POSA42 Cost-Effectiveness of Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation with Versus without Cement Augmentation for Unstable Trochanteric Fractures

Joeris, Alexander; Kabiri, Mina; Galvain, Thibaut; Vanderkarr, M.; Holy, C.E.; Plaza, Javier Quintana; Tien, Stephanie; Schneller, Julia; Kammerlander, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.188

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The model consisted of 2 components: a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov state-transition model 26 . The decision tree model simulated clinical events, based on those experienced by the patients in the RCT 25 , and their associated costs and utilities during the first year after the index procedure (Fig.…”

Section: Overview and Model Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Cement Augmentation Versus No Augmentation for the Fixation of Unstable Trochanteric Fractures

Joeris

Kabiri

Galvain

et al. 2022

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:A previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated a trend toward a reduced risk of implant-related revision surgery following fixation with use of a Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) with TRAUMACEM V+ Injectable Bone Cement augmentation versus no augmentation in patients with unstable trochanteric fractures. To determine whether this reduced risk may result in long-term cost savings, the present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TRAUMACEM V+ cement augmentation versus no augmentation for the fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures from the German health-care payer’s perspective.Methods:The cost-effectiveness model comprised 2 stages: a decision tree simulating clinical events, costs, and utilities during the first year after the index procedure and a Markov model extrapolating clinical events, costs, and utilities over the patient’s lifetime. Sources of model parameters included the previous RCT, current literature, and administrative claims data. Outcome measures were incremental costs (in 2020 Euros), incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model uncertainty was assessed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results:The base-case analysis showed that fixation with cement augmentation was the dominant strategy as it was associated with cost savings (€50.3/patient) and QALY gains (0.01 QALY/patient). Major influential parameters for the ICER were the utility of revision, rates of revision surgery within the first year after fixation surgery, and the costs of augmentation and revision surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that estimates of cost savings were more robust than those of increased QALYs (66.4% versus 52.7% of the simulations). For a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds from €0 to €50,000, the probability of fixation with cement augmentation being cost-effective versus no augmentation remained above 50%.Conclusions:Fixation with use of cement augmentation dominated fixation with no augmentation for unstable trochanteric fractures, resulting in cost savings and QALY gains. Given the input parameter uncertainties, future analyses are warranted when long-term costs and effectiveness data for cement augmentation are available.Level of Evidence:Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

show abstract

Section: Overview and Model Structurementioning

confidence: 99%