Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev-Gentofte, Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Hellerup, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Danish Centre for Health Economics, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark.
Bone Joint J. 2020 Apr;102-B(4):449-457. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B4.BJJ-2018-1580.R3.
The aim is to assess the cost-effectiveness of patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) in comparison with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) based on prospectively collected data on health outcomes and resource use from a blinded, randomized, clinical trial.
A total of 100 patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis were randomized to receive either PFA or TKA by experienced knee surgeons trained in using both implants. Patients completed patient-reported outcomes including EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and 6-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-6D) before the procedure. The scores were completed again after six weeks, three, six, and nine months, and again after one- and two-year post-surgery and yearly henceforth. Time-weighted outcome measures were constructed. Cost data were obtained from clinical registrations and patient-reported questionnaires. Incremental gain in health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) and incremental costs were compared for the two groups of patients. Net monetary benefit was calculated assuming a threshold value of €10,000, €35,000, and €50,000 per QALY and used to test the statistical uncertainty and central assumptions about outcomes and costs.
The PFA group had an incremental 12 month EQ-5D gain of 0.056 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.10) and an incremental 12 month cost of minus €328 (95% CI 836 to 180). PFA therefore dominates TKA by providing better and cheaper outcomes than TKA. The net monetary benefit of PFA was €887 (95% CI 324 to 1450) with the €10,000 threshold, and it was consistently positive when different measures of outcomes and different cost assumptions were used.
This study provides robust evidence that PFA from a one-year hospital management perspective is cheaper and provides better outcomes than TKA when applied to patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis and performed by experienced knee surgeons. Cite this article: 2020;102-B(4):449-457.
本研究旨在基于前瞻性收集的来自盲法、随机临床试验的健康结果和资源使用数据,评估髌股关节炎(PFA)相对于全膝关节置换术(TKA)治疗孤立性髌股关节炎(OA)的成本效益。
100 例孤立性髌股关节炎患者被随机分配接受经验丰富的膝关节外科医生分别使用 PFA 或 TKA 治疗。患者在术前完成了包括欧洲五维健康量表问卷(EQ-5D)和六分钟步行测试(SF-6D)在内的患者报告结果。在术后六周、三个月、六个月和九个月时再次完成评分,并在术后一年和两年后以及此后每年进行一次评分。构建了时间加权的结果测量指标。从临床登记和患者报告的问卷中获得成本数据。比较两组患者的健康结果(质量调整生命年(QALYs))的增量收益和增量成本。假设每 QALY 的阈值为 10000 欧元、35000 欧元和 50000 欧元,计算净货币收益,并用于检验结果和成本的统计不确定性和中心假设。
PFA 组在 12 个月时的 EQ-5D 增量收益为 0.056(95%置信区间(CI)0.01 至 0.10),12 个月的增量成本为-328 欧元(95%CI 836 至 180)。因此,与 TKA 相比,PFA 提供了更好和更便宜的结果,从而优于 TKA。当使用不同的结果测量指标和不同的成本假设时,PFA 的净货币收益在 10000 欧元的阈值下为 887 欧元(95%CI 324 至 1450),始终为正。
从一年的医院管理角度来看,本研究提供了有力的证据表明,对于患有孤立性髌股关节炎的患者,由经验丰富的膝关节外科医生进行 PFA 治疗比 TKA 更便宜,且能提供更好的结果。
2020;102-B(4):449-457.