Skip to content

Enhanced recovery following hip and knee arthroplasty: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere032204
Number of pages12
JournalBMJ Open
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 4 Dec 2019
DatePublished (current) - 15 Jan 2020

Abstract

Objectives: To assess cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways following total hip and knee arthroplasties. Secondary objectives were to report on quality of studies and identify research gaps for future work.

Design: Systematic review of cost–utility analyses.

Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database, and EconLit, January 2000 to August 2019.

Eligibility Criteria: English-language peer-reviewed cost–utility analyses of enhanced recovery pathways, or components of one, compared to usual care, in patients having total hip or knee arthroplasties for osteoarthritis.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data extracted by three reviewers with disagreements resolved by a fourth. Study quality assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic (AdViSHE) decision models tools; for trial-based studies the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool to assess risk of bias. No quantitative synthesis was undertaken.

Results: We identified 17 studies: five trial-based and 12 model-based. Two analyses evaluated entire enhanced recovery pathways and reported these to be cost effective compared to usual care. Eleven pathway components were more effective and cost-saving compared to usual care, two were cost-effective, and two were not cost-effective. We had concerns around risk of bias for all included studies, particularly regarding the short time horizon of the trials and lack of reporting of model validation.

Conclusions: Consistent results supported enhanced recovery pathways as a whole, prophylactic systemic antibiotics, antibiotic-impregnated cement and conventional ventilation for infection prevention. No other interventions were subject of more than one study. We found ample scope for future cost-effectiveness studies, particularly analyses of entire recovery pathways and comparison of incremental changes within pathways. A key limitation is that standard practices have changed over the period covered by the included studies.

Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017059473

    Research areas

  • cost-effectiveness, economic evaluation, hip replacement, knee replacement, osteoarthritis, systematic review

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Documents

  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via BMJ at https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/1/e032204. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 2.11 MB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups