Abstract
Abstract
Background
Hip fractures are a serious public health problem with high rates of morbidity, mortality, disability and care costs. The aim of the research was to perform cost effectiveness analysis of hip fracture treatments using proximal femoral nail and bipolar hemiarthroplasty surgeries.
Methods
The analysis was completed based on the perspectives of the paying institution and patient. A decision tree model was used to determine whether proximal femoral nail or bipolar arthroplasty was most cost effective for the management of a femoral neck fracture in this patient population.
Results
The findings from the decision tree model suggested that ICERs for BHP were TRY 43,164.53 TL/QALY based on reimbursement and TRY 3,977.35 TL/QALY based on patient expenditures. Compared to the calculated threshold value of TRY 60.575 TL, we concluded BHP to be a cost-effective option. Moreover, all parameter changes yielded stable results on the one-way sensitivity analysis. When it comes to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, BHP with specified threshold value was found to be cost-effective in all the comparisons. Currently available data the use of bipolar hemiarthroplasty as the more cost- effective treatment strategy in this specific population.
Conclusion
Overall, our findings showed HA as a cost-effective surgical technique at the calculated threshold in a population over 60 years of age. The impacts of HA on patients’ quality of life and costs are remarkable.
Funder
Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference56 articles.
1. Boriani G, Maniadakis N, Auricchio A, et al. Health technology assessment in interventional electrophysiology and device therapy: a position paper of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(25):1869–74.
2. Fidan D. Economic evaluation methods. J Health Econ. 2009;1:4–7.
3. Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis for Priority setting. Washington (DC): the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
4. Joore M, Grimm S, Boonen A, et al. Health technology assessment: a framework. RMD Open. 2020;6:1–3.
5. WHO. Ageing and health. 2022. URL: [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health].