%0 Journal Article
%A Strain, Dan
%A Li, Chuan Silvia
%A Phillips, Mark
%A Monteagudo Piqueras, Olga
%A Bhandari, Mohit
%D 2015
%I Begell House
%K orthopedics, orthopedic surgeon, cost-utility
%N 3
%P 225-235
%R 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2015012728
%T Cost Effectiveness and Economic Impact of the KineSpring^{®} Knee Implant System in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis in Spain
%U http://dl.begellhouse.com/journals/1bef42082d7a0fdf,2afeae2d12f46ced,549e6e846db5de6c.html
%V 25
%X We investigated the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the KineSpring System in the Spanish healthcare system, as compared to other standard treatments methods. Cost-utility ratios were calculated using derived cost data and we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for each method of treatment. Cost-utility ratios were calculated assuming lifetime and 10-year durability. Assuming lifetime durability, cost-utility ratios of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), high tibial osteotomy (HTO), KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment, are €2348 ± 70/QALYs, €2040 ± 61/QALYs, €2281 ± 68/ QALY, €1669 ± 268/QALYs, and €11,688 ± 2185/QALYs, respectively. Assuming a treatment durability of 10 years, the cost-utility ratio of TKA, UKA, HTO, KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment, are €4884 ± 323/QALYs, €4243 ± 280/QALYs, €4744 ± 313/QALYs, €3757 ± 1353/QALYs, and €10,575 ± 4414/QALYs, respectively. In comparison to current standard-of-care treatments, the KineSpring System has a favorable cost-utility ratio, making it an effective treatment option and a suitable cost-saving alternative. The KineSpring System is associated with lower cost and increased QALYs.
%8 2015-03-10