A Cost-Utility Analysis of Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty: Using Robotic Data from the Private Sector and Manual Data from the National Health Service

IF 1.2 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
N. Clement, P. Gaston, D. Hamilton, A. Bell, P. Simpson, G. Macpherson, J. Patton
{"title":"A Cost-Utility Analysis of Robotic Arm-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty: Using Robotic Data from the Private Sector and Manual Data from the National Health Service","authors":"N. Clement, P. Gaston, D. Hamilton, A. Bell, P. Simpson, G. Macpherson, J. Patton","doi":"10.1155/2022/5962260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) compared with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) and to assess the influence of annual volume on the relative cost-effectiveness of rTHA. Methods A database of both rTHA (n = 48 performed in a private centre) and mTHA (n = 512 performed in the National Health Service) was used. Patient demographics, preoperative Oxford hip score, forgotten joint score, EuroQol 5-dimensional 3-level (EQ-5D), and postoperative EQ-5D were recorded. Two models for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for rTHA were calculated based on a unit performing 100 rTHAs per year: 10-year follow-up and a lifetime time horizon (remaining life expectancy of a 69-year-old patient). Results When adjusting for confounding factors, rTHA was independently associated with a 0.091 (p=0.029) greater improvement in the EQ-5D compared to mTHA. This resulted in a 10-year time horizon cost per QALY for rTHA of £1,910 relative to mTHA, which increased to £2,349 per QALY when discounted (5%/year). When using the 10-year time horizon cost per QALY was approximately £3,000 for a centre undertaking 50 rTHAs per year and decreased to £1,000 for centre undertaking 200 rTHAs per year. Using a lifetime horizon, the incremental unadjusted cost per QALY gained was £980 and £1432 when discounted (5%/year) for rTHA compared with mTHA. Conclusions Despite the increased cost associated with rTHA, it was a cost-effective intervention relative to mTHA due to the associated greater health-related quality of health gain, according to the EQ-5D outcome measure.","PeriodicalId":7358,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Orthopedics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5962260","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) compared with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) and to assess the influence of annual volume on the relative cost-effectiveness of rTHA. Methods A database of both rTHA (n = 48 performed in a private centre) and mTHA (n = 512 performed in the National Health Service) was used. Patient demographics, preoperative Oxford hip score, forgotten joint score, EuroQol 5-dimensional 3-level (EQ-5D), and postoperative EQ-5D were recorded. Two models for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for rTHA were calculated based on a unit performing 100 rTHAs per year: 10-year follow-up and a lifetime time horizon (remaining life expectancy of a 69-year-old patient). Results When adjusting for confounding factors, rTHA was independently associated with a 0.091 (p=0.029) greater improvement in the EQ-5D compared to mTHA. This resulted in a 10-year time horizon cost per QALY for rTHA of £1,910 relative to mTHA, which increased to £2,349 per QALY when discounted (5%/year). When using the 10-year time horizon cost per QALY was approximately £3,000 for a centre undertaking 50 rTHAs per year and decreased to £1,000 for centre undertaking 200 rTHAs per year. Using a lifetime horizon, the incremental unadjusted cost per QALY gained was £980 and £1432 when discounted (5%/year) for rTHA compared with mTHA. Conclusions Despite the increased cost associated with rTHA, it was a cost-effective intervention relative to mTHA due to the associated greater health-related quality of health gain, according to the EQ-5D outcome measure.
机械臂辅助全髋关节置换术的成本-效用分析:使用来自私营部门的机器人数据和来自国家卫生服务的人工数据
目的评估机械臂辅助全髋关节置换术(rTHA)与人工全髋关节置换术(mTHA)的成本-效果,并评估年容积对rTHA相对成本-效果的影响。方法采用全髋关节置换术(48例在私立中心进行)和全髋关节置换术(512例在国家卫生服务机构进行)的数据库。记录患者人口统计学、术前牛津髋关节评分、遗忘关节评分、EuroQol 5维3-level (EQ-5D)、术后EQ-5D。基于每年进行100次rTHA的单位,使用每个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本计算rTHA的增量成本-效果比的两个模型:10年随访和终身时间范围(69岁患者的剩余预期寿命)。结果在校正混杂因素后,与mTHA相比,rTHA与EQ-5D改善的独立相关性为0.091 (p=0.029)。这导致rTHA的10年时间范围内每个QALY的成本相对于mTHA为1,910英镑,贴现后增加到每个QALY 2,349英镑(5%/年)。在使用10年时间范围时,每年进行50次rTHAs的中心每个质量aly的成本约为3,000英镑,每年进行200次rTHAs的中心的成本降至1,000英镑。使用生命周期,与mTHA相比,rTHA获得的每个QALY的未调整增量成本为980英镑,贴现后(5%/年)为1432英镑。根据EQ-5D结果测量,尽管rTHA相关的成本增加,但由于相关的健康质量增加,相对于mTHA, rTHA是一种具有成本效益的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Orthopedics is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for orthopaedics working on improving the quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to arthroplasty, hand surgery, limb reconstruction, pediatric orthopaedics, sports medicine, trauma, spinal deformities, and orthopaedic oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信