Is It Worth Delaying Total Knee Replacement as Late as Possible? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using a Markov Model in the Indian Setting

Abstract

BackgroundTotal knee replacement (TKR) is often delayed in younger patients in an attempt to prolong the longevity of the prosthesis and avoid the risk of revision. But delaying a TKR might compromise the quality of life of young patients who are otherwise active and healthy. MethodsWe built a Markov decision model to study the simulated clinical course of a 50-year-old patient with severe unilateral knee osteoarthritis who could be either treated with conservative therapies or with a TKR at some point in time. An Indian healthcare payer perspective model was used, and lifetime costs (in Indian rupees), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. ResultsIn the base case scenario, patients who did not receive a TKR had a total lifetime cost of ₹216 709 and accumulated 13.59 QALYS in their lifetime. Those who received a TKR without delay (at age 50) accumulated 16.71 QALYS in their lifetime with an ICER of ₹9789 per QALY. When TKR was delayed, the total QALYs decreased, and ICER increased with each year of delay. But the cumulative risk of revision decreased from 27.4% when TKR was performed at 50 years to 10.0% when TKR was done at 70 years. ConclusionOur analysis found that TKR is a cost-effective procedure when the healthcare payer is willing to pay at least ₹9789 ($132) per QALY. The results also suggested that an early TKR is preferred to a delayed TKR despite the higher incidence of revisions.