Isobel M Dorling, Lars Geenen, Marion J L F Heymans, Jasper Most, Bert Boonen, Martijn G M Schotanus
{"title":"全膝关节置换术中患者特异性与常规器械的成本-效果:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Isobel M Dorling, Lars Geenen, Marion J L F Heymans, Jasper Most, Bert Boonen, Martijn G M Schotanus","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v14.i6.458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the past years, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been implemented and routinely used. No clear answer has been given on its associated cost and cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI) for TKA.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of PSI TKA compared to CI TKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed in healthcare, economical healthcare, and medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit). It was conducted in April 2021 and again in January 2022. Relevant literature included randomised controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies, observational studies, and case control studies. All studies were assessed on methodological quality. Relevant outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, quality-adjusted life years, total costs, imaging costs, production costs, sterilization associated costs, surgery duration costs and readmission rate costs. All eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with sufficient data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two studies were included into the systematic review. Two were included in the meta-analysis. 3994 PSI TKAs and 13267 CI TKAs were included in the sample size. The methodological quality of the included studies, based on Consensus on Health Economic Criteria-scores and risk of bias, ranged from average to good. PSI TKA costs less than CI TKA when considering mean operating room time and its associated costs and tray sterilization per patient case. PSI TKA costs more compared to CI TKA when considering imaging and production costs. Considering total costs per patient case, PSI TKA is more expensive in comparison to CI TKA. Meta-analysis comparing total costs for PSI TKA, and CI TKA showed a significant higher cost for PSI TKA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cost for PSI and CI TKA can differ when considering distinct aspects of their implementation. Total costs per patient case are increased for PSI TKA when compared to CI TKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":47843,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":"14 6","pages":"458-470"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/56/28/WJO-14-458.PMC10292058.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness of patient specific <i>vs</i> conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Isobel M Dorling, Lars Geenen, Marion J L F Heymans, Jasper Most, Bert Boonen, Martijn G M Schotanus\",\"doi\":\"10.5312/wjo.v14.i6.458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the past years, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been implemented and routinely used. No clear answer has been given on its associated cost and cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI) for TKA.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of PSI TKA compared to CI TKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed in healthcare, economical healthcare, and medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit). It was conducted in April 2021 and again in January 2022. Relevant literature included randomised controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies, observational studies, and case control studies. All studies were assessed on methodological quality. Relevant outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, quality-adjusted life years, total costs, imaging costs, production costs, sterilization associated costs, surgery duration costs and readmission rate costs. All eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with sufficient data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two studies were included into the systematic review. Two were included in the meta-analysis. 3994 PSI TKAs and 13267 CI TKAs were included in the sample size. The methodological quality of the included studies, based on Consensus on Health Economic Criteria-scores and risk of bias, ranged from average to good. PSI TKA costs less than CI TKA when considering mean operating room time and its associated costs and tray sterilization per patient case. PSI TKA costs more compared to CI TKA when considering imaging and production costs. Considering total costs per patient case, PSI TKA is more expensive in comparison to CI TKA. Meta-analysis comparing total costs for PSI TKA, and CI TKA showed a significant higher cost for PSI TKA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cost for PSI and CI TKA can differ when considering distinct aspects of their implementation. Total costs per patient case are increased for PSI TKA when compared to CI TKA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\"14 6\",\"pages\":\"458-470\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/56/28/WJO-14-458.PMC10292058.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i6.458\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i6.458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: Over the past years, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been implemented and routinely used. No clear answer has been given on its associated cost and cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI) for TKA.
Aim: To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of PSI TKA compared to CI TKA.
Methods: A literature search was performed in healthcare, economical healthcare, and medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit). It was conducted in April 2021 and again in January 2022. Relevant literature included randomised controlled trials, retrospective studies, prospective studies, observational studies, and case control studies. All studies were assessed on methodological quality. Relevant outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, quality-adjusted life years, total costs, imaging costs, production costs, sterilization associated costs, surgery duration costs and readmission rate costs. All eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with sufficient data.
Results: Thirty-two studies were included into the systematic review. Two were included in the meta-analysis. 3994 PSI TKAs and 13267 CI TKAs were included in the sample size. The methodological quality of the included studies, based on Consensus on Health Economic Criteria-scores and risk of bias, ranged from average to good. PSI TKA costs less than CI TKA when considering mean operating room time and its associated costs and tray sterilization per patient case. PSI TKA costs more compared to CI TKA when considering imaging and production costs. Considering total costs per patient case, PSI TKA is more expensive in comparison to CI TKA. Meta-analysis comparing total costs for PSI TKA, and CI TKA showed a significant higher cost for PSI TKA.
Conclusion: Cost for PSI and CI TKA can differ when considering distinct aspects of their implementation. Total costs per patient case are increased for PSI TKA when compared to CI TKA.