Lower limb arthroplasty: can we produce a tool to predict outcome and failure, and is it cost-effective? An epidemiological study
- PMID: 28678462
- Bookshelf ID: NBK436868
- DOI: 10.3310/pgfar05120
Lower limb arthroplasty: can we produce a tool to predict outcome and failure, and is it cost-effective? An epidemiological study
Excerpt
Background: Although hip and knee arthroplasties are considered to be common elective cost-effective operations, up to one-quarter of patients are not satisfied with the operation. A number of risk factors for implant failure are known, but little is known about the predictors of patient-reported outcomes.
Objectives: (1) Describe current and future needs for lower limb arthroplasties in the UK; (2) describe important risk factors for poor surgery outcomes and combine them to produce predictive tools (for hip and knee separately) for poor outcomes; (3) produce a Markov model to enable a detailed health economic analysis of hip/knee arthroplasty, and for implementing the predictive tool; and (4) test the practicality of the prediction tools in a pragmatic prospective cohort of lower limb arthroplasty.
Design: The programme was arranged into four work packages. The first three work packages used the data from large existing data sets such as Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and the National Joint Registry. Work package 4 established a pragmatic cohort of lower limb arthroplasty to test the practicality of the predictive tools developed within the programme.
Results: The estimated number of total knee replacements (TKRs) and total hip replacements (THRs) performed in the UK in 2015 was 85,019 and 72,418, respectively. Between 1991 and 2006, the estimated age-standardised rates (per 100,000 person-years) for a THR increased from 60.3 to 144.6 for women and from 35.8 to 88.6 for men. The rates for TKR increased from 42.5 to 138.7 for women and from 28.7 to 99.4 for men. The strongest predictors for poor outcomes were preoperative pain/function scores, deprivation, age, mental health score and radiographic variable pattern of joint space narrowing. We found a weak association between body mass index (BMI) and outcomes; however, increased BMI did increase the risk of revision surgery (a 5-kg/m2 rise in BMI increased THR revision risk by 10.4% and TKR revision risk by 7.7%). We also confirmed that osteoarthritis (OA) severity and migration pattern of the hip predicted patient-reported outcome measures. The hip predictive tool that we developed performed well, with a corrected R2 of 23.1% and had good calibration, with only slight overestimation of Oxford Hip Score in the lowest decile of outcome. The knee tool developed performed less well, with a corrected R2 of 20.2%; however, it had good calibration. The analysis was restricted by the relatively limited number of variables available in the extant data sets, something that could be addressed in future studies. We found that the use of bisphosphonates reduced the risk of revision knee and hip surgery by 46%. Hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk by 38%, if used for at least 6 months postoperatively. We found that an increased risk of postoperative fracture was prevented by bisphosphonate use. This result, being observational in nature, will require confirmation in a randomised controlled trial. The Markov model distinguished between outcome categories following primary and revision procedures. The resulting outcome prediction tool for THR and TKR reduced the number and proportion of unsatisfactory outcomes after the operation, saving NHS resources in the process. The highest savings per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) forgone were reported from the oldest patient subgroups (men and women aged ≥ 80 years), with a reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of around £1200 saved per QALY forgone for THRs. In the prospective cohort of arthroplasty, the performance of the knee model was modest (R2 = 0.14) and that of the hip model poor (R2 = 0.04). However, the addition of the radiographic OA variable improved the performance of the hip model (R2 = 0.125 vs. 0.110) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein improved the performance of the knee model (R2 = 0.230 vs. 0.216). These data will ideally need replication in an external cohort of a similar design. The data are not necessarily applicable to other health systems or countries.
Conclusion: The number of total hip and knee replacements will increase in the next decade. High BMI, although clinically insignificant, is associated with an increased risk of revision surgery and postoperative complications. Preoperative pain/function, the pattern of joint space narrowing, deprivation index and level of education were found to be the strongest predictors for THR. Bisphosphonates and hormone therapy proved to be beneficial for patients undergoing lower limb replacement. The addition of new predictors collected from the prospective cohort of arthroplasty slightly improved the performance of the predictive tools, suggesting that the potential improvements in both tools can be achieved using the plethora of extra variables from the validation cohort. Although currently it would not be cost-effective to implement the predictive tools in a health-care setting, we feel that the addition of extensive risk factors will improve the performances of the predictive tools as well as the Markov model, and will prove to be beneficial in terms of cost-effectiveness. Future analyses are under way and awaiting more promising provisional results.
Future work: Further research should focus on defining and predicting the most important outcome to the patient.
Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.
Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2017. This work was produced by Arden et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
Sections
- Plain English summary
- Scientific summary
- Chapter 1. Introduction
- Chapter 2. Work package 1: current and future rates of lower limb arthroplasties
- Chapter 3. Work package 2: designing the statistical tool to predict surgery outcome
- Chapter 4. Work package 3: economic evaluation
- Chapter 5. Work package 4: external validation of the tool
- Chapter 6. Summary of the programme
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1. Read codes
- Appendix 2. Statistical methods
- Appendix 3. Variable list
-
Appendix 4. Hip replacement model by Briggs
et al. - Appendix 5. Full total hip replacement economic model schema
- Appendix 6. Expert elicitation
- Appendix 7. Estimating 2-year revision rates by Kalairajah outcome classification using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry
- Appendix 8. Estimating primary care costs attributable to hip pain
- Appendix 9. Logit model to predict surgery outcome
- Appendix 10. Mapping the Oxford Hip Score onto the EuroQol-5 Dimensions
- Appendix 11. Model assumptions and limitations
- Appendix 12. Primary care costs for total knee replacements
- Appendix 13. External validation of the model
- List of abbreviations
Similar articles
-
Infection after total joint replacement of the hip and knee: research programme including the INFORM RCT [Internet].Southampton (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2022 Nov. Southampton (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2022 Nov. PMID: 36469653 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Better post-operative prediction and management of chronic pain in adults after total knee replacement: the multidisciplinary STAR research programme including RCT.Southampton (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2023 Jun. Southampton (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2023 Jun. PMID: 37494508 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine tool to select candidates for hip and knee replacement surgery: development and economic modelling.Health Technol Assess. 2019 Jun;23(32):1-216. doi: 10.3310/hta23320. Health Technol Assess. 2019. PMID: 31287051 Free PMC article.
-
Physiotherapy rehabilitation after total knee or hip replacement: an evidence-based analysis.Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2005;5(8):1-91. Epub 2005 Jun 1. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2005. PMID: 23074477 Free PMC article.
-
Geographical Variation in Outcomes of Primary Hip and Knee Replacement.JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2(10):e1914325. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.14325. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. PMID: 31664449 Free PMC article.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials