Cost-Effectiveness and Economic Impact of the KineSpring® Knee Implant System in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a condition affecting 8.5 million individuals in the United Kingdom (UK). Although many treatment options are available, there is a need for a less-invasive treatment for individuals with mild to moderate knee OA. 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, taking into consideration cost-utility ratios. METHODS: Data was collected for the UK population breakdown. 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) gained 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 surgical treatment, total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment are £1,303±22/QALY, £821±175/QALY, £796±73/QALY and £11,096±1188/QALY, respectively. Assuming a treatment durability of 10 years, the cost-utility ratio of surgical treatment, TKA, the KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment are £4,153±95 per QALY, £2,698±768 per QALY, £2,848±345 per QALY, and £10,624±1528 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the KineSpring System is a cost-effective treatment for knee OA and is comparable to current standard-of-care treatments. Further research is needed to assess the long-term outcomes associated with the KineSpring System.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".