Cost-Effectiveness and Economic Impact of the KineSpring® Knee Implant System in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis in Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".