Introduction

The Best Practice Tariff (BpT) for primary THR / TKR was established in 2014 and rewards good clinical practice with a £550 uplift on the £5000 basic reimbursement. For an ‘average unit’ performing 220 primary THR and 260 eligible knee surgeries (NJR data) this equates to £265,000 per year or over £1million since its inception. The aim of this study was to investigate why Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Trust was not receiving this reimbursement.

Aim

A new multidisciplinary hip fracture pathway, based on national BOA and NICE guidance, was introduced in our institution to facilitate rapid preoperative medical optimisation and early surgery for patients with hip fractures. The aim of this audit was to assess its impact on patient care and outcomes.

Aim: A study to compare bone remodeling (BMD changes) around the femoral component of a cemented and uncemented THR using DXA scan and Finite element analysis and to check the predictive value of remodelling simulations as a pre-clinical implant testing tool.

Methods: Twenty patients were recruited, ten for each implant type (Exeter and ABG-II). All volunteers underwent unilateral hip replacement. No patient had any metabolic bone disease or were on medication that would alter BMD. Each patient had a preopera-tive CT scan of the hip, in order to provide 3D bone shape and density data needed to construct a computer model. Each patient’s changes of BMD over a period of 12 months postoperatively were evaluated in a series of 4 follow-up DXA scans taken at 3 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months post-op. For the computer simulation, Finite Element (FE) models of the affected femur were constructed for each patient and BMD changes predicted using strain adaptive bone remodelling theory. These patients were clinical followed up to access the hip scores (Merle d’Aubigne Postel)

Results: All the patients were Charnely group A and had excellent postoperative hip scores (average pain 5.5, walking 5.4 and range of motion 5.3) The Exeter stem DXA results show bone resorption in Gruen zone 3 (2.8% on average) and 4 (3.3%) whereas there is a tendency for bone deposition at regions 1, 6 and 7 (2% on average). The ABG-II stem results show bone resorption developing at regions 7 and 4 (6% and 2% respectively) and some bone formation at region 6 (2%). The simulation results have a tendency to overestimate amounts of bone resorption (20% at region 7 for the ABG-II, 12% at region 3 for the Exeter).

Conclusion: A comparison of the remodelling around a cemented and a non-cemented hip implant show important differences in the emerging patterns of adaptation. To our knowledge, very few published studies provide information on bone remodelling around cemented stems, and compare the results to those of an uncemented stem. Additionally, the simulation results suggest that these formulations can reproduce realistic patterns of bone adaptation. This study aims at providing the means for comparison and subsequent improvement of the accuracy of the simulations and thus helps develop a hip prosthesis that would led to least bone resorption.