Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431

The Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) was developed by modified Delphi system in 2022 to provide a comprehensive, reproducible framework for the multidisciplinary discussion of complex revision hip surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the validity, intra-relater and inter-relater reliability of the RHCC. Radiographs and clinical vignettes of 20 consecutive patients who had undergone revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) at our unit during the previous 12-month period were provided to observers. Five observers, comprising 3 revision hip consultants, 1 hip fellow and 1 ST3-8 registrar were familiarised with the RHCC. Each revision THA case was classified on two separate occasions by each observer, with a mean time between assessments of 42.6 days (24–57). Inter-observer reliability was assessed using the Fleiss™ Kappa statistic and percentage agreement. Intra-observer reliability was assessed using the Cohen Kappa statistic. Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen Kappa comparing observers to the RHCC web-based application result. All observers were blinded to patient notes, operation notes and post-operative radiographs throughout the process. Inter-observer reliability showed fair agreement in both rounds 1 and 2 of the survey (0.296 and 0.353 respectively), with a percentage agreement of 69% and 75%. Inter-observer reliability was highest in H3-type revisions with kappa values of 0.577 and 0.441. Mean intra-observer reliability showed moderate agreement with a kappa value of 0.446 (0.369 to 0.773). Validity percentage agreement was 44% and 39% respectively, with mean kappa values of 0.125 and 0.046 representing only slight agreement. This study demonstrates that classification using the RHCC without utilisation of the web-based application is unsatisfactory, showing low validity and reliability. Reliability was higher for more complex H3-type cases. The use of the RHCC web app is recommended to ensure the accurate and reliable classification of revision THA cases

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/m. 2. 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. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) can be complex and associated with significant cost, with an increasing burden within the UK and globally. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed aiming to improve outcomes, reduce re-revisions and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for the 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 over two consecutive financial years (2018–2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and by mode of failure; infected or non-infected. Patients of ASA grade of 3 or greater or BMI over 40 are considered “high-risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using PLICS and remuneration based on the HRG data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per episode per patient. Comparisons between groups were analysed using analysis of variance and two-tailed unpaired t-test. 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1), 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2) and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). 76 (38%) cases were due to infection. 78 (39%) of patients were in the “high-risk” group. Median length of stay increased with case complexity from 4, to 6 to 8 days (p=0.17) and significantly for revisions performed for infection (9 vs 5 days; p=0.01). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p=0.0002) and for infected revisions (p=0.003). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit, but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£301, £1,820 and £4,757 per case; p=0.02) and for infected failure (£4,023 vs £1,679; p=0.02). The total deficit to the trust for the two-years was £512,202. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHA at major revision centres (MRC) will likely place a greater financial burden on these units