English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Total hip replacement for end stage arthritis of the hip is currently the most common elective surgical procedure. In 2007 about 7.5% of UK implants were metal-on-metal joint resurfacing (MoM RS) procedures. Due to poor revision performance and concerns about metal debris, the use of RS had declined by 2012 to about a 1% share of UK hip procedures. This study estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal resurfacing (RS) procedures versus commonly employed total hip replacement (THR) methods.    Methodology/Principal Findings  We performed a cost-utility analysis using a well-established multi-state semi-Markov model from an NHS and personal and social services perspective. We used individual patient data (IPD) from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales on RS and THR surgery for osteoarthritis recorded from April 2003 to December 2012. We used flexible parametric modelling of NJR RS data to guide identification of patient subgroups and RS devices which delivered revision rates within the NICE 5% revision rate benchmark at 10 years. RS procedures overall have an estimated revision rate of 13% at 10 years, compared to <4% for most THR devices. New NICE guidance now recommends a revision rate benchmark of <5% at 10 years. 60% of RS implants in men and 2% in women were predicted to be within the revision benchmark. RS devices satisfying the 5% benchmark were unlikely to be cost-effective compared to THR at a standard UK willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. However, the probability of cost effectiveness was sensitive to small changes in the costs of devices or in quality of life or revision rate estimates.    Conclusion/Significance  Our results imply that in most cases RS has not been a cost-effective resource and should probably not be adopted by decision makers concerned with the cost effectiveness of hip replacement, or by patients concerned about the likelihood of revision, regardless of patient age or gender.

Has Metal-On-Metal Resurfacing Been a Cost-Effective Intervention for Health Care Providers?—A Registry Based Study