Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26116078›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2015

Local anaesthetic wound infiltration in addition to standard anaesthetic regimen in total hip and knee replacement: long-term cost-effectiveness analyses alongside the APEX randomised controlled trials.

Elsa Mr Marques, Ashley W Blom, Erik Lenguerrand, Vikki Wylde, Sian M Noble

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elsa Mr MarquesSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. e.marques@bristol.ac.uk.
Ashley W BlomMusculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. ashley.blom@bristol.ac.uk.
Erik LenguerrandMusculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. erik.lenguerrand@bristol.ac.uk.
Vikki WyldeMusculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. v.wylde@bristol.ac.uk.
Sian M NobleSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. s.m.noble@bristol.ac.uk.
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10070Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Arthroplasty Pain Experience (APEX) studies are two randomised controlled trials in primary total hip (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) at a large UK orthopaedics centre. APEX investigated the effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration (LAI), administered before wound closure, in addition to standard analgesia, on pain severity at 12 months. This article reports results of the within-trial economic evaluations.

methodsCost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social care payer perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and the primary clinical outcome, the WOMAC Pain score at 12-months follow-up. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient-completed postal questionnaires, and valued using unit cost estimates from local NHS Trust finance department and national tariffs. Missing data were addressed using multiple imputation chained equations. Costs and outcomes were compared per trial arm and plotted in cost-effectiveness planes. If no arm was dominant (i.e., more effective and less expensive than the other), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. The economic results were bootstrapped incremental net monetary benefit statistics (INMB) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses explored any methodological uncertainty.

resultsIn both the THR and TKR trials, LAI was the dominant treatment: cost-saving and more effective than standard care, in relation to QALYs and WOMAC Pain. Using the £20,000 per QALY threshold, in THR, the INMB was £1,125 (95 % BCI, £183 to £2,067) and the probability of being cost-effective was over 98 %. In TKR, the INMB was £264 (95 % BCI, -£710 to £1,238), but there was only 62 % probability of being cost-effective. When considering an NHS perspective only, LAI was no longer dominant in THR, but still highly cost-effective, with an INMB of £961 (95 % BCI, £50 to £1,873).

conclusionsAdministering LAI is a cost-effective treatment option in THR and TKR surgeries. The evidence, because of larger QALY gain, is stronger for THR. In TKR, there is more uncertainty around the economic result, and smaller QALY gains. Results, however, point to LAI being cheaper than standard analgesia, which includes a femoral nerve block.

trial registrationISRCTN96095682 , 29/04/2010.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedAnesthesia, LocalAnesthetics, LocalArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePain ManagementPostoperative PainQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSurveys and QuestionnairesWound Closure TechniquesAnesthetics, Local

Identifiers

PMID26116078
PMCPMC4496938
OpenAlexW2097654514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.