Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Proximal Row Carpectomy and Four-Corner Arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical treatment for scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse (SNAC) remains unclear. To inform clinical decision-makers, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing proximal row carpectomy (PRC) and four-corner arthrodesis (FCA).

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model was used to compare clinical outcomes, costs, and health utilities between PRC and FCA. The model used a 10-year time horizon and a 1-month cycle length, and it was evaluated from the societal perspective. Utilities and clinical parameters including transition probabilities for debridement for infection, removal of implants, conversion to total wrist arthrodesis, revision FCA, and revision total wrist arthrodesis were obtained from published literature. Timing of complications was estimated from the literature. Direct medical costs were derived from Medicare ambulatory surgical cost data, and indirect costs for missed work due to surgical procedures and complications were included. The effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 1-way threshold analysis for utilities were performed.

RESULTS

In the base-case model, PRC dominated FCA (i.e., PRC had lower cost and greater effectiveness). The mean (and standard deviation) for the total cost and QALYs per patient were $30,970 ± $5,931 and 8.24 ± 1.28, respectively, for PRC and $44,526 ± $11,205 and 8.23 ± 1.26, respectively, for FCA. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PRC dominated FCA in 57% of the 1 million iterations. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that PRC is the most cost-effective strategy regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold up to $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

PRC dominated FCA in the base-case analysis and in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. These results suggest that PRC is the optimal strategy for Stage-I or II SLAC and for SNAC in patients ≥55 years of age.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.