<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-10-18T23:53:57Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net:ebyu/10385" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net:ebyu/10385</identifier><datestamp>2026-10-18T20:33:40Z</datestamp><setSpec>openaire</setSpec><setSpec>driver</setSpec><setSpec>com_ebyu_10000</setSpec><setSpec>col_ebyu_10001</setSpec></header><metadata><oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><dc:title>High Tibial Osteotomy (HTO) Versus Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) in Medial-Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA): A Critical Narrative Review of Comparative Costs and Cost-Effectiveness</dc:title><dc:creator>Yapıcı, Furkan</dc:creator><dc:subject>cost-effectiveness</dc:subject><dc:subject>cost-utility</dc:subject><dc:subject>economic evaluation</dc:subject><dc:subject>high tibial osteotomy (HTO)</dc:subject><dc:subject>knee osteoarthritis (KOA)</dc:subject><dc:subject>Markov model</dc:subject><dc:subject>outpatient arthroplasty</dc:subject><dc:subject>QALY</dc:subject><dc:subject>unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA)</dc:subject><dc:subject>value-based care</dc:subject><dc:subject>arthroplasty</dc:subject><dc:subject>Canadian</dc:subject><dc:subject>cost benefit analysis</dc:subject><dc:subject>cost effectiveness analysis</dc:subject><dc:subject>cost of illness</dc:subject><dc:subject>data extraction</dc:subject><dc:subject>disability</dc:subject><dc:subject>economic model</dc:subject><dc:subject>follow up</dc:subject><dc:subject>health care system</dc:subject><dc:subject>high tibial osteotomy</dc:subject><dc:subject>human</dc:subject><dc:subject>knee osteoarthritis</dc:subject><dc:subject>Markov chain</dc:subject><dc:subject>outpatient</dc:subject><dc:subject>phenotype</dc:subject><dc:subject>probability</dc:subject><dc:subject>quality adjusted life year</dc:subject><dc:subject>reoperation</dc:subject><dc:subject>Review</dc:subject><dc:description>Background: Medial-compartment knee osteoarthritis (KOA) carries substantial disability and long-term cost. High tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are key joint-preserving or joint-replacing options for selected patients, but their comparative economic ranking remains uncertain. Methods: This critical narrative review synthesized comparative economic evidence on HTO versus UKA for isolated medial-compartment KOA. PubMed and Web of Science were searched as primary sources for English-language studies published from 1 January 2000 to 15 January 2026, while Google Scholar and citation tracking were used supplementarily to identify potentially missed records. Eligible studies were direct economic evaluations or comparative cost/resource studies with clear decision relevance to the HTO–UKA choice. Burden and cost-of-illness studies were used for contextual framing only and were not included in the core comparative synthesis. Results: The direct evidence base was small and methodologically heterogeneous and was dominated by decision-analytic models that differed in perspective, time horizon, utility metric, and assumptions regarding reoperation, revision, and conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). These structural differences largely explain why a U.S. lifetime societal model favored HTO, a UK age-stratified 10-year model produced age-dependent findings, and a recent Canadian public-payer model favored UKA. Observational studies suggest that UKA episode costs can fall substantially in outpatient or ambulatory pathways, whereas HTO costs may rise when reoperations and technique-specific resource use are explicitly captured. Conclusions: Current evidence does not support a context-free economic ranking of HTO and UKA. Because the available studies are heterogeneous and incremental utility differences are often small, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and as scenario-dependent rather than definitive. Future comparative analyses should use contemporary pathway data, transparent and standardized costing, and explicit downstream event definitions for both procedures. © 2026 by the author.</dc:description><dc:publisher>Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)</dc:publisher><dc:date>2026</dc:date><dc:type>Review Article</dc:type><dc:identifier>https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/10385</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma5020012</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>2813-0618</dc:identifier><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:relation>Pharmacoepidemiology</dc:relation><dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights><dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/review</dc:type><dc:identifier>https://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/tr/items/ebyu/10385</dc:identifier></oai_dc:dc></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>