Prior cost-effectiveness analyses on osseointegrated prosthesis for transfemoral unilateral amputees have analyzed outcomes in non-USA countries using generic quality of life instruments, which may not be appropriate when evaluating disease-specific quality of life. These prior analyses have also focused only on patients who had failed a socket-based prosthesis. The aim of the current study is to use a disease-specific quality of life instrument, which can more accurately reflect a patient’s quality of life with this condition in order to evaluate cost-effectiveness, examining both treatment-naïve and socket refractory patients. Lifetime Markov models were developed evaluating active healthy middle-aged male amputees. Costs of the prostheses, associated complications, use/non-use, and annual costs of arthroplasty parts and service for both a socket and osseointegrated (OPRA) prosthesis were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using the questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA) until death. All costs and Q-TFA were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses on those cost variables which affected a change in treatment (OPRA to socket, or socket to OPRA) were evaluated to determine threshold values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.Aims
Methods
Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, to establish whether differences arise in clinical outcomes between autologous and synthetic bone grafts in the operative management of tibial plateau fractures. A structured search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the online archives of Bone & Joint Publishing, and CENTRAL databases from inception until 28 July 2021 was performed. Randomized, controlled, clinical trials that compared autologous and synthetic bone grafts in tibial plateau fractures were included. Preclinical studies, clinical studies in paediatric patients, pathological fractures, fracture nonunion, or chondral defects were excluded. Outcome data were assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) framework and synthesized in random-effect meta-analysis. The Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidance was followed throughout.Aims
Methods
