Do custom 3D-printed revision acetabular implants provide enough value to justify the additional costs? The health-economic comparison of a new porous 3D-printed hip implant for revision arthroplasty of Paprosky type 3B acetabular defects and its closest alternative

Purpose: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common operation for patients suffering from hip arthrosis. It has been proven effective in improving quality of life while being cost-effective. Meanwhile, the number of revision hip arthroplasty is growing and those may require bone reconstruction and are potential indications for 3D custom implants. In these specific indications, medical 3D-printing has grown over the years and the use of 3D-printed implants has become more frequent. To date, the cost-effectiveness of 3D-printed implants for acetabular revision THA has not been evaluated. Therefore we performed a health economic analysis to: (1) analyse the cost-effectiveness of the aMace implant compared to its closest alternative on the market, (2) have a better insight into Belgian costs of revision hip arthroplasties and (3) estimate the budget impact in Belgium. Hypothesis: 3D-printed acetabular implants provide good value-for-health in Paprosky type 3B defects in a Belgian setting. Material and methods: Custom Three-flanged Acetabular Components (CTAC) were compared to a 3D printed implant (aMace) by means of a Markov model with four states (successful, re-revision, resection and dead). The cycle length was set at 6 months with a 10-year time horizon. Data was obtained through systematic literature search and provided by a large social security agency. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective. All amounts are displayed in 2019 euros. Discount rates were applied for future cost (3%) and QALY (1.5%) estimates. Results: Revision hip arthroplasty has an average societal cost of euro 9950 without implant. Based on the outcomes of our model, aMace provides an excellent value for money compared to CTAC. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was negative for all age groups. The base case of a 65 year old person, showed a QALY gain of 0.05 with a cost reduction of (sic)1265 compared to CTAC. The advantage of using aMace was found to be greater if a patient is younger. The re-revision rates of both CTAC and aMace and the utility of successful revision have the highest impact on costs and effects. A Monte Carlo simulation showed aMace to be a cost-effective strategy in 90% of simulations for younger patients and in 88% of simulations for patients above 85 years old. In Belgium it would imply a cost reduction of (sic)20500 on an annual basis. Conclusions: Based on the findings of this model, the new 3D-printed aMace implant has the potential to bring an excellent value for money when used in revision arthroplasty of Paprosky type 3B acetabular defects. For all patients, aMace resulted in a dominant, cost-saving strategy in Belgium compared to CTAC. Level of evidence: III, comparative medico economical diagnostic tool. (C) 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.