Worldwide rates of primary and revision total
knee arthroplasty (TKA) are rising due to increased longevity of
the population and the burden of osteoarthritis. Revision TKA is a technically demanding procedure generating
outcomes which are reported to be inferior to those of primary knee
arthroplasty, and with a higher risk of complication. Overall, the
rate of revision after primary arthroplasty is low, but the number
of patients currently living with a TKA suggests a large potential
revision healthcare burden. Many patients are now outliving their prosthesis, and consideration
must be given to how we are to provide the necessary capacity to
meet the rising demand for revision surgery and how to maximise
patient outcomes. The purpose of this review was to examine the epidemiology of,
and risk factors for, revision knee arthroplasty, and to discuss
factors that may enhance patient outcomes. Cite this article:
Despite higher rates of revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA) being reported for uncemented stems in patients aged > 75 years, they are frequently used in this age group. Increased mortality after cemented fixation is often used as a justification, but recent data do not confirm this association. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the design of the stem and the type of fixation on the rate of revision and immediate postoperative mortality, focusing on the age and sex of the patients. A total of 333,144 patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip who underwent elective THA between November 2012 and September 2022, using uncemented acetabular components without reconstruction shells, from the German arthroplasty registry were included in the study. The revision rates three years postoperatively for four types of stem (uncemented, uncemented with collar, uncemented short, and cemented) were compared within four age groups: < 60 years (Young), between 61 and 70 years (Mid-I), between 71 and 80 years (Mid-II), and aged > 80 years (Old). A noninferiority analysis was performed on the most frequently used designs of stem.Aims
Methods
The number of patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy has increased. In many countries, public hospitals have limited capacity. This has resulted in long waiting times for elective treatment and a need for supplementary private healthcare. It is uncertain whether the management of patients and the outcome of treatment are equivalent in public and private hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare the management and patient-reported outcomes among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy in public and private hospitals in Norway, and to assess whether the effectiveness of the treatment was equivalent. This was a comparative study using prospectively collected data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. A total of 4,750 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy and were followed for 12 months were included. Case-mix adjustment between those managed in public and private hospitals was performed using propensity score matching. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) between baseline and 12 months postoperatively. A mean difference in improvement of the NDI score between public and private hospitals of ≤ 15 points was considered equivalent. Secondary outcome measures were a numerical rating scale for neck and arm pain and the EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire. The duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and complications were also recorded.Aims
Methods
Currently, the US Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has been testing bundled payments for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) through the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) programme. Under the BPCI, bundled payments for revision TJAs are defined on the basis of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). However, these DRG-based bundled payment models may not be adequate to account appropriately for the varying case-complexity seen in revision TJAs. The 2008-2014 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5) were used to identify patients undergoing revision TJA under DRG codes 466, 467, or 468. Generalized linear regression models were built to assess the independent marginal cost-impact of patient, procedural, and geographic characteristics on 90-day costs.Aims
Methods
There is an increasing demand for hip arthroplasty in China. We aimed to describe trends in in-hospital mortality after this procedure in China and to examine the potential risk factors. We included 210 450 patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty registered in the Hospital Quality Monitoring System in China between 2013 and 2016. In-hospital mortality after hip arthroplasty and its relation to potential risk factors were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression.Aims
Patients and Methods
Hip fractures are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and costs. One strategy for improving outcomes is to incentivize hospitals to provide better quality of care. We aimed to determine whether a pay-for-performance initiative affected hip fracture outcomes in England by using Scotland, which did not participate in the scheme, as a control. We undertook an interrupted time series study with data from all patients aged more than 60 years with a hip fracture in England (2000 to 2018) using the Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC) data set linked to national death registrations. Difference-in-differences (DID) analysis incorporating equivalent data from the Scottish Morbidity Record was used to control for secular trends. The outcomes were 30-day and 365-day mortality, 30-day re-admission, time to operation, and acute length of stay.Aims
Materials and Methods
Health economic evaluations potentially provide
valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators,
and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions
about the care of patients. The highest quality research should
be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access
to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses
are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar
to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial
national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit
the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum
guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency
of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments
are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the
interpretation of results. The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types
of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments
for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current
reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these
types of studies to Cite this article:
The lack of a consensus for core health outcomes
that should be reported in clinical research has hampered study design
and evidence synthesis. We report a United Kingdom consensus for
a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of patients with a
hip fracture. We adopted a modified nominal group technique to derive consensus
on 1) which outcome domains should be measured, and 2) methods of
assessment. Participants reflected a diversity of perspectives and
experience. They received an evidence synthesis and postal questionnaire
in advance of the consensus meeting, and ranked the importance of
candidate domains and the relevance and suitability of short-listed
measures. During the meeting, pre-meeting source data and questionnaire
responses were summarised, followed by facilitated discussion and
a final plenary session. A COS was determined using a closed voting
system: a 70% consensus was required. Consensus supported a five-domain COS: mortality, pain, activities
of daily living, mobility, and health-related quality of life (HRQL).
Single-item measures of mortality and mobility (indoor/outdoor walking
status) and a generic multi-item measure of HRQL - the EuroQoL EQ-5D
- were recommended. These measures should be included as a minimum
in all hip fracture trials. Other outcome measures should be added
depending on the particular interventions being studied. Cite this article:
Peri-prosthetic femoral fracture after total hip replacement (THR) is associated with a poor outcome and high mortality. However, little is known about its long-term incidence after uncemented THR. We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 326 patients (354 hips) who had received a CLS Spotorno replacement with an uncemented, straight, collarless tapered titanium stem between January 1985 and December 1989. The mean follow-up was 17 years (15 to 20). The occurrence of peri-prosthetic femoral fracture during follow-up was noted. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of fracture. At the last follow-up, 86 patients (89 hips) had died and eight patients (eight hips) had been lost to follow-up. A total of 14 fractures in 14 patients had occurred. In ten hips, the femoral component had to be revised and in four the fracture was treated by open reduction and internal fixation. The cumulative incidence of peri-prosthetic femoral fracture was 1.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.8) at ten years and 4.5% (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 8.0) at 17 years after the primary THR. There was no association between the occurrence of fracture and gender or age at the time of the primary replacement. Our findings indicate that peri-prosthetic femoral fracture is a significant mode of failure in the long term after the insertion of an uncemented CLS Spotorno stem. Revision rates for this fracture rise in the second decade. Further research is required to investigate the risk factors involved in the occurrence of late peri-prosthetic femoral fracture after the implantation of any uncemented stem, and to assess possible methods of prevention.
Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice. Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive. Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged. The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.
