Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:05:38.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cost-Utility Analysis of Total Hip Arthroplasties: Technology Assessment of Surgical Procedures by Mailed Questionnaires

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Uri Givon
Affiliation:
Sheba Medical Center and Tel Aviv University
Gary M. Ginsberg
Affiliation:
Ministry of Health, Jerusalem
Henri Horoszowski
Affiliation:
Sheba Medical Center and, Tel Aviv University
Joshua Shemer
Affiliation:
Sheba Medical Center and, Tel Aviv University

Abstract

A retrospective study comparing 700 consecutive total hip arthroplasties, utilizing four types of implants, was performed. Questionnaires based on hip scores were sent to 593 living patients. Useful responses were received from 363 (61 %) patients. Hip scores and quality-adjusted life-years were calculated. Multiple regression analysis, controlling for all possible biases, demonstrated one cementless implant as superior to all others. We believe that the use of mailed questionnaires is a simple and convenient system of follow-up, saving patients the need for outpatient clinic visits. The validity of such replies, however, has yet to be established.

Type
General Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Barber, T. C., & Healy, W. L.The hospital cost of total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1993, 75-A, 321–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Bryant, M. J., Kernohan, W. G., Nixon, J. R., et al. A statistical analysis of hip scores. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1993, 75-B, 705–09.Google Scholar
3.Coast, J.Reprocessing data to form QALYs. British Medical Journal, 1992, 305, 8790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Cushner, F., & Friedman, R. J.Economic impact of total hip arthroplasty. Southern Medical Journal, 1988, 81, 1379–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Donnelly, W. J., Kobiashi, M. A., Freeman, M. A. R., et al. Radiological and survival comparison of four methods of fixation of a proximal femoral stem. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1997, 79-B, 351–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Friedman, B., & Elixhauser, A.Increased use of an expensive, elective procedure: Total hip replacements in the 1980s. Medical Care, 1993, 31, 581–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Givon, U., Shemer, J., Siebzhener, M. I., et al. Technology in need of assessment: Total hip arthroplasty. Harefua, 1995, 128, 578–83.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Givon, U., Siebzhener, M. I., Salai, M, et al. Orthopaedic ward policy in introduction of new types of total hip implants. Harefua, 1997, 133, 342–44.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Gudex, C., & Kind, P.The QALY toolkit. Discussion Paper 38. University of York, Center for Health Economics, 1988.Google Scholar
10.Harris, W. H.Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: Treatment by mold arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1969, 51-A, 737–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Harris, W. H.Osteolysis and particle disease in hip replacement. Acta Orthopedica Scandinavica, 1994, 65, 113–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Haverlin, L. I., Espehaug, B., Vollset, S. E., et al. The Norwegian arthroplasty register. A survey of 17444 hip replacements 1987–1990. Acta Orthopedica Scandinavica, 1993, 64, 245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Herberts, P., & Malchau, H.How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1997, 344, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Huiskes, R.Failed innovation in total hip replacement. Acta Orthopedica Scandinavica, 1993, 64, 699716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Katz, J. N., Phillips, C. B., Poss, R., et al. The validity and reliability of a total hip arthroplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1995, 77-A, 1528–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Laupacis, A., Bourne, R., Rorabeck, C., et al. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health related quality of life. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1993, 75-A, 1619–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Liang, M. H., Cullen, K. E., Larson, M. G., et al. Cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 1986, 29, 937–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Lieberman, J. R., Dorey, F., Shekelle, P., et al. Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1996, 78-A, 835–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Mérle d'Aubigné, R., & Postel, R.Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1954, 36-A, 451–75.Google Scholar
20.Murray, D. W., Britton, A. R., & Bulstrode, C. J. K.Loss to follow-up matters. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1997, 79-B, 254–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Norman-Taylor, F. H., Palmer, C. R., & Villar, R. N.Quality of life improvement compared after hip and knee replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1996, 78-B, 7477.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Seagroatt, V., Heng, S. T., Goldacre, M., et al. Elective total hip replacements: Incidence, emergency readmission rate and prospective mortality. British Medical Journal, 1991, 303, 1431–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Soballe, K.Hydroxyapatite ceramic coating for bone implant fixation. Mechanical and histological studies in dogs. Acta Orthopedica Scandinavica, 1993, 64 (suppl.), 255.Google Scholar
24.Williams, A.Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 326–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Williams, M., Frankel, S., Nanchahal, K., et al. Total hip replacement: Epidemiologically based needs assessment. Health Care Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol, 1992.Google Scholar
26.Wroblewski, B. M.Charnley low friction arthroplasty. Review of the past, present status and prospects for the future. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1986, 201, 3742.Google Scholar