The Cost-Effectiveness of Dual Mobility Implants for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Computer-Based Cost-Utility
Brian T Barlow1, Alexander S McLawhorn, Geoffrey H Westrich
11Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.
Background:
Dislocation remains a clinically important problem following primary total hip arthroplasty, and it is a common reason for revision total hip arthroplasty. Dual mobility (DM) implants decrease the risk of dislocation but can be more expensive than conventional implants and have idiosyncratic failure mechanisms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of DM implants compared with conventional bearings for primary total hip arthroplasty.
Methods:
Markov model analysis was conducted from the societal perspective with use of direct and indirect costs. Costs, expressed in 2013 U.S. dollars, were derived from the literature, the National Inpatient Sample, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The model was populated with health state utilities and state transition probabilities derived from previously published literature. The analysis was performed for a patient's lifetime, and costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% annually. The principal outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore relevant uncertainty.
Results:
In the base case, DM total hip arthroplasty showed absolute dominance over conventional total hip arthroplasty, with lower accrued costs ($39,008 versus $40,031 U.S. dollars) and higher accrued utility (13.18 versus 13.13 QALYs) indicating cost-savings. DM total hip arthroplasty ceased being cost-saving when its implant costs exceeded those of conventional total hip arthroplasty by $1,023, and the cost-effectiveness threshold for DM implants was $5,287 greater than that for conventional implants. DM was not cost-effective when the annualized incremental probability of revision from any unforeseen failure mechanism or mechanisms exceeded 0.29%. The probability of intraprosthetic dislocation exerted the most influence on model results.
Conclusions:
This model determined that, compared with conventional bearings, DM implants can be cost-saving for routine primary total hip arthroplasty, from the societal perspective, if newer-generation DM implants meet specific economic and clinical benchmarks. The differences between these thresholds and the performance of other contemporary bearings were frequently quite narrow. The results have potential application to the postmarket surveillance of newer-generation DM components.
Level Of Evidence:
Economic and decision analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
