The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode.Aims
Methods
The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds.Aims
Methods
With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS).Aims
Methods
The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA.Aims
Methods
Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds. A total of 24 specimens were manufactured by pouring cement (Simplex P Bone Cement; Stryker) into stainless steel moulds, with a central rod polished to Stryker Exeter V40 specifications. After cement curing, the rods were removed and eight specimens were allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; and 3) no treatment. Internal holes were recemented, and each specimen was cut into 5 mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to the original grouping, recording ultimate shear strengths. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was completed, inspecting surfaces of shear-tested specimens.Objectives
Methods
In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined. A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN).Objectives
Methods
