Original Research

When Would a Metal-Backed Component Become Cost-Effective Over an All-Polyethylene Tibia in Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Author and Disclosure Information

TAKE-HOME POINTS

  • APT components have been shown to be cost-effective when compared to MBT designs in TKA.
  • Revision rates would have to be substantially lower in MBT to afford a cost advantage over APT components.
  • Given that only a small percentage of surgeons routinely use APT components, factors other than cost-effectiveness must influence the choice of implant.
  • Surgeons may find that APT components are more technically demanding to use and they do not allow for modular stems or augmentations.
  • Institutional cost data is known to vary widely among institutions, and our conclusions regarding comparable revision rates would change with different cost inputs.


 

References

ABSTRACT

The importance of cost control in total knee arthroplasty is increasing in the United States secondary to both changing economic realities of healthcare and the increasing prevalence of joint replacement.

Surgeons play a critical role in cost containment and may soon be incentivized to make cost-effective decisions under proposed gainsharing programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of all-polyethylene tibial (APT) components and determine what difference in revision rate would make modular metal-backed tibial (MBT) implants a more cost-effective intervention.

Markov models were constructed using variable implant failure rates and previously published probabilities. Cost data were obtained from both our institution and published United States implant list prices, and modeled with a 3.0% discount rate. The decision tree was continued over a 20-year timeframe.

Using our institutional cost data and model assumptions with a 1.0% annual failure rate for MBT components, an annual failure rate of 1.6% for APT components would be required to achieve equivalency in cost. Over a 20-year period, a failure rate of >27% for the APT component would be necessary to achieve equivalent cost compared with the proposed failure rate of 18% with MBT components. A sensitivity analysis was performed with different assumptions for MBT annual failure rates.

Given our assumptions, the APT component is cost-saving if the excess cumulative revision rate increases by <9% in 20 years compared with that of the MBT implant. Surgeons, payers, and hospitals should consider this approach when evaluating implants. Consideration should also be given to the decreased utility associated with revision surgery.

Continue to: All-polythylene tibial implants...

Pages

Next Article: