| Yhteenveto: | <strong>Objectives</strong> To assess the value for money of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) compared with total knee replacement (TKR). <strong>Design</strong> A lifetime Markov model provided the framework for the analysis. <strong>Setting</strong> Data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales primarily informed the analysis. <strong>Participants</strong> Propensity score matched patients in the NJR who received either a UKR or TKR. <strong>Interventions</strong> UKR is a less invasive alternative to TKR, where only the compartment affected by osteoarthritis is replaced. <strong>Primary outcome measures</strong> Incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare system costs. <strong>Results</strong> The provision of UKR is expected to lead to a gain in QALYs compared with TKR for all age and gender subgroups (male: <60 years: 0.12, 60–75 years: 0.20, 75+ years: 0.19; female: <60 years: 0.10, 60–75 years: 0.28, 75+ years: 0.44) and a reduction in costs (male: <60: £−1223, 60–75 years: £−1355, 75+ years: £−2005; female: <60 years: £−601, 60–75 years: £−935, 75+ years: £−1102 per patient over the lifetime). UKR is expected to lead to a reduction in QALYs compared with TKR when performed by surgeons with low UKR utilisation but an increase among those with high utilisation (<10%, median 6%: −0.04, ≥10%, median 27%: 0.26). Regardless of surgeon usage, costs associated with UKR are expected to be lower than those of TKR (<10%: £−127, ≥10%: £−758). <strong>Conclusions</strong> UKR can be expected to generate better health outcomes and lower lifetime costs than TKR. Surgeon usage of UKR does, however, have a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of the procedure. To achieve the best results, surgeons need to perform a sufficient proportion of knee replacements as UKR. Low usage surgeons may therefore need to broaden their indications for UKR.
|
|---|