Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 8 | Pages 559 - 566
1 Aug 2023
Hillier DI Petrie MJ Harrison TP Salih S Gordon A Buckley SC Kerry RM Hamer A

Aims

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.

Methods

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.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 538 - 538
1 Aug 2008
Manning V Buckley SC Kerry RM Stockley I Hamer AJ
Full Access

Aims: Dislocation is one of the commonest complications following total hip arthroplasty. A significant proportion of these patients go on to have recurrent dislocations. Many factors have been identified as contributing to the risk of dislocation but treatment of recurrent dislocation is challenging. The use of semicaptive acetabular components is a potential solution to the problem of recurrent dislocation but there are few studies into the efficacy of these implants.

Methods: Patients who underwent revision of their total hip arthroplasty to a semi-captive socket at the Lower Limb Arthroplasty Unit, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield between 2001 and March 2006 were studied. A proforma was designed and data was obtained from patients’ medical records. The number of dislocations both prior to revision to a semi-captive component and the following revision to a semi-captive acetabular component were recorded including the method of reduction Reasons for revision and the number and reasons for previous revisions were noted.

Results: Average time of follow up was 22 months (range 2 months – 5 years 1 month). Following revision of total hip arthroplasty to a semi-captive component, 78% suffered no further dislocations. Of those patients who went on to redislocate, three went on to have recurrent dislocations and all were reduced by closed reduction. One patient redislocated and underwent a second revision to a semi-captive acetabular component, which was successful and underwent no further dislocations.

Discussion. The results of this study show the use of semicaptive acetabular components in revision surgery for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty to be a highly effective solution to the problem of recurrent dislocation.