Cargando…

A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty

AIMS: The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khoshbin, Amir, Haddad, Fares S., Ward, Sarah, O hEireamhoin, S., Wu, James, Nherera, Leo, Atrey, Amit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2020
Materias:
Hip
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7468559/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32862681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2019-1742.R1
_version_ 1783578244301193216
author Khoshbin, Amir
Haddad, Fares S.
Ward, Sarah
O hEireamhoin, S.
Wu, James
Nherera, Leo
Atrey, Amit
author_facet Khoshbin, Amir
Haddad, Fares S.
Ward, Sarah
O hEireamhoin, S.
Wu, James
Nherera, Leo
Atrey, Amit
author_sort Khoshbin, Amir
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA. RESULTS: At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years. CONCLUSION: The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7468559
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74685592020-09-04 A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty Khoshbin, Amir Haddad, Fares S. Ward, Sarah O hEireamhoin, S. Wu, James Nherera, Leo Atrey, Amit Bone Joint J Hip AIMS: The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA. RESULTS: At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years. CONCLUSION: The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135. The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2020-09 2020-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7468559/ /pubmed/32862681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2019-1742.R1 Text en ©2019 Author(s) et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited
spellingShingle Hip
Khoshbin, Amir
Haddad, Fares S.
Ward, Sarah
O hEireamhoin, S.
Wu, James
Nherera, Leo
Atrey, Amit
A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty
title A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty
title_full A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty
title_fullStr A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty
title_full_unstemmed A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty
title_short A cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty
title_sort cost-effectiveness assessment of dual-mobility bearings in revision hip arthroplasty
topic Hip
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7468559/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32862681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2019-1742.R1
work_keys_str_mv AT khoshbinamir acosteffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT haddadfaress acosteffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT wardsarah acosteffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT oheireamhoins acosteffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT wujames acosteffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT nhereraleo acosteffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT atreyamit acosteffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT khoshbinamir costeffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT haddadfaress costeffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT wardsarah costeffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT oheireamhoins costeffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT wujames costeffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT nhereraleo costeffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty
AT atreyamit costeffectivenessassessmentofdualmobilitybearingsinrevisionhiparthroplasty