Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic disability worldwide with a substantial impact on healthcare economies.1 The hip is the most commonly affected joint after the knee, and hip arthroplasty provides a low-morbidity, cost-effective solution to the pain and functional impairment arising from the disease.2 The long-term survivorship of these prostheses is also generally good.3
So, where is the problem? The answer lies, at least in part, on the cumulative cost of the disease and its treatment on the economy. The lifetime risk of hip arthroplasty in western countries in 2013 was approximately 10%, and this continues to increase.4 In 2017, the number of hip arthroplasties reported to the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland was 105 306. The current standard NHS tariff payment for a non-complex hip arthroplasty is approximately £6000. This equates to a direct treatment cost in this territory alone of more than £530 million per annum. This does not, however, include the overall economic cost, which for OA as a whole is estimated at 1% of annual gross national product, costing the United Kingdom economy £3.2 billion in lost production.
What can be done to make hip arthroplasty surgery more cost-effective?
The range of prosthesis construct combinations available is large; in England and Wales alone, there are over 800.5 Of these, in 2017 28.2% were of cemented fixation; 37.8% cementless; 30.3% hybrid (cemented stem); 3.1% reverse hybrid (cemented component); and 0.6% were hip resurfacing procedures. Of bearing interfaces, 57.6% were metal on polyethylene; 37.8% were ceramic on polyethylene; 9.0% were ceramic on ceramic; and less than 0.7% metal-on-metal. Given that these various combinations of prostheses have different pricing, and that their reoperation-free survival varies, there has been a strong move in the United Kingdom towards reducing the range of available prostheses by promoting those that are most cost-effective over the life of the patient. This ‘getting it right first time’ agenda is a logical solution for both patients at the population level and for the national economy. However, others argue that such a ‘one size fits all’ approach reduces healthcare to the economic consideration and stifles prosthesis innovation at a time when personalized care is also an important concern. Nonetheless, the NHS best practice tariff for hip arthroplasty from 1 April 2019 required that, at an institutional level, 80% of patients aged over 70 years receive either a fully cemented or hybrid prosthesis.
What about the younger patient with hip OA?
Increasing evidence shows us that hip OA is strongly heritable, with identified genetic variants accounting for 52% of that risk.6 Many of these variants modulate structural bone or cartilage genes responsible for normal joint development,6-9 raising the potential for novel therapeutic interventions. Synthetic biology approaches, gene editing, cellularised scaffolds, and other technologies are also bearing fruit in the preclinical setting,10-12 as are novel investigational drugs targeting established OA pathways,13 assisted by increased acceptance by regulatory authorities of structural endpoints for establishing their efficacy. However, these solutions will not form part of routine clinical care in the near future.
Recent data also suggest that the survivorship of hip arthroplasty in the younger patients is better than previously anticipated.14 However, priorities and expectations vary between patients. Large diameter metal-on-metal bearings are still favoured by some. While in selected young and active men, the revision-free survival of these prostheses may be similar to conventional hip arthroplasty,15 the performance of these bearings on the general population is poor,16 making them an expensive lifetime choice. Debate continues around cemented versus cementless fixation, patient survival, and lifetime costs. However, much of the case against cementless stems using contemporaneous bearing materials lies in additional implant cost and an increased risk of early periprosthetic fracture. Competitive pricing and advances in cementless implant design may also modulate these arguments in the future.
Where next?
Although drugs to prevent the progression of early arthritis, non-arthroplasty surgery, and regenerative medicine solutions to established disease will be realistic prospects for the future, our current best solution for advanced OA that does not respond to lifestyle measures and analgesics remains hip arthroplasty. Although non-conventional choices will remain for some, the majority of patients will have fewer choices as they are being cared for in a healthcare economy that has to balance cost against long-term survival.
Open access
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributions licence (CC-BY-NC), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, but not for commercial gain, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding statement
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
Conflicts of interest statement
J. M. Wilkinson is a board member of National Joint Registry.
Follow us @BoneJointRes
References
1. Cross M , Smith E , Hoy D et al. . The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis2014;73:1323-1330.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
2. Kamaruzaman H , Kinghorn P , Oppong R . Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2017;18:183.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
3. Evans JT , Evans JP , Walker RW et al. . A How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet2019;393:647-654. Google Scholar
4. Ackerman IN , Bohensky MA , de Steiger R et al. . Lifetime risk of primary total hip replacement surgery for osteoarthritis from 2003-2013: A multi-national analysis using national registry data. Arthritis Care Res2017;69:1659-1667. Google Scholar
5. Tucker K , Pickford M , Newell C et al. . Mixing of components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty: prevalence and comparative outcomes. Acta Orthop2015;86:671-677.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
6. Tachmazidou I , Hatzikotoulas K , Southam L et al. , arcOGEN Consortium. Identification of new therapeutic targets for osteoarthritis through genome-wide analyses of UK Biobank data. Nat Genet2019;51:230-236.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
7. Hatzikotoulas K , Roposch A , Shah KM et al. ; DDH Case Control Consortium. Genome-wide association study of developmental dysplasia of the hip identifies an association with GDF5. Commun Biol2018;1:56.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
8. Sekimoto T , Ishii M , Emi M et al. . Copy number loss in the region of the ASPN gene in patients with acetabular dysplasia: ASPN CNV in acetabular dysplasia. Bone Joint Res2017;6:439-445.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
9. Zhang X , Bu Y , Zhu B et al. . Global transcriptome analysis to identify critical genes involved in the pathology of osteoarthritis. Bone Joint Res2018;7:298-307.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
10. Qu F , Guilak F , Mauck RL . Cell migration: implications for repair and regeneration in joint disease. Nat Rev Rheumatol2019;15:167-179.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
11. Nishida K , Matsushita T , Takayama K et al. . Intraperitoneal injection of the SIRT1 activator SRT1720 attenuates the progression of experimental osteoarthritis in mice. Bone Joint Res2018;7:252-262.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
12. Lin H , Zhou J , Cao L , Wang HR , Dong J , Chen ZR . Tissue-engineered cartilage constructed by a biotin-conjugated anti-CD44 avidin binding technique for the repairing of cartilage defects in the weight-bearing area of knee joints in pigs. Bone Joint Res2017;6:284-295.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
13. Oo WM , Yu SP , Daniel MS , Hunter DJ . Disease-modifying drugs in osteoarthritis: current understanding and future therapeutics. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs2018;23:331-347.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
14. Metcalfe D , Peterson N , Wilkinson JM , Perry DC . Temporal trends and survivorship of total hip arthroplasty in very young patients: a study using the National Joint Registry data set. Bone Joint J2018;100-B:1320-1329.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
15. Van Der Straeten C , De Smet KA . Current expert views on metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Consensus of the 6th advanced Hip resurfacing course, Ghent, Belgium, May 2014. Hip Int2016;26:1-7.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
16. Smith AJ , Dieppe P , Howard PW et al. . Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet2012;380:1759-1766.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
