Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Value Health. 2019 Mar;22(3):303-312. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.013. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
Prosthetic implants used in total hip replacements (THR) have a range of bearing surface combinations (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, and metal-on-metal), head sizes (small [<36 mm in diameter] and large [≥36 mm in diameter]), and fixation techniques (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and reverse hybrid). These can influence prosthesis survival, patients' quality of life, and healthcare costs.
To compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implants for patients of different age and sex profiles.
We developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of various implants against small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants. The probability that patients required 1 or more revision surgeries was estimated from analyses of more than 1 million patients in the UK and Swedish hip joint registries, for men and women younger than 55, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 years and older. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices, national tariffs, and the literature. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THR in the United Kingdom.
Small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants were the most cost-effective for men and women older than 65 years. These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Small-head cemented ceramic-on-polyethylene implants were most cost-effective in men and women younger than 65 years, but these results were more uncertain.
The older the patient group, the more likely that the cheapest implants, small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants, were cost-effective. We found no evidence that uncemented, hybrid, or reverse hybrid implants were the most cost-effective option for any patient group. Our findings can influence clinical practice and procurement decisions for healthcare payers worldwide.
全髋关节置换术(THR)中使用的假体植入物具有多种承载体组合(金属对聚乙烯、陶瓷对聚乙烯、陶瓷对陶瓷和金属对金属)、头尺寸(小[直径<36 毫米]和大[直径≥36 毫米])和固定技术(骨水泥固定、非骨水泥固定、混合固定和反向混合固定)。这些因素会影响假体的存活率、患者的生活质量和医疗保健成本。
比较不同年龄和性别患者使用植入物的终生成本效益。
我们开发了一个 Markov 模型,以比较各种植入物与小直径骨水泥固定金属对聚乙烯植入物相比的成本效益。通过对英国和瑞典髋关节登记处的超过 100 万名患者的分析,估计了患者需要 1 次或多次翻修手术的概率,这些患者包括年龄小于 55 岁、55 至 64 岁、65 至 74 岁、75 至 84 岁和 85 岁及以上的男性和女性。植入物和医疗保健成本根据当地采购价格、国家关税和文献进行估算。使用英国接受 THR 的患者发表的效用估计值计算了质量调整生命年。
小直径骨水泥固定金属对聚乙烯植入物对 65 岁以上的男性和女性最具成本效益。这些发现对敏感性分析具有稳健性。小直径骨水泥固定陶瓷对聚乙烯植入物在 65 岁以下的男性和女性中最具成本效益,但这些结果更不确定。
患者群体年龄越大,最便宜的植入物(小直径骨水泥固定金属对聚乙烯植入物)越具有成本效益的可能性就越大。我们没有发现证据表明非骨水泥固定、混合固定或反向混合固定植入物是任何患者群体最具成本效益的选择。我们的研究结果可以影响全球医疗保健支付者的临床实践和采购决策。