Search

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 with 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 list, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic 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 studies. Two analyses evaluated entire enhanced recovery pathways and reported them to be cost-effective compared with usual care. Ten pathway components were more effective and cost-saving compared with usual care, three 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.PROSPERO registration number CRD42017059473.

Background: There is limited evidence concerning the effectiveness of enhanced recovery programmes in hip and knee replacement surgery, particularly when applied nationwide across a health-care system. Objectives: To determine the effect of hospital organisation, surgical factors and the enhanced recovery after surgery pathway on patient outcomes and NHS costs of hip and knee replacement. Design: (1) Statistical analysis of national linked data to explore geographical variations in patient outcomes of surgery. (2) A natural experimental study to determine clinical effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery. (3) A qualitative study to identify barriers to, and facilitators of, change. (4) Health economics analysis to establish NHS costs and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Data from the National Joint Registry, linked to English Hospital Episode Statistics and patient-reported outcome measures in both the geographical variation and natural experiment studies, together with the economic evaluation. The ethnographic study took place in four hospitals in a region of England. Participants: Qualitative study – 38 health professionals working in hip and knee replacement services in secondary care and 37 patients receiving hip or knee replacement. Interventions: Natural experiment – implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery at each hospital between 2009 and 2011. Enhanced recovery after surgery is a complex intervention focusing on several areas of patients’ care pathways through surgery: preoperatively (patient is in best possible condition for surgery), perioperatively (patient has best possible management during and after operation) and postoperatively (patient experiences best rehabilitation). Main outcome measures: Patient-reported pain and function (Oxford Hip Score/Oxford Knee Score); 6-month complications; length of stay; bed-day costs; and revision surgery within 5 years. Results: Geographical study – there are potentially unwarranted variations in patient outcomes of hip and knee replacement surgery. This variation cannot be explained by differences in patients, case mix, surgical or hospital organisational factors. Qualitative – successful implementation depends on empowering patients to work towards their recovery, providing post-discharge support and promoting successful multidisciplinary team working. Care processes were negotiated between patients and health-care professionals. ‘Good care’ remains an aspiration, particularly in the post-discharge period. Natural experiment – length of stay has declined substantially, pain and function have improved, revision rates are in decline and complication rates remain stable. The introduction of a national enhanced recovery after surgery programme maintained improvement, but did not alter the rate of change already under way. Health economics – costs are high in the year of joint replacement and remain higher in the subsequent year after surgery. There is a strong economic incentive to identify ways of reducing revisions and complications following joint replacement. Published cost-effectiveness evidence supports enhanced recovery pathways as a whole. Limitations: Short duration of follow-up data prior to enhanced recovery after surgery implementation and missing data, particularly for hospital organisation factors. Conclusion: No evidence was found to show that enhanced recovery after surgery had a substantial impact on longer-term downwards trends in costs and length of stay. Trends of improving outcomes were seen across all age groups, in those with and without comorbidity, and had begun prior to the formal enhanced recovery after surgery roll-out. Reductions in length of stay have been achieved without adversely affecting patient outcomes, yet, substantial variation remains in outcomes between hospital trusts. Future work: There is still work to be done to reduce and understand unwarranted variations in outcome between individual hospitals. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017059473. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Uncertainty exists regarding the best management of patients with degenerative tears of the rotator cuff. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair in patients aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears. Design: Two parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Setting: Nineteen teaching and district general hospitals in the UK. Participants: Patients (n = 273) aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears. Interventions: Arthroscopic surgery and open rotator cuff repair, with surgeons using their usual and preferred method of arthroscopic or open repair. Follow-up was by telephone questionnaire at 2 and 8 weeks after surgery and by postal questionnaire at 8, 12 and 24 months after randomisation. Main outcome measures: The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at 24 months was the primary outcome measure. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the shoulder was made at 12 months after surgery to assess the integrity of the repair. Results: The mean OSS improved from 26.3 [standard deviation (SD) 8.2] at baseline to 41.7 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (SD 8.0) at baseline to 41.5 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for open surgery. When effect sizes are shown for the intervention, a negative sign indicates that an open procedure is favoured. For the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no statistical difference between the groups, the difference in OSS score at 24 months was –0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) –2.75 to 1.22; p = 0.452] and the CI excluded the predetermined clinically important difference in the OSS of 3 points. There was also no statistical difference when the groups were compared per protocol (difference in OSS score –0.46, 95% CI –5.30 to 4.39; p = 0.854). The questionnaire response rate was > 86%. At 8 months, 77% of participants reported that shoulder problems were much or slightly better, and at 24 months this increased to 85%. There were no significant differences in mean cost between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group for any of the component resource-use categories, nor for the total follow-up costs at 24 months. The overall treatment cost at 2 years was £2567 (SD £176) for arthroscopic surgery and £2699 (SD £149) for open surgery, according to intention-to-treat analysis. For the per-protocol analysis there was a significant difference in total initial procedure-related costs between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group, with arthroscopic repair being more costly by £371 (95% CI £135 to £607). Total quality-adjusted life-years accrued at 24 months averaged 1.34 (SD 0.05) in the arthroscopic repair group and 1.35 (SD 0.05) in the open repair group, a non-significant difference of 0.01 (95% CI –0.11 to 0.10). The rate of re-tear was not significantly different across the randomised groups (46.4% and 38.6% for arthroscopic and open surgery, respectively). The participants with tears that were impossible to repair had the lowest OSSs, the participants with re-tears had slightly higher OSSs and the participants with healed repairs had the most improved OSSs. These findings were the same when analysed per protocol. Conclusion: In patients aged > 50 years with a degenerative rotator cuff tear there is no difference in clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness between open repair and arthroscopic repair at 2 years for the primary outcome (OSS) and all other prespecified secondary outcomes. Future work should explore new methods to improve tendon healing and reduce the high rate of re-tears observed in this trial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97804283. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 80. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.