Individualized metal implants for focal cartilage lesions in the knee can be cost-effective: A simulation on 47-year-old in a Swedish setting.

OBJECTIVES

In the aging population, the knee is the joint most commonly causing impaired function and incapacity. While definite treatment by prosthetic replacement is often performed late, symptomatic knee cartilage lesions cause much suffering also in younger ages. Early intervention could, therefore, be instituted at an early stage to the benefit of both patients and society. Small, metal surface, resurfacing implants have been tested with promising results. A system that features patient-specific implants and surgical instruments shows good clinical results and favorable survival rates. This study aims to assess the cost utility of this metal device compared with microfracture (MFX), being the standard procedure in Sweden.

METHODS

We constructed a simulation model in Excel. In the model, a cohort of 47-year-old patients (which is the mean age of patients treated with the metal implant) with symptomatic knee cartilage lesions received either MFX or metal implantation. Outcomes for the cohort were simulated over 40 years, such as in a previously published model based on MFX, and sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) of the results were undertaken. Data on transition probabilities, costs, and quality of life were taken from clinical data, published literature, and official price lists. Only direct medical costs were included.

RESULTS

Results from the analysis showed that the metal device is a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with MFX. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reached acceptable levels at ∼5 years postoperatively. Over the full-time horizon of 40 years, the metal device was cost saving with concomitant gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), translating to a dominant treatment strategy. Results were robust according to sensitivity analysis with the initial success rate of up to three years for both metal and MFX having the largest impact.

CONCLUSIONS

A metal implant may be a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients in their 40's when compared to MFX in a Swedish setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5 [1].