Cargando…

Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis

Objective To compare the cost effectiveness of the three most commonly chosen types of prosthesis for total hip replacement. Design Lifetime cost effectiveness model with parameters estimated from individual patient data obtained from three large national databases. Setting English National Health S...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pennington, Mark, Grieve, Richard, Sekhon, Jasjeet S, Gregg, Paul, Black, Nick, van der Meulen, Jan H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583598/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23447338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1026
_version_ 1782475445722152960
author Pennington, Mark
Grieve, Richard
Sekhon, Jasjeet S
Gregg, Paul
Black, Nick
van der Meulen, Jan H
author_facet Pennington, Mark
Grieve, Richard
Sekhon, Jasjeet S
Gregg, Paul
Black, Nick
van der Meulen, Jan H
author_sort Pennington, Mark
collection PubMed
description Objective To compare the cost effectiveness of the three most commonly chosen types of prosthesis for total hip replacement. Design Lifetime cost effectiveness model with parameters estimated from individual patient data obtained from three large national databases. Setting English National Health Service. Participants Adults aged 55 to 84 undergoing primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Interventions Total hip replacement using either cemented, cementless, or hybrid prostheses. Main outcome measures Cost (£), quality of life (EQ-5D-3L, where 0 represents death and 1 perfect health), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and the probability that each prosthesis type is the most cost effective at alternative thresholds of willingness to pay for a QALY gain. Results Lifetime costs were generally lowest with cemented prostheses, and postoperative quality of life and lifetime QALYs were highest with hybrid prostheses. For example, in women aged 70 mean costs were £6900 ($11 000; €8200) for cemented prostheses, £7800 for cementless prostheses, and £7500 for hybrid prostheses; mean postoperative EQ-5D scores were 0.78, 0.80, and 0.81, and the corresponding lifetime QALYs were 9.0, 9.2, and 9.3 years. The incremental cost per QALY for hybrid compared with cemented prostheses was £2500. If the threshold willingness to pay for a QALY gain exceeded £10 000, the probability that hybrid prostheses were most cost effective was about 70%. Hybrid prostheses have the highest probability of being the most cost effective in all subgroups, except in women aged 80, where cemented prostheses were most cost effective. Conclusions Cemented prostheses were the least costly type for total hip replacement, but for most patient groups hybrid prostheses were the most cost effective. Cementless prostheses did not provide sufficient improvement in health outcomes to justify their additional costs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3583598
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35835982013-03-01 Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis Pennington, Mark Grieve, Richard Sekhon, Jasjeet S Gregg, Paul Black, Nick van der Meulen, Jan H BMJ Research Objective To compare the cost effectiveness of the three most commonly chosen types of prosthesis for total hip replacement. Design Lifetime cost effectiveness model with parameters estimated from individual patient data obtained from three large national databases. Setting English National Health Service. Participants Adults aged 55 to 84 undergoing primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Interventions Total hip replacement using either cemented, cementless, or hybrid prostheses. Main outcome measures Cost (£), quality of life (EQ-5D-3L, where 0 represents death and 1 perfect health), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and the probability that each prosthesis type is the most cost effective at alternative thresholds of willingness to pay for a QALY gain. Results Lifetime costs were generally lowest with cemented prostheses, and postoperative quality of life and lifetime QALYs were highest with hybrid prostheses. For example, in women aged 70 mean costs were £6900 ($11 000; €8200) for cemented prostheses, £7800 for cementless prostheses, and £7500 for hybrid prostheses; mean postoperative EQ-5D scores were 0.78, 0.80, and 0.81, and the corresponding lifetime QALYs were 9.0, 9.2, and 9.3 years. The incremental cost per QALY for hybrid compared with cemented prostheses was £2500. If the threshold willingness to pay for a QALY gain exceeded £10 000, the probability that hybrid prostheses were most cost effective was about 70%. Hybrid prostheses have the highest probability of being the most cost effective in all subgroups, except in women aged 80, where cemented prostheses were most cost effective. Conclusions Cemented prostheses were the least costly type for total hip replacement, but for most patient groups hybrid prostheses were the most cost effective. Cementless prostheses did not provide sufficient improvement in health outcomes to justify their additional costs. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2013-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3583598/ /pubmed/23447338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1026 Text en © Pennington et al 2013 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Pennington, Mark
Grieve, Richard
Sekhon, Jasjeet S
Gregg, Paul
Black, Nick
van der Meulen, Jan H
Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis
title Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis
title_full Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis
title_fullStr Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis
title_full_unstemmed Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis
title_short Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis
title_sort cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583598/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23447338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1026
work_keys_str_mv AT penningtonmark cementedcementlessandhybridprosthesesfortotalhipreplacementcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT grieverichard cementedcementlessandhybridprosthesesfortotalhipreplacementcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT sekhonjasjeets cementedcementlessandhybridprosthesesfortotalhipreplacementcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT greggpaul cementedcementlessandhybridprosthesesfortotalhipreplacementcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT blacknick cementedcementlessandhybridprosthesesfortotalhipreplacementcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT vandermeulenjanh cementedcementlessandhybridprosthesesfortotalhipreplacementcosteffectivenessanalysis