Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Is Cost-Effective Compared with Hemiarthroplasty: A Real-World Economic Evaluation

Cost-effectiveness of total shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty: a study using data from the National Joint Registry

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) and explore variation by age and gender.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a lifetime cohort Markov model.

SETTING

National population registry data.

PARTICIPANTS

Model parameters were informed by propensity score-matched comparisons of TSA and HA in patients with osteoarthritis and an intact rotator cuff using data from the National Joint Registry.

INTERVENTIONS

TSA and HA.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs for age and gender subgroups. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

In all subgroups, TSA was more cost-effective, with the probability of being cost-effective about 70% for TSA versus 30% for HA at any willingness-to-pay threshold above £1100 per QALY. TSA was dominant in young patients (≤60 years) with a mean cost saving of £463 in men and £658 in women, and a mean QALY gain of 2 in both men and women. In patients aged 61-75 years, there was a mean cost saving following HA of £395 in men and £181 in women, while QALYs remained superior following TSA with a 1.3 gain in men and 1.4 in women. In the older cohort (> 75 years), the cost difference was highest and the QALY difference was lowest; there was a cost-saving following HA of £905 in men and £966 in women. The mean QALY gain remained larger after TSA: 0.7 in men and 0.9 in women.

CONCLUSION

TSA was more cost-effective than HA in patients with osteoarthritis. QALYs were superior following TSA in all patient groups. Cost differences varied by age and TSA was dominant in young patients.

Cost-effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy. An economic analysis using real-world data

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis (OA) and rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system using patient data, health utilities and costs from a real-world situation.

HYPOTHESIS

Our hypothesis was that arthroplasty for OA is more cost-effective than for CTA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We gathered a cohort of patients with 153 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for OA and 107 reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for CTA between years 2016-2020 at a university hospital. Short-term (mean 2.8years) shoulder function, health utilities and costs were obtained from prospectively collected data, and a Markov cohort simulation was carried out to assess lifetime cost-utility. The primary outcome measures were change in 15D score to calculate gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and change in Western Ontario osteoarthritis score of the shoulder (WOOS).

RESULTS

Both TSA and RSA restored shoulder function well, WOOS improvement was 59.7 (95% CI: 56.2-63.2) and 55.8 (95% CI: 50.4-61.2), respectively. The cost/QALY gained was 20,846.82 € for TSA and 38,711.90 € for RSA. The cost-utility was not remarkable sensitive to costs, discounting of future costs or estimated revision rates. However, the cost-effectiveness was very sensitive to change in 15D health utility scores and thus QALY gain, especially for RSA patients.

DISCUSSION

Shoulder arthroplasty restores shoulder function well in both OA and CTA. In health economic terms, RSA is less cost-effective than TSA in an everyday setting, mainly due to inferior improvement of health-related quality-of-life and reduced life expectancy of CTA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case series.

Primary Total Shoulder Arthroplasty is Superior to Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Glenohumeral Arthritis: Analysis of 5-year Outcomes in a Large Surgical Database

Background

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is the preferred treatment for glenohumeral arthritis refractory to nonoperative measures. However, some surgeons have argued for a role for hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the setting of a smooth glenoid that articulates appropriately with the humeral head. The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term revision rates and short-term postoperative complications in patients undergoing either HA or TSA for glenohumeral arthritis.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent HA and TSA was conducted using a commercially available national database. Demographics, postoperative complications, risk factors, revision rates, and costs were analyzed using 2 sample t-tests, chi-squared tests, and multivariate logistic regressions.

Results

Patients were stratified by operation: (1) HA (n = 1615) or 2) TSA (n = 7845). Patients undergoing primary TSA had higher rates of prior ipsilateral rotator cuff repair and corticosteroid injections. At 2 years, patients who underwent HA, 3.0% of patients had revision surgery, compared to 1.6% of patients who underwent TSA (P = .002); at 5 years, 3.7% of the HA cohort (P < .0001) had revision surgery, compared to 1.9% of patients who underwent TSA.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing TSA or RTSA for glenohumeral arthritis had higher preoperative co-morbidities but had no difference in short-term complication rates with a lower risk of revision surgery at both 2-year and 5-year follow-up when compared to HA. Increasing age, female sex, hyperlipidemia, postoperative infection, shoulder instability, and thromboembolism all independently increased odds for revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis.

Level of evidence Level

III.

Balancing clinician and patient priorities for total shoulder replacement preoperative education programs

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient and clinician preferences regarding a preoperative educational program for patients undergoing shoulder replacement surgery.

METHODS

This study used a cross-sectional survey of patients awaiting shoulder replacement surgery and clinicians. The survey was comprised of 41 questions for patients and clinicians, regarding preferences for receiving information, content preferences and device preferences. Descriptive statistics were reported for survey questions.

RESULTS

180 patients and 175 clinicians completed the survey. Patients and clinicians' top choices for ways to receive information were: in-person, website and booklets, with use of CD/DVD being extremely unlikely. Patients and clinicians had different preferences regarding content choices. Patients rated the following content topics as important to include in a program: including other patient's previous experiences with this surgery (83 % patients; 40 % clinicians), information for caregivers (84 % patients; 65 % clinicians), expectations for hospital stay (89 % patients; 57 % clinicians), process of anesthesia (87 % patients; 51 % clinicians), and how the surgery is performed (94 % patients; 60 % clinicians).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians and patients have differing priorities and perspectives on the content and delivery of preoperative education programs, however, therapeutic goals and accessibility should be considered when designing programs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Creating education programs should include the lens of both clinicians and patients.