Cost Effectiveness of Fixation Versus Total Hip Arthroplasty in Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: A
Bryan L Scott1, Amy Z Blackburn, Anoop K Prasad
1From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (Scott, Blackburn, Prasad, Lim, Lavoie-Gagne, Melnic, and Bedair), and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA (Scott, Blackburn, Prasad, Lim, Melnic, and Bedair).
Background:
Although Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) have been historically managed with revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been proposed as an alternative option for reasons including lower cost and surgical time. The purpose of this study was to, therefore, create a Markov model to assess the cost effectiveness of ORIF versus rTHA for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures and evaluate various inflection points for varying costs and outcome measures.
Methods:
A Markov model was built using discrete and mutually exclusive health states of the hypothetical patient with Vancouver B2 PPF. A decision tree was created on possible outcomes for each health state, using probabilities defined in the recent PPF literature. Direct costs and quality-adjusted life-years for each surgery and complication state were also collected. One-way and two-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to better understand the effect of 1 to 2 variables on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
Results:
The hypothetical patient with a Vancouver B2 PPF that was treated with rTHA incurred a cost of $52,559.64 with an effectiveness of 0.71. When treated with ORIF, the cost was $47,371.97 with an effectiveness of 0.38. The incremental cost and effectiveness of rTHA over ORIF were found to be $5,187.67 and 0.33, respectively. The cost of rTHA, the cost of ORIF, and the effectiveness of ORIF were the most influential variables in the model. On two-way sensitivity analysis, rTHA was more cost effective than ORIF within realistic healthcare parameters.
Discussion:
From the payer perspective, we estimate that rTHA is more cost effective than ORIF for the treatment of Vancouver B2 PPFs within certain cost and quality-of-life parameters.
