Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0154-5
DC FieldValue
dc.titleTotal or partial knee replacement? Cost-utility analysis in patients with knee osteoarthritis based on a 2-year observational study
dc.contributor.authorXie, F.
dc.contributor.authorLo, N.-N.
dc.contributor.authorTarride, J.-E.
dc.contributor.authorO'Reilly, D.
dc.contributor.authorGoeree, R.
dc.contributor.authorLee, H.-P.
dc.date.accessioned2014-11-25T09:47:50Z
dc.date.available2014-11-25T09:47:50Z
dc.date.issued2010-02
dc.identifier.citationXie, F., Lo, N.-N., Tarride, J.-E., O'Reilly, D., Goeree, R., Lee, H.-P. (2010-02). Total or partial knee replacement? Cost-utility analysis in patients with knee osteoarthritis based on a 2-year observational study. European Journal of Health Economics 11 (1) : 27-34. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0154-5
dc.identifier.issn16187598
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/108581
dc.description.abstractThe objective of this study was to evaluate incremental cost-utility of total knee replacement (TKR) versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) of the medial compartment. A 2-year non-randomised prospective observational cohort study was conducted in unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for TKR (n = 431) or UKA (n = 102). Costs were identified using administrative databases and health outcomes were measured using the SF-36 and the Oxford knee score (OKS) 1 week before, 6 months after, and 2 years after surgery. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) for TKR versus UKA was calculated and its 95% confidence interval estimated using a nonparametric bootstrapping technique. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed from different perspectives. On average, from the societal perspective, the ICUR was US 65,245 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In the scenario with costs calculated from the perspective of patients, the ICUR was 60,382/QALY. This value decreased to 4,860/QALY in the scenario with costs calculated from the governmental perspective. However, the 95% confidence interval of ICURs cannot be defined because more than 5% bootstrapped samples fell into the upper left quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane from all three perspectives. Based on the 2-year data, TKR gained more QALYs at higher costs compared to UKA. A long-term prospective study is necessary to determine cost-effectiveness of TKR and UKA. © 2009 Springer-Verlag.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0154-5
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness
dc.subjectKnee replacement
dc.subjectOsteoarthritis
dc.subjectUnicompartmental
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentEPIDEMIOLOGY & PUBLIC HEALTH
dc.description.doi10.1007/s10198-009-0154-5
dc.description.sourcetitleEuropean Journal of Health Economics
dc.description.volume11
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.page27-34
dc.description.codenEJHEA
dc.identifier.isiut000275170000004
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

22
checked on May 7, 2021

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

21
checked on Apr 29, 2021

Page view(s)

101
checked on May 2, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.