Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025
Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach
Published on: January 24, 2018
Economic evaluation of high tibial osteotomy: Closing wedge is more cost-effective than open wedge technique when
Robert Ferrer-Rivero1, Oriol Pujol2, Josep Ferrer-Rivero3
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona University, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two techniques for performing a knee valgus osteotomy: opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (OW-HTO) vs closing wedge high tibial osteotomy (CW-HTO).
Methods:
In this economic evaluation study, a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Spanish public healthcare system was performed, comparing OW-HTO with CW-HTO. All patients with medial knee osteoarthritis who underwent one of these procedures between 2018 and 2020 in our institution were included. The cost analysis included operating room, implant, graft and hospital admission costs. Functional outcomes (KOOS-12, Tegner activity scale, pain and satisfaction) and radiological outcomes (hip-knee-ankle angle, medial proximal tibial angle, tibial slope and patellar height) were analysed. The cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained by calculating the cost of improving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of KOOS-12 for each procedure. All costs are expressed in 2020 euros.
Results:
Fifty-one patients met the inclusion criteria (27 OW-HTO and 24 CW-HTO). Good to excellent functional outcomes, significant pain reduction (>6 points) and high patient satisfaction (>9/10) were observed in both groups. Both techniques yielded excellent radiological outcomes. N.s. differences in functional or radiological outcomes improvements between both procedures were found. However, the OW-HTO group presented a higher total cost than the CW-HTO group (4612.1 ± 765.6€ vs. 1827.1 ± 701.9€; p < 0.001). The cost-effectiveness ratio was 818.1 ± 46.8 €/MCID for the CW-HTO procedure and 2414.3 ± 115.2 €/MCID for the OW-HTO procedure (p = 0.025).
Conclusion:
The CW-HTO procedure presented a cost-effectiveness ratio almost three times lower than the OW-HTO procedure. Both techniques allowed to achieve of good to excellent functional outcomes, significant pain reduction and high patient satisfaction while correcting the varus limb malalignment and the metaphyseal tibial varus in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III; economic study.
