Advances in total hip and knee replacement technologies have heretofore been largely driven by corporate marketing hype with each seeming advancement accompanied by a cost increase often out in front of peer-reviewed reports documenting their efficacy or not. As example, consider the growing use of ceramic femoral heads in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The question to consider is “Can an upcharge of $350 for a ceramic femoral head in primary THA be justified?” The answer to this question lies in an appreciation of whether the technology modifies the potential for costly revision arthroplasty procedures. Peer-Reviewed Laboratory & Clinical Review - According to the 2022 Australian National Joint Replacement Registry, the four leading causes of primary THA failure requiring revision are: 1.) infection, 2.) dislocation/instability, 3.) periprosthetic fracture and 4.) loosening, which constitute 87.5% of the reported reasons for revision. Focusing on these failure modes, hip simulator findings report that ceramic femoral heads dramatically reduce wear debris generation, decreasing the potential for osteolytic response leading to loosening. Further, ceramic materials enable the utilization of larger head sizes, avoiding the potential for dislocation. The overall mid- to long-term survival rate reported in the peer-reviewed, clinical literature for these bearings has exceeded 95% with virtually no osteolysis. Also, could bearing surface choice influence periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)? A study on a total of more than 10,500 primary THA procedures reported a confirmed PJI incidence of 2.4% for cobalt-chrome and 1.6% for ceramic femoral heads, suggesting that the employ of a ceramic bearing surface may also play a role in decreasing the potential for infection. Review of the clinical data available for ceramic bearings justifies that it is better to “pay me now than to pay orders of magnitude later”, if in fact a revision THA can be avoided, significantly reducing the overall financial burden to the healthcare system

The increased demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is having a significant impact on healthcare resources, resulting in increased interest in outpatient care pathways to reduce resource consumption. This study compared costs between patients who underwent outpatient THA using a Direct Anterior (DA) approach compared to a Direct Lateral (DL) approach to understand the effect of surgical approach on resource use. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial for DA patients undergoing primary THA. We compared patients in the outpatient arm of the trial to a prospective cohort of outpatient DL approach THAs. We recorded all costs including: equipment, length of stay in hospital, and laboratory or other medical tests. Following discharge, participants also completed a self-reported cost diary recording resource utilization such as emergency department visits or subsequent hospitalizations, tests and procedures, consultations or follow-up, healthcare professional services, rehabilitation, use of pain medications, informal care, productivity losses and out of pocket expenditures. We report costs from both Canadian public health care payer (HCP) and a societal perspective. The HCP perspective includes any direct health costs covered by the publicly funded system. In addition to the health care system costs, the societal perspective also includes additional costs to the patient (e.g. physiotherapy, medication, or assistive devices), as well as any indirect costs such as time off paid employment for patients or caregivers. We included 127 patients in the DA group (66.6 years old) and 51 patients in the DL group (59.4 years old) (p<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in costs between groups from both the healthcare payer (DA= 7910.19, DL= 7847.17, p=0.80) and societal perspectives (DA= 14657.21, DL= 14581.21, p=0.96). In patients undergoing a successful outpatient hip replacement, surgical approach does not have an effect on cost from in hospital or societal perspectives

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants. The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low. The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) incidence following hip replacement surgery continues to rise. There is a national drive to centralise PFF treatment within specialist centres to improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The financial implications of treating PFFs must be analysed to guide allocation of funding. Data were collected for 129 PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014–19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by the Patient Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) team. Primary outcomes were cost, revenue and margin for each PFF. Additional data were collected on length of stay (LOS), critical care requirements and clinical outcomes. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type (fixation vs revision). Significance was set to p<0.05. Across the entire cohort, total cost was £2,389,901, total revenue was £1,695,435 and total loss was £694,481. Highest costs were ward stay (£714,591), theatre utilisation (£382,625), and overheads (£249,110). Median cost was £15,863 (IQR, £11,092-£22,221), median revenue was £11,305 (IQR, £7,147-£15,222) and median loss was £3,795 (IQR, £605-£8687). Median LOS was 21 days (IQR 13–34) and 28.7% patients required critical care admission. Ninety-six patients were treated operatively with either fixation (n=53) or revision (n=43). Median operating time was lower for fixation versus revision (132 [IQR, 115–185] vs 201 [IQR, 159–229] minutes, p=0.001). Median cost (£17,455 [IQR, £13,095-£22,824] vs £17,399 [£13,394-£23,404]) and median loss (£5,774 [IQR, £2,092-£10,472] vs £3,860 [IQR, £96-£7,601]) were similar for fixation and revision (p=0.99 and p=0.18, respectively). Median revenue was greater for revision versus fixation (£13,925 [IQR, £11,294-£17,037] vs £12,160 [IQR, £8,486-£14,390], p=0.02). There was no difference in LOS (21 [13–34] vs 21 [14–30] days, p=0.94), critical care requirements (20 [37.7%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.30), reoperations (3 [5.7%] vs 6 [14.0%], p=0.29], local complications (8 [15.1%) vs 12 [27.9%], p=0.20) or systemic complications (11 [20.8%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.75) between fixation and revision. PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement through tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce costs associated with LOS, theatre utilisation and implants. Treatment cost should not be used when deciding between fixation and revision surgery

Introduction. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective surgery for the treatment of advanced osteoarthritis but increasing numbers of these procedures are having a significant impact on healthcare budgets. One route to mitigate the increasing costs is outpatient THA, discharging patients on the same day as their surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost of outpatient THA compared to standard overnight stay in hospital. Methods. This was a prospective-randomized controlled trial for patients undergoing primary THA through a direct anterior approach. Participants were randomized to be discharged on the same day as surgery, as outpatients, or on day one post-surgery, as inpatients, using a Zelen consent model. Adverse events were assessed, and participants completed self-reported cost questionnaires at two-, six- and 12-weeks post-surgery, and the WOMAC preoperatively and at 12-weeks post-surgery. We performed a cost analysis from health care payer (HCP) and societal perspectives. Results. 106 patients were enrolled in this study, with 50 randomized to outpatient and 56 randomized to inpatient THA. Seven patients from the outpatient group and five patients from the inpatient group crossed-over. Adverse event rate was similar between the groups with seven events in four participants in the inpatient group and three events in two participants in the outpatient group. WOMAC scores were not significantly different between the groups (p=0.12). From both a HCP and societal perspective, inpatient THA was more costly than outpatient THA. The cost difference was $3,353.15 for HCP (p<0.0001) and $3,703.30 for societal (p=0.003) in favour of outpatient THA. Conclusion. Our results suggest that outpatient THA is a cost-saving procedure when compared to inpatient THA from both HCP and societal perspectives. We will continue recruitment to investigate whether these results hold true in a larger sample as well as assess for cost-effectiveness, patient safety and satisfaction. Acknowledgements. This study was supported by the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario (AMOSO). We also received funding from the PSI Foundation. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Many different designs of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with varying performance and cost are available. The identification of those which are the most cost-effective could allow significant cost-savings. We used an established Markov model to examine the cost effectiveness of five frequently used categories of THA which differed according to bearing surface and mode of fixation, using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Kaplan–Meier analyses of rates of revision for men and women were modelled with parametric distributions. Costs of devices were provided by the NHS Supply Chain and associated costs were taken from existing studies. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) and the probability of a device being cost effective at a willingness to pay £20 000/QALY were included in the models. The differences in QALYs between different categories of implant were extremely small (<  0.0039 QALYs for men or women over the patient’s lifetime) and differences in cost were also marginal (£2500 to £3000 in the same time period). As a result, the probability of any particular device being the most cost effective was very sensitive to small, plausible changes in quality of life estimates and cost. . Our results suggest that available evidence does not support recommending a particular device on cost effectiveness grounds alone. We would recommend that the choice of prosthesis should be determined by the rate of revision, local costs and the preferences of the surgeon and patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:449–57

Tranexamic Acid (TXA) is now commonly used in major surgical operations including orthopaedics. The TRAC-24 randomised control trial aimed to assess if an additional 24 hours of TXA post – operatively in primary total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reduced blood loss. Contrary to other orthopaedic studies to date this trial included high risk patients. This paper presents the results of a cost analysis undertaken alongside this RTC. TRAC-24 was a prospective randomised controlled trial on patients undergoing TKA and THA. Three groups were included, Group 1 received 1 g intravenous (IV) TXA perioperatively and an additional 24-hour post-operative oral regime, group 2 received only the perioperative dose and group 3 did not receive TXA. Cost analysis was performed out to day 90. Group 1 was associated with the lowest mean total costs, followed by group 2 and then group 3. The difference between groups 1 and 3 −£797.77 (95% CI −1478.22, −117.32) were statistically significant. Extended oral dosing reduced costs for patients undergoing THA but not TKA. The reduced costs in groups 1 and 2 resulted from reduced length of stay, readmission rates, Accident and Emergency (A&E) attendances and blood transfusions. This study demonstrated significant cost savings when using TXA in primary THA or TKA. Extended oral dosing reduced costs further in THA but not TKA

There is little evidence on the cost effectiveness of different brands of hip prostheses. We compared lifetime cost effectiveness of frequently used brands within types of prosthesis including cemented (Exeter V40 Contemporary, Exeter V40 Duration and Exeter V40 Elite Plus Ogee), cementless (Corail Pinnacle, Accolade Trident, and Taperloc Exceed) and hybrid (Exeter V40 Trilogy, Exeter V40 Trident, and CPT Trilogy). We used data from three linked English national databases to estimate the lifetime risk of revision, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost. . For women with osteoarthritis aged 70 years, the Exeter V40 Elite Plus Ogee had the lowest risk of revision (5.9% revision risk, 9.0 QALYs) and the CPT Trilogy had the highest QALYs (10.9% revision risk, 9.3 QALYs). Compared with the Corail Pinnacle (9.3% revision risk, 9.22 QALYs), the most commonly used brand, and assuming a willingness-to-pay of £20 000 per QALY gain, the CPT Trilogy is most cost effective, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £876. Differences in cost effectiveness between the hybrid CPT Trilogy and Exeter V40 Trident and the cementless Corail Pinnacle and Taperloc Exceed were small, and a cautious interpretation is required, given the limitations of the available information. However, it is unlikely that cemented brands are among the most cost effective. Similar patterns of results were observed for men and other ages. The gain in quality of life after total hip arthroplasty, rather than the risk of revision, was the main driver of cost effectiveness. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:762–70

Introduction. Patient demand for hip and knee arthroplasty continues to rise. Information sources providing data on the volume and cost of Medicare total joint arthroplasty by hospital are of use to patients and healthcare professionals. Data have demonstrated that higher volume surgeons are associated with lower cost, morbidity, and mortality. The current study assesses if the same is true for hospitals. Methods. The Limited Data Set (LDS) from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) were used for this study. All elective, DRG 470 Total Hip Arthroplasties (THA) reported by CMS from the first quarter of 2013 through the second quarter of 2016 were included. Volume and part A Medicare payments over a 90-day period for the 20 highest volume hospitals in the US were analyzed. Cost associated with initial hospital stay and post discharge skilled nursing, home health, long term acute care, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and readmission was aggregated and analyzed. For each episode, demographic information (age, sex, and race), geographic location, and Elixhauser comorbidities were calculated to control for major confounding factors in the regression. Results. For the 20 highest volume centers in the US, total joint volume for CMS insured patients varied from 1104 to 5069. Average cost varied from $16,974 to $22,094. For the 20 highest volume cities in the US, total joint volume for CMS insured patients varied from 1,501 to 6,727. Average Medicare part A payment varied from $14,255 to $21,125. Readmission % varied from 3.9% to 8.2%. 90-day mortality varied from 0.0% to 0.57%. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. The variation in volume between the top 20 centers in the US varies by more than a factor of 4 with the highest volume hospital having almost twice the volume as the second highest hospital. Part A payments, readmissions, and mortality also varied widely. Within the top 20 hospitals by volume, there does not appear to be a correlation between volume and cost

Introduction. Local commissioning groups are no longer funding outpatient follow up of joint replacements in an effort to save money. We present the costs of changing from traditional follow up methods to a virtual clinic at Warwick Hospital. Before September 2014 all joint replacements were seen in outpatients at six weeks, one year, five years, ten years and then every two years thereafter. They were usually reviewed, in a non-consultant led clinic, by a Band 7 specialist physiotherapist. This cost approximately £50 per patient including x-ray. Occasionally, the patients were seen in a consultant led clinic costing approximately £100. Methods and Results. Currently patients are reviewed in outpatients at six weeks and one-year post operation by a specialist physiotherapist. Patients over the age of 75 years (at time of surgery) are then discharged to the care of their GP. Patients under the age of 75 enter the virtual clinic. They receive an Oxford Hip/Knee Score and x-ray at seven years post op then every three years after. In order to set up and maintain the virtual clinic a midpoint band 3 administrator was employed. Based on 3000 follow up episodes per year the cost of administrating the database is £7 per patient; however this will vary dependent on actual activity. The cost of a virtual appointment with a specialist physiotherapist who will review the Oxford Hip/Knee Score and an x-ray is approximately £40 including x-ray. The total cost of a virtual clinic follow up is therefore approximately £47. Conclusion. Virtual clinics do not save large amounts of money compared to outpatient follow up by specialist physiotherapists and may actually cost more if significant numbers of patients need to be brought back to clinic. They incur significant administration costs (including set up) but do free up outpatient availability to see new patients

Introduction. Total Hip Arthroplasty has been shown to have excellent long term outcomes, yet early reoperation remains a risk. The current study assesses the incidence, causes, and cost associated with early revision following elective primary THA in the US Medicare population. Methods. The study used the Limited Data Set (LDS) from the Centers for Medicate and Medicaid Services (CMS) to identify all primary THA (DRG 469/470) performed in the US (excluding Maryland) during 2016. All cases were followed for one year after the original date of operation to create a database of readmissions after surgery. These data allowed for the determination of the 1-year incidence and type of reoperation, the timing of reoperation, the admitting diagnosis, hospital utilization, and total cost. Results. There were 164,050 THA performed on Medicare patients in the US in 2016. After surgery, there were 24,728 associated readmissions during the 1-year follow-up, or a readmission rate of 15.1%. There were 5,646 readmissions with a procedure performed on the hip; this represents 23% of the total 1-year readmissions after surgery, or a reoperation rate of 3.4%. Admission for reoperation was the most common reason for readmission following elective primary THA. When looking at reoperations, fracture was the most common (41.69%). 45% of reoperations occur within the first 30 days, 74% of reoperations occur within the first 90 days, and 26% of reoperations occur between days 90 and 360. For reoperations, a primary diagnosis of infection was associated with the highest average total cost ($104,024). Conclusions. Revision after THA is both a frequent occurance and expensive one. Fractures are the most common diagnoses that lead to revision, followed by dislocation. Increased focus to reduce complications such as fracture and dislocation would have the most beneficial impact on the patient, as well as on the healthcare system. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

The debate whether to use cemented or uncemented components in primary total hip replacement (THR) has not yet been considered with reference to the cost implications to the National Health Service. We obtained the number of cemented and uncemented components implanted in 2009 from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The cost of each component was established. The initial financial saving if all were cemented was then calculated. Subsequently the five-year rates of revision for each type of component were reviewed and the predicted number of revisions at five years for the actual components used was compared with the predicted number of revisions for a cemented THR. This was then multiplied by the mean cost of revision surgery to provide an indication of the savings over the first five years if all primary THRs were cemented. The saving at primary THR was calculated to be £10 million with an additional saving during the first five years of between £5 million and £8.5 million. The use of cemented components in routine primary THR in the NHS as a whole can be justified on a financial level but we recognise individual patient factors must be considered when deciding which components to use

To assess the sustainability of our institutional bone bank, we calculated the final product cost of fresh-frozen femoral head allografts and compared these costs with the use of commercial alternatives. Between 2007 and 2010 all quantifiable costs associated with allograft donor screening, harvesting, storage, and administration of femoral head allografts retrieved from patients undergoing elective hip replacement were analysed. . From 290 femoral head allografts harvested and stored as full (complete) head specimens or as two halves, 101 had to be withdrawn. In total, 104 full and 75 half heads were implanted in 152 recipients. The calculated final product costs were €1367 per full head. Compared with the use of commercially available processed allografts, a saving of at least €43 119 was realised over four-years (€10 780 per year) resulting in a cost-effective intervention at our institution. Assuming a price of between €1672 and €2149 per commercially purchased allograft, breakeven analysis revealed that implanting between 34 and 63 allografts per year equated to the total cost of bone banking. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1307–11

Introduction. Hip fractures are a common pathology treated by Orthopaedic surgeons. The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model utilizes risk stratification to set target prices for these patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that sub-specialty arthroplasty surgeons would be able to treat patients at a lower cost compared to surgeons of other specialties during cases performed while on call. Methods. Patients with hemiarthroplasty or THA for hip fractures were retrospectively collected from June, 2013, to May, 2017, from a single tertiary referral center. Demographic information and outcomes based on length of stay (LOS), net payment, and target payment were collected. Patients were then stratified by surgeon subspecialty (arthroplasty trained vs. other specialty). Univariable and multivariable analysis for payment based on treating surgeon was then performed. Results. 197 hip fracture patients were included through the collection period. 40 patients were treated by arthroplasty surgeons and 157 patients were not. There was no difference in LOS, however, when treated by arthroplasty trained surgeons, they were significantly more likely to have a lower net payment (32,507 vs. 42,518; p=0.001) with cost of care below the target payment (80.0% vs 51.6%; p=0.001), partially stemming from decreased discharges to skilled nursing facilities (p=0.008). In multivariable regression controlling for age, sex, BMI, ASA score, and procedure, arthroplasty surgeons were more likely to perform under the target price, which approached statistical significance (OR 2.177; 95% CI 0.866–5.474; p=0.098). Discussion and Conclusion. Hip fracture patients are commonly treated by on-call surgeons given the need to expedite their care. However, given the bundled payment model implemented by CJR, there must be special consideration to fracture stratification, implant selection, and surgeon experience. If feasible, our data suggests that an arthroplasty surgeon may contribute to decreased cost of care; a larger multicenter study is required

Background. Routine closed suction drainage and postoperative laboratory studies have long been tenets of most TJA protocols. However, recent literature has called into question whether either is necessary with modern outpatient TJA clinical pathways. Methods. Demographic, cost, and readmission data for 2,605 primary unilateral TJA cases was collected retrospectively and analyzed prior to and after a protocol change where routine closed suction drains and postoperative laboratory tests were eliminated. This protocol change was designed to treat all primary TJA like outpatients regardless of their admission status. Drain usage changed from routine to selective based on hemostasis. Lab studies changed from routine to selective for patients on warfarin for VTE prophylaxis (INR), with ASA 4 or 5 status (BMP), and with a hematocrit < 27% in the recovery room after THA (CBC). Results. Drain utilization decreased by 50% and postoperative labs decreased by 70%. Drain and lab test cost per patient decreased from $74.62 before to $19.91 after the change, while charges per patient decreased from $625.23 before to $77.15 after. The 30 and 90-day readmission rates decreased with no readmissions occurring before or after the change that could have been prevented by using a drain or obtaining labs. Conclusion. Selective elimination of routine closed suction drainage and postoperative laboratory studies as part of an outpatient TJA protocol is safe and provides cost savings for inpatient primary TJA. Per 100 cases, this change could decrease institution costs by $5,500 and patient charges by $55,000 without decreasing quality or safety

Introduction. Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in “at-risk” Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients, and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed if patients were not recalled. Methods. All BHR patients subject to the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes 46mm or below, regardless of symptoms) at one specialist centre were invited for review (707 hips). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data, as was the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid missing one case of asymptomatic ARMD. Results. The overall institutional surveillance cost to investigate all patients once was £105,922 (range £148 to £258 per patient). The most expensive aspects of surveillance were radiographs (£39,598), advanced nurse practitioner assistance (£23,618), cross-sectional imaging (£14,828), and blood metal ions (£14,825). 31 hips had imaging evidence of ARMD (12 revised, with 19 under surveillance). Seven hips were asymptomatic, however all revisions were symptomatic. The NNT to avoid missing one case of asymptomatic ARMD (on imaging and/or requiring revision) was 101 patients, equating to a screening cost of £18,041 to avoid one case of asymptomatic ARMD. Conclusions. Implementing MHRA surveillance for “at-risk” BHR patients was extremely costly, both financially and logistically. As the risk of asymptomatic ARMD was low, our data suggests the 2015 MHRA surveillance is not cost-effective. We therefore have concerns about the increasingly intensive surveillance recommended in the 2017 MHRA guidance for all metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients

Introduction. This study aimed to: (1) compare published follow-up guidelines for metal-on-metal (MoM) hip patients and analyse protocols in relation to current evidence, and (2) assess the financial implications of these guidelines. Methods. Follow-up guidance for MoM hips from five national authorities (MHRA in the UK; EFORT; United States FDA; Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia; Health Canada) were contrasted and critically appraised. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data (67,363 MoM hips implanted) the cost of annual surveillance for all MoM hips recorded in the NJR was calculated for each protocol. Results. Significant differences existed between recommended guidance, with protocols not reflecting the best available evidence. These include not stratifying patients according to implant type (total hip replacement (THR) or hip resurfacing (HR)) or adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) risk factors, using symptoms to decide patient follow-up, and using suboptimal blood metal ion thresholds to identify poorly performing hips. Patients with asymptomatic ARMD lesions, especially HR patients with no ARMD risk factors, would not be identified by most protocols. Vast cost differences exist between protocols when considering annual surveillance of the NJR population. The MHRA guidance was cheapest for annual follow-up (£8,264,064/10,423,296 Euro/$13,717,440). The most expensive protocols were those recommended by the FDA (£22,321,020/28,134,526 Euro/$37,029,889) and EFORT (£22,708,226/28,590,554 Euro/$37,671,431), both approaching three-times the MHRA costs. The FDA protocol was most costly for surveillance of all symptomatic patients (£18,210,816/22,947,840 Euro/$30,228,480), and EFORTs was most costly for asymptomatic HR patients (£8,283,010 / 10,428,250 Euro / $13,735,495). Discussion. Current MoM hip follow-up guidance is not evidence-based. Most protocols lack the sensitivity to detect asymptomatic ARMD lesions. It is also clear that these protocols are not financially sustainable in the long-term. Conclusions. Further work is required to ensure future guidance published by authorities is more unified as well as both clinically and cost effective

In March 2012, an algorithm for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip was introduced in our academic department of Orthopaedic Surgery. It included the use of specified implants for particular patterns of fracture. In this cohort study, 102 consecutive patients presenting with an intertrochanteric fracture were followed prospectively (post-algorithm group). Another 117 consecutive patients who had been treated immediately prior to the implementation of the algorithm were identified retrospectively as a control group (pre-algorithm group). The total cost of the implants prior to implementation of the algorithm was $357 457 (mean: $3055 (1947 to 4133)); compared with $255 120 (mean: $2501 (1052 to 4133)) after its implementation. There was a trend toward fewer complications in patients who were treated using the algorithm (33% pre- versus 22.5% post-algorithm; p = 0.088). Application of the algorithm to the pre-algorithm group revealed a potential overall cost saving of $70 295. The implementation of an evidence-based algorithm for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures reduced costs while maintaining quality of care with a lower rate of complications and re-admissions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1192–7

Widespread use of XLPE has reduced the incidence of both revision surgery and dislocations. This paper aims to create gross estimates of the magnitude of the resulting cost savings. Data about decreasing rates of revision surgery and dislocations after THA, comparing XLPE versus CPE, were obtained from the literature along with figures for costs. Gross estimates were generated from these figures. AOA NJRR 17 reports that at 15 years XLPE reduced the “all cause” revision rate of ceramic on polyethylene by 6.8% and at 16 years reduced the rate for metal on polyethylene by 6.5%. Their average 15 year figure was 4.8%, nearly in half. Dislocations were reduced by 24%. Other data substantiate these trends. Inclusive costs of nonseptic revisions in US dollars, incorporating those relevant costs for the year prior to and the year following surgery, have been shown to average in the neighborhood of $55,000. Dislocations add further to the costs. The estimated savings from XLPE by 15 years on those total hip replacements done in one year in North America equal nearly $1 billion, even without incorporating any increase annually in the number done. While the specific savings in other countries with lower costs are less, similar proportions likely obtain. Despite all the assumptions, the magnitude is striking. In addition to major benefits to the patients, the surgeons, and the hospitals, XLPE affords a massive advantage economically

Introduction

We are a high-volume arthroplasty unit performing over 800 primary THRs annually at an approximate reimbursement of £6.5 million to the Trust. 70% are hybrid and we have been using the Taperfit - Trinity combination (Corin, Cirencester) since March 2016. We aimed to investigate the potential cost-savings and clinical benefits of instrument rationalisation using this system following GIRFT principles.