Study | Design and methodology | Results | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Weeks et al. [23] | Cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the 2014 Australian joint registry and applied to the Canadian market. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) were the utility scores used. Study duration: projected over 14 years. 443,948 patients extracted from the Australian NJR 225,915 patients were not resurfaced and 218,033 were resurfaced. | 9240 revisions in the un-resurfaced group vs 5992 revisions in resurfaced group. Mean total treatment cost per patient for un-resurfaced vs resurfaced patellae at 14 years: $13,296.63 vs $12,917.01 and lower QALY (5.37 vs 6.01) at 14 years in un-resurfaced group. NICE’s translation and interpretation to the UK healthcare system: Patella resurfacing results in £263 saving per patient (2015 US dollar to Pound Stirling currency exchange rates used) un-resurfaced total cost and 0.64 extra QALYs [12]. | Patella resurfacing was cost-effective according to the data included in the model. |
Murray et al. [22] | Cost utility analysis performed within the UK Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) randomised controlled trial (RCT) Follow-up duration: 10 years Un-resurfaced patella (n = 854) Patella resurfacing (n = 861) | Un-resurfaced group: 2.8% had late resurfacing in the first 5 years postoperatively. Resurfaced group: 1% had re-operations for complications of the resurfacing during the second 5 years. Findings were independent of trochlear design. Un-resurfaced total costs at 10 years: £8889 Patella resurfacing total costs at 10 years £8,785 Patella resurfacing saves £104 per person. Un-resurfaced vs resurfaced patellae QALY: 5.110 vs 5.297 Patella resurfacing results in trend towards 0.187 increase in QALYs. | Patella resurfacing may be more cost-effective. |