Comparing the posterolateral and the direct lateral approach for cemented hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fracture: a cost-effectiveness analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.45056Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Fractures, HipAbstract
Background and purpose: The 2 most common surgical approaches in hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture treatment are the posterolateral and the direct lateral approach. We aimed to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of these approaches.
Methods: We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled superiority trial for 6 months. The trial included 555 patients over 18 years of age with an acute femoral neck fracture. The effectiveness outcome used was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), assessed using the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured through self-reported questionnaires administered at baseline, after 3 months, and after 6 months. We dealt with missing data through multiple imputation and analyzed the imputed datasets by comparing group means in costs and QALYs. A secondary analysis included adjustment for baseline imbalances through linear regression.
Results: The estimated average treatment effect on the QALYs was 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] –0.006 to 0.046). From the healthcare and societal perspective, we found a non-significant average treatment effect on costs of 1,508 (CI –1,744 to 4,760) and 1,583 (CI –1,972 to 5,137), respectively. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 10% at a willingness-to-pay of zero, and then slowly increased to around 50% for higher willingness-to-pay values.
Conclusion: We found no conclusive evidence of any differences between the surgical approaches with respect to costs, QALYs, and cost-effectiveness. We therefore suggest that, from an economic viewpoint, the 2 surgical approaches should be treated as interchangeable.
Downloads
References
Sing C W, Lin T C, Bartholomew S, Bell J S, Bennett C, Beyene K, et al. Global epidemiology of hip fractures: secular trends in incidence rate, post-fracture treatment, and all-cause mortality. J Bone Miner Res 2023; 38(8): 1064-75. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4821. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4821
Kanters T, Van De Ree C, De Jongh M, Gosens T, Hakkaart-van Roijen L. Burden of illness of hip fractures in elderly Dutch patients. Arch Osteoporos 2020; 15(1): 1-7. doi: 10.1007/s11657-019-0678-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-019-0678-y
Williamson S, Landeiro F, McConnell T, Fulford-Smith L, Javaid MK, Judge A, et al. Costs of fragility hip fractures globally: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Osteoporos Int 2017; 28(10): 2791-800. doi: 10.1007/s00198-017-4153-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4153-6
Burgers P, Hoogendoorn M, Van Woensel E, Poolman R, Bhandari M, Patka P, et al. Total medical costs of treating femoral neck fracture patients with hemi- or total hip arthroplasty: a cost analysis of a multicenter prospective study. Osteoporos Int 2016; 27(6): 1999-2008. doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3484-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3484-z
Chechik O, Khashan M, Lador R, Salai M, Amar E. Surgical approach and prosthesis fixation in hip arthroplasty world wide. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133(11): 1595-600. doi: 10.1007/s00402-013-1828-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1828-0
Kristensen T B, Vinje T, Havelin L I, Engesæter L B, Gjertsen J-E. Posterior approach compared to direct lateral approach resulted in better patient-reported outcome after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture: 20,908 patients from the Norwegian hip fracture register. Acta Orthop 2017; 88(1): 29-34. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1251566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1250480
Leonardsson O, Rolfson O, Rogmark C. The surgical approach for hemiarthroplasty does not influence patient-reported outcome: a national survey of 2118 patients with one-year follow-up. Bone Joint J 2016; 98(4): 542-7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B4.35612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B4.36626
Tol M C, van Beers L W, Willigenburg N W, Gosens T, Heetveld M J, Willems H C, et al. Posterolateral or direct lateral approach for hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fractures: a systematic review. Hip Int 2021; 31(2): 154-65. doi: 10.1177/1120700021999152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020931766
van der Sijp M P L, van Delft D, Krijnen P, Niggebrugge A H P, Schipper I B. Surgical approaches and hemiarthroplasty outcomes for femoral neck fractures: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(5): 1617-27. e9 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.029
Tol M C, Willigenburg N W, Rasker A J, Willems H C, Gosens T, Heetveld M J, et al. Posterolateral or direct lateral surgical approach for hemiarthroplasty after a hip fracture: a randomized clinical trial alongside a natural experiment. JAMA Network Open 2024; 7(1): e2350765-e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50765
Tiihonen R, Alaranta R, Helkamaa T, Nurmi-Lüthje I, Kaukonen J-P, Lüthje P. A 10-year retrospective study of 490 hip fracture patients: reoperations, direct medical costs, and survival. Scand J Surg 2019; 108(2): 178-84. doi: 10.1177/1457496918798197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496918798197
Drummond M F, Sculpher M J, Claxton K, Stoddart G L, Torrance G W. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Sanders G D, Neumann P J, Basu A, Brock D W, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 2016; 316(10): 1093-103 doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195
Tol M C, Willigenburg N W, Willems H C, Gosens T, Rasker A, Heetveld M J, et al. Posterolateral or direct lateral approach for cemented hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fracture (APOLLO): protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation and natural experiment alongside. Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 732-8. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2022.2100932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.4547
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011; 20(10): 1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
Versteegh M M, Vermeulen K M, Evers S M, De Wit G A, Prenger R, Stolk E A. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health 2016; 19(4): 343-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003
Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Van der Linden N, Bouwmans C, Kanters T, Tan S S. Kostenhandleiding. Methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg In opdracht van Zorginstituut Nederland Geactualiseerde versie 2015: 12-64
Walters S J, Brazier J E. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1523-32. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-1393-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0
Little R J. Missing-data adjustments in large surveys. J Bus Econ Stat 1988; 6(3): 287-96. doi: 10.1080/07350015.1988.10509963. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1988.10509663
Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software 2011; 45: 1-67. doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Harel O, Zhou X H. Multiple imputation: review of theory, implementation and software. Stat Med 2007; 26(16): 3057-77. doi: 10.1002/sim.2787. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2787
Brand J, van Buuren S, le Cessie S, van den Hout W. Combining multiple imputation and bootstrap in the analysis of cost-effectiveness trial data. Stat Med 2019; 38(2): 210-20. doi: 10.1002/sim.8018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7956
Willan A R, Briggs A H. Statistical analysis of cost-effectiveness data. Chichester: Wiley; 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/0470856289
Ling X, Gabrio A, Mason A, Baio G. A scoping review of item-level missing data in within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health 2022; 25(9): 1654-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.04.1688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.02.009
Hebert-Davies J, Laflamme G-Y, Rouleau D. Bias towards dementia: are hip fracture trials excluding too many patients? A systematic review. Injury 2012; 43(12): 1978-84. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.08.061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2012.08.061
Cheng L J, Chen L A, Cheng J Y, Herdman M, Luo N. Systematic review reveals that EQ-5D minimally important differences vary with treatment type and may decrease with increasing baseline score. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 174: 111487. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111487
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jonas L Esser, Maria C J M Tol, Nienke W Willigenburg, Ariena J Rasker, Taco Gosens, Martijn G M Schotanus, Hanna C Willems, Martin J Heetveld, J Carel Goslings, Johanna M van Dongen, Rudolf W Poolman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
