TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost analysis of dual-mobility constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty
T2 - A European payer perspective
AU - Abdel, Matthew P.
AU - Miller, Larry E.
AU - Hull, Stephen A.
AU - Coppolecchia, Andréa B.
AU - Hanssen, Arlen D.
AU - Pagnano, Mark W.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Slack Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/8
Y1 - 2020/8
N2 - Dual-mobility constructs have been shown to significantly and substantially decrease dislocations after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The authors have previously shown that dual-mobility (DM) constructs are cost-effective given their ability to decrease dislocations and re-revision for dislocation. The goal was to report the costs of DM and large femoral head (LFH) constructs in revision THAs from a European health care payer perspective. A Markov model was constructed to analyze the costs incurred by payers in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain over 3 years in revision THAs with DM or LFH constructs. Model states and probabilities were derived from prospectively collected registry data in 302 patients who underwent revision THA with a DM or 40-mm LFH construct and were then mapped to corresponding procedural reimbursement codes and tariffs for each country. Costs were weighted average national payments for reintervention procedures performed in the 3 years following revision THA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis examined the effect of combined uncertainty across all model parameters. During a 3-year period following revision THA, reintervention rates were 9% for DM constructs and 19% for LFH constructs (P=.01). Comparing DM and LFH constructs, cumulative incremental costs over 3-years' follow-up were £428 vs £1447 in the United Kingdom, euro 451 vs euro 1272 in Germany, euro 540 vs euro 1425 in Italy, and euro 523 vs euro 1562 in Spain, respectively. At mid-term follow-up, DM constructs used in revision THAs were associated with a significantly lower risk of reintervention, which translated to lower health care payer costs compared with LFH constructs among European health care payers.
AB - Dual-mobility constructs have been shown to significantly and substantially decrease dislocations after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The authors have previously shown that dual-mobility (DM) constructs are cost-effective given their ability to decrease dislocations and re-revision for dislocation. The goal was to report the costs of DM and large femoral head (LFH) constructs in revision THAs from a European health care payer perspective. A Markov model was constructed to analyze the costs incurred by payers in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain over 3 years in revision THAs with DM or LFH constructs. Model states and probabilities were derived from prospectively collected registry data in 302 patients who underwent revision THA with a DM or 40-mm LFH construct and were then mapped to corresponding procedural reimbursement codes and tariffs for each country. Costs were weighted average national payments for reintervention procedures performed in the 3 years following revision THA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis examined the effect of combined uncertainty across all model parameters. During a 3-year period following revision THA, reintervention rates were 9% for DM constructs and 19% for LFH constructs (P=.01). Comparing DM and LFH constructs, cumulative incremental costs over 3-years' follow-up were £428 vs £1447 in the United Kingdom, euro 451 vs euro 1272 in Germany, euro 540 vs euro 1425 in Italy, and euro 523 vs euro 1562 in Spain, respectively. At mid-term follow-up, DM constructs used in revision THAs were associated with a significantly lower risk of reintervention, which translated to lower health care payer costs compared with LFH constructs among European health care payers.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088154950&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088154950&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3928/01477447-20200625-01
DO - 10.3928/01477447-20200625-01
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32674176
AN - SCOPUS:85088154950
SN - 0147-7447
VL - 43
SP - 250
EP - 255
JO - Orthopedics
JF - Orthopedics
IS - 4
ER -