RT Journal Article
ID 2357800701ed1a56
A1 Li, Chuan Silvia
A1 Bhandari, Mohit
T1 Cost-Effectiveness of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, High Tibial Osteotomy, and KineSpring<sup>&reg;</sup> Knee Implant System for Unicompartmental Osteoarthritis of the Knee
JF Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants
JO JLT
YR 2013
FD 2013-12-13
VO 23
IS 2-03
SP 189
OP 198
K1 cost-effectiveness
K1 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
K1 high tibial osteotomy
K1 KineSpring; knee osteoarthritis
AB Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a condition that causes pain and disability. Numerous non-surgical and surgical interventions are available for individuals with OA that result in good pain relief and return of function. The purpose of this economic analysis was to determine
the cost-effectiveness of high tibial osteotomy (HTO), unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA)
and the KineSpring<sup>&reg;</sup> Knee Implant System in the treatment of unicompartmental OA of the knee 10 years post-surgery, considering the costs of revisions, conversions, removals, and complications. Estimates of costs and rates of revision, conversion, removal, and complications related
to UKA and HTO were obtained from the literature. Internal reports on the KineSpring System were used for calculations on the KineSpring System. The cost-effectiveness of UKA, HTO and the KineSpring System in terms of QALY gained compared to patients without treatment yielded
gains of approximately $5150/QALY, $6754/QALY, and $7010/QALY, respectively. Using the accepted standard willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 US/QALY gained, the UKA, HTO, and the KineSpring System are economically favorable. Our analysis demonstrates that the KineSpring
System, despite a greater initial cost in surgery, has significantly smaller conversion and complication
costs compared to UKA and HTO. The 10 years overall expected cost for the KineSpring System ($12,559) is significantly less compared with that of UKA ($17,570) and HTO ($22,825).
Future economic analyses regarding this topic should also consider the cost-effectiveness of these procedures on younger, more active individuals who are still working and should take into account productivity loss.
PB Begell House
LK https://www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/1bef42082d7a0fdf,3923dcfe34001ae4,2357800701ed1a56.html