/year) for rTHA compared with mTHA.

Conclusions:

Despite the increased cost associated with rTHA, it was a cost-effective intervention relative to mTHA due to the associated greater health-related quality of health gain, according to the EQ-5D outcome measure.

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Language: En Journal: Adv Orthop Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Reino Unido

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Language: En Journal: Adv Orthop Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Reino Unido