Search

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty is a growing concern, as the demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) expands annually. Although 2-stage revision is considered the gold standard in management, there is substantial morbidity and mortality associated with this strategy. One-stage revision is associated with lower mortality rates and better quality of life, and there has been increased interest in utilizing the 1-stage strategy. However, surgeons are faced with a difficult decision regarding which strategy to use to treat these infections, considering uncertainty with respect to eradication of infection, quality of life, and societal costs with each strategy. The purpose of the current study was to use decision analysis to determine the optimal decision for the management of PJI following TKA.Methods: An expected-value decision tree was constructed to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs associated with 1-stage and 2-stage revision. Two decision trees were created: Decision Tree 1 was constructed for all pathogens, and Decision Tree 2 was constructed solely for difficult-to-treat infections, including methicillin-resistant infections. Values for parameters in the decision model, such as mortality rate, reinfection rate, and need for additional surgeries, were derived from the literature. Medical costs were derived from Medicare data. Sensitivity analysis determined which parameters in the decision model had the most influence on the optimal strategy.Results: In both decision trees, the 1-stage strategy produced greater health utility while also being more cost-effective. In the Monte Carlo simulation for Decision Trees 1 and 2, 1-stage was the dominant strategy in about 85% and 69% of the trials, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the reinfection and 1-year mortality rates were the most sensitive parameters influencing the optimal decision.Conclusions: Despite 2-stage revision being considered the current gold standard for infection eradication in patients with PJI following TKA, the optimal decision that produced the highest quality of life was 1-stage revision. These results should be considered in shared decision-making with patients who experience PJI following TKA.Level Of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently determined that they could not recommend any screening strategies for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Disparate findings in the literature and treatment-related problems have led to confusion about whether or not to screen for this disorder. The purpose of the present study was to determine, with use of expected-value decision analysis, which of the following three strategies leads to the best chance of having a non-arthritic hip by the age of sixty years: (1) no screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip, (2) universal screening of newborns with both physical examination and ultrasonography, or (3) universal screening with physical examination but only selective use of ultrasonography for neonates considered to be at high risk. Methods: Developmental dysplasia of the hip, avascular necrosis, and the treatment algorithm were carefully defined. The outcome was determined as the probability of any neonate having a non-arthritic hip through the age of sixty years. A decision tree was then built with decision nodes as described above, and chance node probabilities were determined from a thorough review of the literature. Foldback analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The expected value of a favorable hip outcome was 0.9590 for the strategy of screening all neonates with physical examination and selective use of ultrasonography, 0.9586 for screening all neonates with physical examination and ultrasonography, and 0.9578 for no screening. A lower expected value implies a greater risk for the development of osteoarthritis as a result of developmental dysplasia of the hip or avascular necrosis; thus, the optimum strategy was selective screening. This model was robust to sensitivity analysis, except when the rate of missed dysplasia rose as high as 4/1000 or the rate of treated hip subluxation/dislocation was the same; then, the optimum strategy was to screen all neonates with both physical examination and ultrasonography. Conclusions: Our decision analytic model indicated that the optimum strategy, associated with the highest probability of having a non-arthritic hip at the age of sixty years, was to screen all neonates for hip dysplasia with a physical examination and to use ultrasonography selectively for infants who are at high risk. Additional data on the costs and cost-effectiveness of these screening policies are needed to guide policy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]