Implant waste during total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant cost to the USA healthcare system. While studies have explored methods to improve THA cost-effectiveness, the literature comparing the proportions of implant waste by intraoperative technology used during THA is limited. The aims of this study were to: 1) examine whether the use of enabling technologies during THA results in a smaller proportion of wasted implants compared to navigation-guided and conventional manual THA; 2) determine the proportion of wasted implants by implant type; and 3) examine the effects of surgeon experience on rates of implant waste by technology used. We identified 104,420 implants either implanted or wasted during 18,329 primary THAs performed on 16,724 patients between January 2018 and June 2022 at our institution. THAs were separated by technology used: robotic-assisted (n = 4,171), imageless navigation (n = 6,887), and manual (n = 7,721). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of implant waste during primary THA.Aims
Methods
Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. There remains a lack of prospective evidence for the use of TXA in patients undergoing periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). The purpose of this study was to determine if intravenous (IV) TXA is effective in reducing calculated blood loss and transfusions after PAO. This was a single-centre prospective double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of 81 patients aged 12 to 45 years undergoing elective PAO by a single surgeon. The intervention group (n = 40) received two doses of IV TXA of a maximum 1 g in each dose; the control group (n = 41) received two doses of 50 ml 0.9% saline IV. The primary outcome was perioperative calculated blood loss. Secondary outcomes included allogenic transfusions and six-week postoperative complications.Aims
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:
