Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Aug;104-B(8):922-928.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B8.BJJ-2022-0417.R1.

Cost-utility analysis of cemented hemiarthroplasty versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures : the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost-utility analysis of cemented hemiarthroplasty versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures : the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) trial

May E Png et al. Bone Joint J. 2022 Aug.

Erratum in

  • Erratum.
    Png ME, Petrou S, Fernandez MA, Achten J, Parsons N, McGibbon A, Gould J, Griffin XL, Costa ML; WHiTE 5 trial collaborators. Png ME, et al. Bone Joint J. 2022 Oct;104-B(10):1190. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B9.BJJ-2022-00025. Bone Joint J. 2022. PMID: 36177647 No abstract available.

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

Methods: A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted based on data collected from the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK. Resource use was measured over 12 months post-randomization using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the NHS and personal social service perspective. Methodological uncertainty was addressed using sensitivity analysis, while decision uncertainty was represented graphically using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Results: The base-case analysis showed that cemented implants were cost-saving (mean cost difference -£961 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£2,292 to £370)) and increased QALYs (mean QALY difference 0.010 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.017)) when compared to uncemented implants. The probability of the cemented implant being cost-effective approximated between 95% and 97% at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds held by decision-makers, and its net monetary benefit was positive. The findings remained robust against all the pre-planned sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion: This study shows that cemented HA is cost-effective compared with hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA in older adults with displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):922-928.

Keywords: Cement; Cost; Effectiveness; Hemiarthroplasty; Hip; Trauma; cemented hemiarthroplasty; cemented implants; displaced intracapsular hip fractures; hip fractures; hydroxyapatite; multicentre randomized controlled trial; sensitivity analysis; uncemented hemiarthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types