The purpose of this study was to examine the complications and outcomes of total hip replacement (THR) in super-obese patients (body mass index (BMI) > 50 kg/m. 2. ) compared with class I obese (BMI 30 to 34.9 kg/m. 2. ) and normal-weight patients (BMI 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m. 2. ), as defined by the World Health Organization. A total of 39 THRs were performed in 30 super-obese patients with a mean age of 53 years (31 to 72), who were followed for a mean of 4.2 years (2.0 to 11.7). This group was matched with two cohorts of normal-weight and class I obese patients, each comprising 39 THRs in 39 patients. Statistical analysis was performed to determine differences among these groups with respect to complications and satisfaction based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index, the Harris hip score (HHS) and the Short-Form (SF)-12 questionnaire. Super-obese patients experienced significantly longer hospital stays and higher rates of major complications and readmissions than normal-weight and class I obese patients. Although super-obese patients demonstrated reduced pre-operative and post-operative satisfaction scores, there was no significant difference in improvement, or change in the score, with respect to HHS or the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Super-obese patients obtain similar satisfaction outcomes as class I obese and normal-weight patients with respect to improvement in their scores. However, they experience a significant increase in length of hospital stay and major complication and readmission rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:758–63

Introduction. The obesity epidemic is a growing problem and must be considered with the projected increased demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previous studies have reported increased complication rates after THA in the obese population, which has led to hesitation in offering surgery to this population. Moreover, some insurers are denying coverage for morbidly obese patients. While many consider obesity a “modifiable” risk factor, very few patients with advanced osteoarthritis have successfully lost substantial weight. The experience of centers that utilize systematic preoperative risk stratification tools and standardized postoperative total joint pathways may be underrepresented in prior studies. The aim of this study is to describe one surgeon's experience performing THA in morbidly and super-obese patient populations using an institutional preoperative Risk Stratification Tool (RST) and total joints pathway. Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing primary THA between May 2014 and December 2017 performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary care referral center. All patients were assessed preoperatively using an institutional RST and had a minimum of 90-day postoperative follow up. Patients were stratified by body mass index (BMI, kg/m. 2. ): non-obese (BMI < 30), obese (30–34), severely obese (35–39), morbidly obese (40–44), and super-obese (≥ 45). Primary outcomes were inpatient and 90-day complications. Continuous and binary parameters were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests. Logistic regression was additionally utilized to evaluate outcomes by BMI cohort. Results. A consecutive series of 368 patients met inclusion criteria across all BMI cohorts. There was significant variation with respect to age (P=0.001), BMI (P<0.001), diabetes (P=0.008), ASA class (P<0.001), and anesthesia type (P=0.003) (Table 1). Variation among BMI cohorts was also identified for several operative and postoperative parameters, including longer operative and in-room time and greater length of stay (P<0.001) (Table 2). Compared to non-obese patients, super-obese patients had 20.1 greater odds of return to OR within 90 days for superficial surgical site infection (SSI) or prolonged round drainage (P=0.008) (Table 3). Notably, morbidly and super-obese patients were not at significantly increased risk for inpatient intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, blood transfusion, 90-day emergency room visit, or 90-day readmission compared to their non-obese counterparts. For patients in whom 1-year follow-up was available, these differences between BMI cohorts remained insignificant. Conclusions. Patients with BMI>40 are more likely than non-obese patients to have increased postoperative rehabilitation needs but are not at increased risk for in-hospital complications. Super-obese patients have greater risk of superficial SSI or prolonged wound drainage than non-obese patients but are not at increased risk for revision or deep infection in any cohort. Use of a preoperative RST may help to mitigate postoperative complications and readmissions previously associated with morbid and super-obesity. We conclude that THA can be safely performed in super-obese patients and therefore care should not be denied to this population. Summary sentence. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be safely performed in morbidly and super-obese patients with the use of a preoperative risk stratification tool (RST) and total joints pathway. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. The purpose of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of performing total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus nonoperative management (NM) in non-obese (BMI 18.5–24.9), overweight (25–29.9), obese (30–34.9), severely-obese (35–39.9), morbidly-obese (40–49.9), and super-obese (50+) patients. Methods. We constructed a state-transition Markov model to compare the cost-utility of THA and NM in the six above-mentioned BMI groups over a 15-year time period. Model parameters for transition probability (i.e. risk of revision, re-revision, death), utility, and costs (inflation adjusted to 2017 US dollars) were estimated from the literature. Direct medical costs of managing hip arthritis were accounted in the model. Indirect societal costs were not included. A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of THA versus NM. One-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the model parameters were performed to determine the robustness of the model. Results. Over the 15-year time period, the ICERs for THA versus NM were: normal-weight ($6,043/QALY), overweight ($5,770/QALY), obese ($5,425/QALY), severely-obese ($7,382/QALY), morbidly-obese ($8,338/QALY), and super-obese ($16,651/QALY). The two highest BMI groups had higher incremental QALYs and incremental costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that THA would be cost-effective in 100% of the normal, overweight, obese, severely-obese, and morbidly-obese simulations, and 99.95% of super-obese simulations at an ICER threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusion. Even at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, which is considered low for the United States, our model showed that THA would be cost effective for all obesity levels. Therefore, invoking BMI cut-offs for THA may lead to unjustifiable loss of healthcare access for obese patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis

The purpose of this study is to compare 90-day costs and outcomes for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients between a non-obese (BMI 18.5–24.9) versus overweight (25–29.9), obese (30–34.9), severely-obese (35–39.9), morbidly-obese (40–44.9), and super-obese (45+) cohorts. We conducted a retrospective review of a prospective institutional database of primary THA patients from 2006–2013, including patients with a minimum of three-year follow-up. Thirty-three super-obese patients were identified, and the other five cohorts were randomly selected in a 2:1 ratio (total n = 363). Demographics, 90-day outcomes (costs, reoperations, and readmissions), and outcomes after three years (revisions and change scores for SF12, HHS, and WOMAC) were collected. Costs were determined using unit costs from our institutional administrative data for all in-hospital resource utilization. Comparisons between the non-obese and other groups were made with Kruskal-Wallis tests for non-normal data and chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical data. The 90-day costs in the morbidly-obese ($13,134 ± 7,250 mean ± standard deviation, p <0.01) and super-obese ($15,604 ± 6,783, p <0.01) cohorts were statistically significantly greater than the non-obese cohorts ($10,315 ± 1,848). Only the super-obese cohort had statistically greater 90-day reoperation and readmission rates than the non-obese cohort (18.2% vs 0%, p <0.01 and 21.2% vs 4.5%, p=0.02, respectively). In addition, reoperations and septic revisions after 3 years were greater in the super-obese cohort compared to the non-obese cohort 21.2% vs 3.0% (p = 0.01), and 18.2% vs 1.5% (p= 0.01), respectively. There were no other statistical differences between the other cohorts with the non-obese cohort at 90-days or after 3 years. Improvements in SF12, HHS, and WOMAC were comparable in all cohorts. The 90-day costs of a primary total hip arthroplasty for morbidly-obese (BMI 40–44.9) and super-obese (BMI>45) are significantly greater than for non-obese patients, yet these patients have comparable improvements in outcome scores. Health care policies, when based purely on the economic impact of health care delivery, may place morbidly-obese and super-obese patients at risk of losing arthroplasty care, thereby denying them access to the comparable quality of life improvements