Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Over the past years, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been implemented and routinely used. No clear answer has been given on its associated cost and cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI) for TKA. AIM: To compare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dorling, Isobel M, Geenen, Lars, Heymans, Marion J L F, Most, Jasper, Boonen, Bert, Schotanus, Martijn G M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10292058/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37377995
http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i6.458
_version_ 1785062808153489408
author Dorling, Isobel M
Geenen, Lars
Heymans, Marion J L F
Most, Jasper
Boonen, Bert
Schotanus, Martijn G M
author_facet Dorling, Isobel M
Geenen, Lars
Heymans, Marion J L F
Most, Jasper
Boonen, Bert
Schotanus, Martijn G M
author_sort Dorling, Isobel M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Over the past years, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been implemented and routinely used. No clear answer has been given on its associated cost and cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI) for TKA. AIM: To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of PSI TKA compared to CI TKA. METHODS: A literature search was performed in healthcare, economical healthcare, and medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit). It was conducted in April 2021 and again in January 2022. Relevant literature included randomised controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies, observational studies, and case control studies. All studies were assessed on methodological quality. Relevant outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, quality-adjusted life years, total costs, imaging costs, production costs, sterilization associated costs, surgery duration costs and readmission rate costs. All eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included into the systematic review. Two were included in the meta-analysis. 3994 PSI TKAs and 13267 CI TKAs were included in the sample size. The methodological quality of the included studies, based on Consensus on Health Economic Criteria-scores and risk of bias, ranged from average to good. PSI TKA costs less than CI TKA when considering mean operating room time and its associated costs and tray sterilization per patient case. PSI TKA costs more compared to CI TKA when considering imaging and production costs. Considering total costs per patient case, PSI TKA is more expensive in comparison to CI TKA. Meta-analysis comparing total costs for PSI TKA, and CI TKA showed a significant higher cost for PSI TKA. CONCLUSION: Cost for PSI and CI TKA can differ when considering distinct aspects of their implementation. Total costs per patient case are increased for PSI TKA when compared to CI TKA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10292058
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102920582023-06-27 Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis Dorling, Isobel M Geenen, Lars Heymans, Marion J L F Most, Jasper Boonen, Bert Schotanus, Martijn G M World J Orthop Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: Over the past years, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been implemented and routinely used. No clear answer has been given on its associated cost and cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI) for TKA. AIM: To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of PSI TKA compared to CI TKA. METHODS: A literature search was performed in healthcare, economical healthcare, and medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit). It was conducted in April 2021 and again in January 2022. Relevant literature included randomised controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies, observational studies, and case control studies. All studies were assessed on methodological quality. Relevant outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, quality-adjusted life years, total costs, imaging costs, production costs, sterilization associated costs, surgery duration costs and readmission rate costs. All eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included into the systematic review. Two were included in the meta-analysis. 3994 PSI TKAs and 13267 CI TKAs were included in the sample size. The methodological quality of the included studies, based on Consensus on Health Economic Criteria-scores and risk of bias, ranged from average to good. PSI TKA costs less than CI TKA when considering mean operating room time and its associated costs and tray sterilization per patient case. PSI TKA costs more compared to CI TKA when considering imaging and production costs. Considering total costs per patient case, PSI TKA is more expensive in comparison to CI TKA. Meta-analysis comparing total costs for PSI TKA, and CI TKA showed a significant higher cost for PSI TKA. CONCLUSION: Cost for PSI and CI TKA can differ when considering distinct aspects of their implementation. Total costs per patient case are increased for PSI TKA when compared to CI TKA. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2023-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10292058/ /pubmed/37377995 http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i6.458 Text en ©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Dorling, Isobel M
Geenen, Lars
Heymans, Marion J L F
Most, Jasper
Boonen, Bert
Schotanus, Martijn G M
Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10292058/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37377995
http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i6.458
work_keys_str_mv AT dorlingisobelm costeffectivenessofpatientspecificvsconventionalinstrumentationfortotalkneearthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT geenenlars costeffectivenessofpatientspecificvsconventionalinstrumentationfortotalkneearthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT heymansmarionjlf costeffectivenessofpatientspecificvsconventionalinstrumentationfortotalkneearthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mostjasper costeffectivenessofpatientspecificvsconventionalinstrumentationfortotalkneearthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT boonenbert costeffectivenessofpatientspecificvsconventionalinstrumentationfortotalkneearthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT schotanusmartijngm costeffectivenessofpatientspecificvsconventionalinstrumentationfortotalkneearthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis