The cost-effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty for rotator cuff tear arthropathy

Background Hemiarthroplasty (humeral head replacement [HHR]) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are surgical options for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). RSA may provide better pain relief and functional outcomes, but it costs more and may have a higher complication rate. The goal of this study was...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2012-10, Vol.21 (10), p.1278-1288
Hauptverfasser: Coe, Marcus P., MD, Greiwe, R. Michael, MD, Joshi, Rohan, BA, Snyder, Benjamin M., MD, MPH, MS, Simpson, Lauren, MS, Tosteson, Anna N.A., ScD, Ahmad, Christopher S., MD, Levine, William N., MD, Bell, John-Erik, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Hemiarthroplasty (humeral head replacement [HHR]) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are surgical options for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). RSA may provide better pain relief and functional outcomes, but it costs more and may have a higher complication rate. The goal of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of these two treatments and to use sensitivity analysis to determine the drivers of the model. Materials and methods A Markov decision model was used. Outcome and complication probabilities were obtained from existing literature. Costs were based on average Medicare reimbursement and implant prices. Utilities were derived from responses to health state surveys (Short Form 6D) from 31 patients at one institution who underwent RSA or HHR for CTA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to compare treatments. Results Our model showed RSA could be a cost-effective strategy for treatment of CTA, using $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained as a cutoff and the Short Form 6D for utilities. The model was extremely sensitive to the complication rate and the utility of each procedure and was also sensitive to implant price, with an implant price
ISSN:1058-2746
1532-6500
DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2011.10.010