The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:1975-1982.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00597
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activity for this article:
 CME 3: July, August, September 2006 (publication date October 5, 2006; expi...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Soohoo, N. F.
Right arrow Articles by Lieberman, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Soohoo, N. F.
Right arrow Articles by Lieberman, J. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Knee
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty as an Alternative to Total Knee Arthroplasty for Unicompartmental Osteoarthritis

Nelson F. Soohoo, MD1, Husham Sharifi, BS, MBA1, Gerald Kominski, PhD1 and Jay R. Lieberman, MD1

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, 10945 Le Conte Avenue, PVUB #3355, Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail address for N.F. SooHoo: nsoohoo{at}mednet.ucla.edu

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty in patients with degenerative arthritis limited to either the medial or lateral compartment.

Methods: A decision model was created for the treatment of end-stage unicompartmental knee arthritis. A literature review was used to identify possible outcomes and their probabilities following treatment with either unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty. Each outcome was weighted for quality of life with use of a utility factor, and effectiveness was expressed in units of quality-adjusted life years. Gross costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement data for the relevant Current Procedural Terminology and Diagnosis-Related Group codes.

Results: Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is dependent on the assumption that its durability and functional outcomes approach those of total knee arthroplasty. Specifically, it is necessary for the survival of unicompartmental implants to be within three to four years of the assumed survival of total knee implants for unicompartmental arthroplasty to remain a cost-effective alternative. Under these assumptions, the use of unicompartmental arthroplasty is a cost-effective choice as it results in incremental gains in effectiveness at a cost of less than $50,000 (in 1998 United States dollars) per quality-adjusted life year gained.

Conclusions: This study supports unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as a cost-effective alternative for the treatment of unicompartmental arthritis when the durability and function of a unicompartmental replacement are assumed to be similar to those of a primary total knee replacement. This suggests that, with appropriate patient selection, the currently available literature supports unicompartmental arthroplasty as a cost-effective alternative to total knee arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence: Economic and decision analysis, Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
E. Losina, R. P. Walensky, C. L. Kessler, P. S. Emrani, W. M. Reichmann, E. A. Wright, H. L. Holt, D. H. Solomon, E. Yelin, A. D. Paltiel, et al.
Cost-effectiveness of Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States: Patient Risk and Hospital Volume
Arch Intern Med, June 22, 2009; 169(12): 1113 - 1121.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
E. Sharifi, H. Sharifi, S. Morshed, K. Bozic, and M. Diab
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Periacetabular Osteotomy
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2008; 90(7): 1447 - 1456.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
T. Borus and T. Thornhill
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., January 1, 2008; 16(1): 9 - 18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]