Aims. To compare the cost-utility of standard dressing with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in adults with closed surgical wounds associated with major trauma to the lower limbs. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective based on data collected from the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) multicentre randomized clinical trial. Health resource utilization was collected over a six-month post-randomization period using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-utility was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates while uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. The incremental cost of standard dressing versus iNPWT over six months was £2,037 (95% confidence interval (CI) £349 to £3,724). There was an insignificant increment in QALYs gained in the iNPWT group (0.005, 95% CI -0.018 to 0.028). The probability of iNPWT being cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY was 1.9%. The results remained robust in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion. The within-trial economic evaluation suggests that iNPWT is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard dressing in adults with closed surgical wounds to their lower limbs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1072–1081

Aims

A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (PROFHER) was conducted in United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) hospitals to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck in adults.

Aims. To compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement versus single-antibiotic cement for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Methods. Using data from a multicentre randomized controlled trial (World Hip Trauma Evaluation 8 (WHiTE-8)) in the UK, a within-trial economic evaluation was conducted. Resource usage was measured over 120 days post randomization, and cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), gained from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective in the base-case analysis. Methodological uncertainty was addressed using sensitivity analysis, while decision uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. The base-case analysis showed that high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement had a significantly higher mean cost (£224 (95% confidence interval (CI) -408 to 855)) and almost the same QALYs (0.001 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.003)) relative to single-antibiotic cement from the UK NHS and PSS perspective. The probability of the high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement being cost-effective was less than 0.3 at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds, and its net monetary benefit was negative. This finding remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. This study shows that high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to single-antibiotic cement for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1070–1077