Cost-utility of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared to conventional total hip replacement in young active patients with Osteoarthritis

Value in Health

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 942-952

  Heintzbergen, Sanne ^a,b   Kulin, Nathalie A ^a,c   Ijzerman, Maarten J ^b   Steuten, Lotte M G ^b   Werle, Jason ^c   Khong, Hoa ^c   Marshall, Deborah A ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^c Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute   (Canada)

Author keywords

Birmingham cost utility hip resurfacing osteoarthritis total hip replacement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METAL ON METAL HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY; METAL ON METAL JOINT PROSTHESIS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

BIRMINGHAM; COST-UTILITY; HIP RESURFACING; OSTEOARTHRITIS; TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT;

ADULT; ALBERTA; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MARKOV CHAINS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOTOR ACTIVITY; OSTEOARTHRITIS, HIP; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 84884220028     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.021     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Health Canada Arthritis in Canada: an ongoing challenge 2003 Health Canada Ottawa, Canada (Cat. # H39-4/14-2003E; ISBN 0-662-35008-1)
2. K.J. Bozic, K.J. Saleh, and A.G. Rosenberg Economic evaluation in total hip arthroplasty: analysis and review of the literature J Arthroplasty 19 2004 180 189
3. O. Ethgen, O. Bruyere, and F. Richy Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A 2004 963 974
4. R. Stephen, and J. Burnett Total hip arthroplasty: techniques and results Br Columbia Med J 52 9 2010 455 464
5. K.J. Bozic, C.M. Pui, and M.J. Ludeman Do the potential benefits of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing justify the increased cost and risk of complications? Clin Orthop 468 2010 2301 2312
6. L. Vale, L. Wyness, and K. McCormack A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease Health Technol Assess 6 2002 1 109
7. L. McKenzie, L. Vale, S. Stearns, and K. McCormack Metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: an economic analysis Eur J Health Econ 4 2003 122 129
8. D. Cohen How safe are metal-on-metal hip implants? BMJ 344 2012 e1410
9. A. Sedrakyan, S.L. Normand, and S. Dabic Comparative assessment of implantable hip devices with different bearing surfaces: systematic appraisal of evidence BMJ 343 2011 d7434
10. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Hip and Knee Replacements in Canada - Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR) 2008-2009 Annual Report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2009
11. D.J. McMinn, J. Daniel, H. Ziaee, and C. Pradhan Indications and results of hip resurfacing Int Orthop 35 2011 231 237
12. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. 2008 Annual Report. Sahlgrenska, Sweden: Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 2009. Available from: http://www.shpr.se/Libraries/Documents/AnnualReport-2008-EN. sflb.ashx. [Accessed August 28, 2008].
13. T.J. Puolakka, K.J. Pajamaki, and P.J. Halonen The Finnish Arthroplasty Register: report of the hip register Acta Orthop Scand 72 2001 433 441
14. H.C. Amstutz, P.E. Beaule, and F.J. Dorey Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A 2004 28 39
15. W.C. Witzleb, M. Arnold, and F. Krummenauer Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: short-term clinical and radiographic outcome Eur J Med Res 13 2008 39 46
16. D.L. Back, R. Dalziel, D. Young, and A. Shimmin Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings: an independent prospective study of the first 230 hips J Bone Joint Surg Br 87 2005 324 329
17. T.P. Vail, C.A. Mina, J.D. Yergler, and R. Pietrobon Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup Clin Orthop 453 2006 123 131
18. J. Daniel, P.B. Pynsent, and D.J. McMinn Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis J Bone Joint Surg Br 86 2004 177 184
19. K. Costi, D.W. Howie, and D.G. Campbell Long-term survival and reason for revision of Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty J Arthroplasty 25 2010 522 528
20. M.S. McGrath, D.R. Desser, and S.D. Ulrich Total hip resurfacing in patients who are sixty years of age or older J Bone Joint Surg Am 90 Suppl. 3 2008 27 31
21. A.D. Carrothers, R.E. Gilbert, and J.B. Richardson Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients who are seventy years of age or older Hip Int 21 2011 217 224
22. R. Edlin, S. Tubeuf, and J. Achten Cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty: economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial BMJ Open 2 2012 e001162
23. J.M. Loughead, D. Chesney, J.P. Holland, and A.W. McCaskie Comparison of offset in Birmingham hip resurfacing and hybrid total hip arthroplasty J Bone Joint Surg Br 87 2005 163 166
24. P.A. Vendittoli, M. Lavigne, J. Girard, and A.G. Roy A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement J Bone Joint Surg Br 88 2006 997 1002
25. F.A. Sonnenberg, and J.R. Beck Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide Med Decis Making 13 1993 322 338
26. M.C. Weinstein, B. O'Brien, and J. Hornberger Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - modeling studies Value Health 6 2003 9 17
27. A. Lazaro Theoretical arguments for the discounting of health consequences: where do we go from here? Pharmacoeconomics 20 2002 943 961
28. D.H. Smith, and H. Gravelle The practice of discounting in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions Int J Technol Assess Health Care 17 2001 236 243
29. R.R. West, R. McNabb, and A.G. Thompson Estimating implied rates of discount in healthcare decision-making Health Technol Assess 7 2003 1 60
30. Alberta Hip Improvement Project Functional outcomes for 2 years comparing hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty J Arthroplasty 27 2012 750 757
31. K.L. Gooch, D. Smith, and T. Wasylak The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project: a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of clinical pathways Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25 2009 113 123
32. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register annual report 2007. Sahlgrenska, Sweden: Department of Ortopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 2008. Available from: https://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/; http://www.shpr.se/en/default.aspx. [Accessed August 28, 2013]
33. Australian Orthopaedic Association. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Orthopaedic Association, 2010 National Joint Registry annual report. 2011. Available from: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/annual-reports-2010. [Accessed August 24, 2013].
34. Statistics Canada. 2000-2002 life tables, Canada, provinces and territories, chronological index. 2006. Available from: http://www.statcan.gc. ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=84-537-X&CHROPG=1&lang=eng. [Accessed February 10, 2012].
35. M. Ostendorf, E. Buskens, and H. van Stel Waiting for total hip arthroplasty: avoidable loss in quality time and preventable deterioration J Arthroplasty 19 2004 302 309
36. J. Dawson, R. Fitzpatrick, S. Frost, and D. Murray Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement J Bone Joint Surg Br 83 2011 1125 1129
37. N.Y. Gu, C. Wolf, and S. Leopold A comparison of physician and patient time trade-offs for postoperative hip outcomes Value Health 12 2011 618 620
38. Coyle D, Coyle K, Vale L, et al. Minimally Invasive Arthroplasty in the Management of Hip Arthritic Disease: Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2008.
39. M. Aynardi, L. Pulido, and J. Parvizi Early mortality after modern total hip arthroplasty Clin Orthop Relat Res 467 2009 213 218
40. R. Ara, and J. Brazier Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available Value Health 12 2009 346 353
41. J.E. Brazier, J. Roberts, M. Platts, and Y.F. Zoellner Estimating a preference-based index for a menopause specific health quality of life questionnaire Health Qual Life Outcomes 3 2005 13
42. J. Hanmer Predicting an SF-6D preference-based score using MCS and PCS scores from the SF-12 or SF-36 Value Health 12 2009 958 966
43. R. Tretiak, A. Laupacis, and M. Rivière Canadian Cost of Transfusion Study Group. Cost of allogeneic and autologous blood transfusion in Canada. Canadian Cost of Transfusion Study Group Can Med Assoc J 154 1996 1501 1508
44. M. Amin, D. Fergusson, and K. Wilson The societal unit cost of allogenic red blood cells and red blood cell transfusion in Canada Transfusion (Paris) 44 2004 1479 1486
45. Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 326-0021: consumer price index, 2009 basket. Annual (2002=100). 2012. Available from: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/ cansim/a05. [Accessed February 10, 2012].
46. A. Briggs, R. Goeree, G. Blackhouse, and B. O'Brien Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroespohageal reflux disease Med Decis Making 22 2002 290 308
47. K.J. Bozic, S. Morshed, and M.D. Silverstein Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate new technologies in orthopaedics: the case of alternative bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty J Bone Joint Surg Am 88 2006 706 714
48. A. Laupacis, D. Feeny, A.S. Detsky, and P. Tugwell How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations Can Med Assoc J 146 1992 473 481
49. S.A. Finkler The distinction between costs and charges Ann Intern Med 96 1 1982 102 109
50. H.C. Amstutz, L.E. Wisk, and M.J. Le Duff Sex as a patient selection criterion for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty J Arthroplasty 26 2011 198 208
51. C.W. McBryde, K. Theivendran, and A.M. Thomas The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing J Bone Joint Surg Am 92 2010 105 112
52. S.S. Jameson, D.J. Langton, S. Natu, and T.V. Nargol The influence of age and sex on early clinical results after hip resurfacing: an independent center analysis J Arthroplasty 23 6, Suppl. 1 2008 5
53. K. Corten, and S.J. MacDonald Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468 2010 351 357
54. B. McGrory, R. Barrack, and P.F. Lachiewicz Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18 2010 306 314
55. C. Davies, P. Lorgelly, and I. Shemilt Can choices between alternative hip prostheses be evidence based? A review of the economic evaluation literature Cost Eff Resour Alloc 8 2010 20
56. M.L. Costa, J. Achten, and N.R. Parsons Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial BMJ 344 2012 e2147
57. P. Rissanen, S. Aro, and H. Sintonen Costs and cost-effectiveness in hip and knee replacements: a prospective study Int J Technol Assess Health Care 13 1997 575 588