PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the KineSpring System is a more effective treatment for knee OA when compared to other standard treatments, considering cost-utility ratios.
METHODS: A literature search provided data on conservative and surgical treatment costs and functional outcome scores. The KineSpring System outcome scores were obtained from two trials. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-utility ratios were calculated for each treatment option assuming a lifetime durability as well as 10-year durability.
RESULTS: Assuming lifetime durability, the cost-utility ratios of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), high tibial osteotomy (HTO), the KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment were €2348±70 per QALY, €2040±61 per QALY, €2281 ± 68 per QALY, €1669±268 per QALY, and €11,688±2185 per QALY, respectively. Assuming a treatment durability of 10 years, the cost-utility ratio of TKA, UKA, HTO, the KineSpring System and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment were €4,884±323 per QALY, €4243±280 per QALY, €4,744 ±313 per QALY, €3757±1353 per QALY, and €10,575±4414 per QALY, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Compared to current standard-of-care treatments, the KineSpring System has a favorable cost-utility ratio, making it an effective treatment option and a suitable cost-saving alternative. The KineSpring System is associated with lower cost and increased QALYs. Future research is needed to further examine the long-term outcomes associated with the KineSpring System.