Table 2

Scenario analyses

Age and gender subgroupsMale, 75+ yearsFemale, <60 yearsFemale, 60–75 yearsFemale, 75+ years
Male, <60 yearsMale, 60–75 years
Base case assumptionsUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominant
(87%)(100%)(100%)(72%)(100%)(100%)
Distribution of parametric model for revision risk
 ExponentialUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominant
(92%)(100%)(100%)(78%)(100%)(100%)
 Log-normalUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominant
(89%)(100%)(100%)(77%)(100%)(100%)
Health utility
 Re-revision equal to revisionUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominant
(95%)(100%)(100%)(91%)(100%)(100%)
Cost
 Cost of re-revision 50% higher than revisionUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominantUKR dominant
(83%)(100%)(100%)(73%)(100%)(100%)
  • Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with probability of UKR being cost-effective, based on probabilistic sensitivity analysis and given a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000, in parentheses. UKR is considered ‘dominant’ if it is expected to improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Full results for each scenario analysis are detailed in the online supplementary appendix.

  • UKR, unicompartmental knee replacement.