This study aimed to assess the effect of PRP on knee articular cartilage content (thickness and/or volume) and establish if there is a correlation between changes in cartilage and clinical outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. A systematic review was performed following the Cochrane methodology. Studies were included if they reported on cartilage content with MRI or Ultrasound before and after the injection. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
With the ever increasing rate of total hip replacement and life span of these patients, there has been an upward trend towards the incidence of peri-prosthetic fractures. Previous studies does suggest the implant cost to as high as 30% of the total reimbursement in primary hip arthroplasty but this figure is much higher in periprosthetic fractures where long stem revisions are commonly used A prospective comparative study analyzing the total cost of hospital stay for a cohort of 52 consecutive patients with peri-prosthetic fractures of long bones treated in two hospitals from October 2007 to march 2009 was conducted. Demographic data, fracture classification and method of surgical treatment along with the length of hospital stay were recorded in detail. The total cost calculated was then compared to the range of reimbursement price based on HRG (human Resource Group) coding. The implant cost was determined from the buying cost by each institution. 52 patients were available for review. Average age of the patients operated was 78.5 years. 69 percent of the peri-prosthetic fractures in our series were around the proximal femur. The average cost of stay was £ 16453 (£ 1425- 26345). The reimbursement to the hospital ranged from £ 1983 to £ 8735. Hospital source utilization for peri prosthetic fractures is quite high compared to the reimbursement being given to hospitals for treating such patients. This can be as low as £ 1500 as acute phase tariff to £ 9100 for elective revisions and the implant cost can vary from 50% to 200% of the total reimbursement cost. Current recording system for peri-prosthetic fracture is unclear resulting in discrepancy between resource utilization and reimbursement thus resulting in substantial financial losses for hospitals that perform these procedures.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost of implants used in a large series of peri-prosthetic femoral fractures and assess its financial impact in the era of Payment by Results We evaluated the clinical demographic and economical data associated with 202 patients with peri-prosthetic fractures of the proximal femur in two orthopaedic centers of excellence. All fractures were classified preoperatively according to the Vancouver classification. The patients were followed up until radiographic confirmation of fracture union and post-operative outcome was recorded with reference to the patients’ mobility and any complications. The mean age of the patients operated was 81.2 years (range 33–100 years). 55% of the patients in our series were graded type B3 and 25% type B2. 80% of all fractures underwent revision. 71 percent of the fractures united within 8.4 months. 112 patients had impaction femoral grafting. Our implant cost alone for revision varied from 1900 pounds to as high as 3500 pounds without taking in to account the cost of cement and allograft (femoral heads and struts). Hospital resource utilization for peri-prosthetic fractures is quite high compared to the reimbursement received. This is due to hospital stay and rehabilitation needs, theatre utilization, implant cost and higher readmission rates. There are neither reference costs available nor any special tariffs for these complex fractures. The reimbursement for internal fixation of these fractures could range from £2336 to £4230 and for emergency revision hip replacement is £5928. More than 50% of the reimbursement money would just be necessary to meet the implant costs. For uncemented revisions this equation is even worse. Current HRG codes for the treatment of peri-prosthetic fractures are unrealistic and new treatment algorithms and special tariffs have to be introduced to help manage these fractures.
8/39 of revisions were for resurfacing the patella (20%). One patient who had a complex patella fracture needing patellectomy later had further revision surgery for instability requiring posterior stabilised components. In no patient was the revision surgery compromised or made reconstructable due to delayed presentation. In total 3 patients required bone grafting of contained cavities and only 5 knees with aseptic loosening required revision implants with stems.
In a prospective study, we have evaluated the impact of psychological disturbance on symptoms, self-reported disability and the surgical outcome in a series of 110 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Self-reported severity of symptoms and disability were assessed using the patient evaluation measure and the Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire. Psychological distress was assessed using the hospital anxiety and depression scale. There was a significant association between psychological disturbance and the pre-operative symptoms and disability. However, there was no significant association between pre-operative psychological disturbance and the outcome of surgery at six months. We concluded that patients with carpal tunnel syndrome should not be denied surgery because of pre-operative psychological disturbance since it does not adversely affect the surgical outcome.