Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and economic modelling of minimal incision total hip replacement approaches in the management of arthritic disease of the hip

By Robyn De Verteuil, Mari Imamura, S. Zhu, Cathryn Margaret Anne Glazener, Cynthia Mary Fraser, N. Munro, James Douglas Hutchison, Adrian Maxwell Grant, D. Coyle, K. Coyle and Luke David Vale

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimal incision approaches to total hip replacement (THR) for arthritis of the hip. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched from 1966 to 2007. Relevant websites were also examined and experts in the field were consulted. Review methods: Studies of minimal (one or two) incision THR compared with standard THR were assessed for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness. A systematic review of economic evaluations comparing a minimal incision approach to standard THR was also performed and the estimates from the systematic review of clinical effectiveness were incorporated into an economic model. Utilities data were sourced to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Due to lack of data, no economic analysis was conducted for the two mini-incision surgical method. Results: Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 17 non-randomised comparative studies, six case series and one registry were found to be useful for the comparison of single mini-incision THR with standard THR. One RCT compared two mini-incision THR with standard THR, and two RCTs, five non-randomised comparative studies and two case series compared two mini-incision with single mini-incision THR. The RCTs were of moderate quality. Most had fewer than 200 patients and had a follow-up period of less than 1 year. The single mini-incision THR may have some perioperative advantages, e.g. blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) –57.71 ml, p < 0.01] and shorter operative time, of uncertain practical significance. It may also offer a shorter recovery period and greater patient satisfaction. Evidence on long-term outcomes (especially revision) is too limited to be useful. Lack of data prevented subgroup analysis. With respect to the two-incision approach, data were suggestive of shorter recovery compared with single-incision THR, but conclusions must be treated with caution. The costs to the health service, per patient, of single mini-incision THR depend upon assumptions made, but are similar at 1 year (£7060 vs £7350 for standard THR). For a 40-year time horizon the costs were £11,618 for mini-incision and £11,899 for standard THR. Two existing economic evaluations were identified, but they added little, if any, value to the current evidence base owing to their limited quality. In the economic model, mini-incision THR was less costly and provided slightly more QALYs in both the 1- and 40-year analyses. The mean QALYs at 1 year were 0.677 for standard THR and 0.695 for mini-incision THR. At 40 years, the mean QALYs were 8.463 for standard THR and 8.480 for mini-incision. At 1 year the probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicate that mini-incision THR has a 95% probability of being cost-effective if society’s willingness to pay for a QALY were up to £50,000. This is reduced to approximately 55% for the 40-year analysis. The results were driven by the assumption of a 1-month earlier return to usual activities and a decreased hospital length of stay and operation duration following mini-incision THR. If mini-incision THR actually required more intensive use of resources it would become approximately £200 more expensive and would only be cost-effective (cost per QALY > £30,000) if recovery was 1.5 weeks faster. A threshold analysis around risk of revision showed, using the same cost per QALY threshold, mini-incision THR would have to have no more than a 7.5% increase in revisions compared with standard THR for it to be no longer considered cost-effective (one more revision for every 200 procedures performed). Further sensitivity analysis involved relaxing assumptions of equal long-term outcomes where possible. and broadly similar results to the base-case analysis were found in this and further sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Compared with standard THR, minimal incision THR has small perioperative advantages in terms of blood loss and operation time. It may offer a shorter hospital stay and quicker recovery. It appears to have a similar procedure cost to standard THR, but evidence on its longer term performance is very limited. Further long-term follow-up data on costs and outcomes including analysis of subgroups of interest to the NHS would strengthen the current economic evaluation.The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit are both core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Cost-benefit Analysis, Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Treatment Outcomes, RD Surgery
Publisher: Gray Publishing
Year: 2008
DOI identifier: 10.3310/hta12260
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/246
Journal:
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://hdl.handle.net/2164/246 (external link)
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta1... (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (2001). 1 Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease: a rapid and systematic
    2. (2008). 19 Clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of growth hormone in adults in relation to impact on quality of life: a systematic review and economic
    3. (2008). 2 ‘Cut down to quit’ with nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation: a systematic review of effectiveness and economic
    4. (2003). 2007;22:48–56. Secondary reference Duwelius PJ. Two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: techniques and results to date. Instr Course Lect 2006;55:215–22. Duwelius, doi
    5. (2005). 23rd Annual Meeting, doi
    6. (2008). 4 A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neuroimaging assessments used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery. By Whiting
    7. (2008). 5 A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines. By
    8. (2005). A prospective randomized patient-blinded comparison of mini versus standard incision THA.
    9. (2000). A review by
    10. (2002). A study of the methods used to select review criteria for clinical audit. By Hearnshaw
    11. (2008). A systematic review and economic model of switching from nonglycopeptide to glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery.
    12. (2008). All rights reserved. Appendix 10 Results of meta-analyses Comparison 01: Single mini-incision versus single standard incision (reported means and SDs)
    13. (2008). All rights reserved. Appendix 14 Balanced life table for general mortality (40% male, 60% female) Age (years) Mortality Age (years)
    14. (2008). All rights reserved. Appendix 15 Cohort analysis showing 1000 patients as they progress through the 40-year model for both standard and mini-incision THR Stage Primary THR Successful THR Revision Successful THR Non-operative Dead (revision)
    15. (2008). All rights reserved. Appendix 7 Detailed quality assessment score for the included trials and comparative studies (see
    16. (2008). All rights reserved. Clinical effectiveness Search strategies used to identify reports of clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive hip arthroplasty MEDLINE
    17. (2008). All rights reserved. Health Technology Assessment reports published to date No. 15 Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomised controlled trials. A review by
    18. (2008). All rights reserved. Health Technology Assessment reports published to dateNo. 15 Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomised controlled trials. A review by
    19. (2008). All rights reserved. No. 34 A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. By MacLehose
    20. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y C l i n i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e S a f e t y R e s o u r c e u t i l i t y H o w e l l , doi
    21. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) A s a y a m a , doi
    22. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) B e r g e r , doi
    23. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) C h i m e n t o , doi
    24. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) C i m i n i e l l o , doi
    25. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) D i G i o i a , doi
    26. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) D u w e l i u s , doi
    27. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) F l ö r e n , doi
    28. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) H a r t , doi
    29. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) H a r t z b a n d , doi
    30. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) H o w e l l , doi
    31. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) O g o n d a , doi
    32. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) P a g n a n o , doi
    33. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) P a n i s e l l o , doi
    34. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) R a c h b a u e r , doi
    35. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) S i g u i e r , doi
    36. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y d e t a i l s P a r t i c i p a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t e r v e n t i o n / c o m p a r a t o r O u t c o m e s S h o r t t e r m L o n g t e r m ( i n c l u d i n g s u r r o g a t e s ) Y o o n , doi
    37. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y P a t i e n t -c e n t r e d m e a s u r e s C a s e s e r i e s a n d r e g i s t r y F l ö r e n , doi
    38. (2008). All rights reserved. S t u d y P a t i e n t -c e n t r e d m e a s u r e s O n e i n c i s i o n R C T a n d q u a s i -R C T C h a r l e s , doi
    39. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es )
    40. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) A sa ya m a,
    41. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) C hi m en to ,
    42. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) C im in ie llo ,
    43. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) C up : % of c om po ne nt s th at w er e ou tli er s:
    44. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) D iG io ia ,
    45. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) D uw el iu s,
    46. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) H ar t,
    47. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) H ar tz ba nd ,
    48. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) O go nd a,
    49. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) Pa gn an o,
    50. (2008). All rights reserved. S tu dy d et ai ls P ar ti ci pa nt c ha ra ct er is ti cs In te rv en ti on /co m pa ra to r Out co m es S ho rt t er m Lon g te rm (in cl ud in g su rr og at es ) Pa ni se llo ,
    51. (2008). All rights reserved. Volume 9,
    52. (2008). All rights reserved.Clinical effectiveness Search strategies used to identify reports of clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive hip arthroplasty MEDLINE
    53. (2008). All rights reserved.No. 19 Clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of growth hormone in adults in relation to impact on quality of life: a systematic review and economic
    54. (2008). All rights reserved.No. 2 ‘Cut down to quit’ with nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation: a systematic review of effectiveness and economic doi
    55. (2008). All rights reserved.No. 34 A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. By MacLehose
    56. (2008). All rights reserved.No. 4 A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neuroimaging assessments used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery. By Whiting
    57. (2008). All rights reserved.No. 5 A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines. By doi
    58. (2008). All rights reserved.Volume 9,
    59. (2005). Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, doi
    60. Assessm ent 2008;Vol. 12: N o. 26 Total hip replacem ent approaches in the m anagem ent of arthritic disease of the hip
    61. (2008). Assessment Programme 242 Diagnostic Technologies & Screening Panel Members Chair, Dr Ron Zimmern, Director of the Public Health Genetics Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratories, Cambridge Ms Norma Armston, Freelance Consumer Advocate,
    62. (2008). Assessment reports published to date 240 Health Technology Assessment
    63. (2008). Assessment reports published to date 240Health Technology Assessment
    64. authors would like to know your views about this report.
    65. (2006). Comparison 03: Single mini-incision versus single standard incision (reported means and SDs supplemented with calculated SDs from p-values and imputed SDs)
    66. (2005). Comparison 05: Two incisions versus single standard or mini-incision (reported means and SDs supplemented with calculated SDs from p-values)
    67. (2006). Comparison of gait kinematics in patients receiving minimally invasive and traditional hip replacement surgery: a prospective blinded study. Gait Posture 2006;23:374–82. Pagnano, doi
    68. (1994). Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ doi
    69. Description of a new technique. doi
    70. (2008). Ex cl us io n cr ite ri a: d ea th o r lo ss t o FU in fi rs t 2 ye ar s
    71. (2008). Final decision (subject to clarification of ‘unclear’ points) Include Unclear Exclude Health Technology Assessment
    72. (2004). Guidance on the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515). London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence;
    73. (2000). Guidance on the selection of prostheses for primary total hip replacement.
    74. (2003). How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical
    75. Is revision as good as primary hip replacement? A comparison of quality of life.
    76. Joint Surg Am 2003;85A:2240–2. Secondary references Berger RA, Duwelius PJ. The two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: technique and results.
    77. (2006). Journals (full-text search)
    78. (2006). Ko Tsa Chih 2006;44:512–15 (in Chinese). Included studies (abstracts only) Charles,
    79. (2004). Mini-incision for total hip Appendix 5 108 arthroplasty: a prospective, controlled investigation with 5-year follow-up evaluation.
    80. (2004). Mini-incision for total hip Appendix 5 108arthroplasty: a prospective, controlled investigation with 5-year follow-up evaluation.
    81. Minimal access surgery for total hip arthroplasty – current beliefs and activity profile in the UK. doi
    82. (2006). Minimally invasive hip arthroplasty: what role does patient preconditioning play. doi
    83. (2004). minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: length doesn't matter. doi
    84. Muscle damage after total hip arthroplasty done with the two-incision and mini-posterior techniques. doi
    85. (2007). Navigation in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroscopy. Oper Tech Orthop 2006; 16:207–10. Dorr, doi
    86. (2007). No. 1 Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. By Dundar
    87. (2006). No. 1 The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease. By Loveman E,
    88. (2004). Orthopaedic Association (BOA) Annual Congress,
    89. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. doi
    90. (2005). Presidential guest address: the Swedish Hip Registry: increasing the sensitivity by patient outcome data. Clin Orthop doi
    91. (2006). Primary reference Ciminiello
    92. (2005). Primary reference Ogonda
    93. (2008). Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2008. All rights reserved. Appendix 12 Summary of included economic evaluations Study identification Author and year Duwelius,
    94. (2008). TABLE 57 Analysis of cases with complete datasets Period Group N Mean SD SE of mean Adjusted p-Value difference (SE)
    95. (2008). The two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: technique and results. doi
    96. (2003). Total hip arthroplasty using the minimally invasive two-incision approach. Clin Orthop doi
    97. (2006). Two-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: techniques and results to date. Instr Course Lect 2006;55:215–22. Flören,
    98. Waiting for total hip arthroplasty: avoidable loss in quality time and preventable deterioration. doi
    99. (2004). What is the best imaging strategy for acute stroke? By
    100. (2005). Wrightington Hospital,

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.