Establishing boundaries of acetabular walls in total hip replacement

Information on the epidemiology of primary total hip replacement is limited, and we are not aware of any reports on the epidemiology of revision total hip replacement. The objective of this study was to characterize the rates and immediate postoperative outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in persons sixty-five years of age and older residing in the United States. We used Medicare claims submitted by hospitals, physicians, and outpatient facilities between July 1, 1995, and June 30, 1996, to identify individuals who had undergone elective primary total hip replacement for a reason other than a fracture (61,568 patients) or had had revision total hip replacement (13,483 patients). Annual incidence rates of primary and revision total hip replacement were calculated, and multivariate modeling was used to evaluate the association between patient characteristics and surgical rates. The rates of occurrence of five complications within ninety days postoperatively were also evaluated, and relationships between those outcomes and patient characteristics were assessed with use of multivariate models adjusted for hospital and surgeon volume. The rates of primary total hip replacement were three to six times higher than the rates of revision total hip replacement. Women had higher rates than men, and whites had higher rates than blacks. The rates of primary and revision total hip replacement increased with age until the age of seventy-five to seventy-nine years and then declined. The rates of complications occurring within ninety days after primary total hip replacement were 1.0% for mortality, 0.9% for pulmonary embolus, 0.2% for wound infection, 4.6% for hospital readmission, and 3.1% for hip dislocation. The rates after revision total hip replacement were 2.6%, 0.8%, 0.95%, 10.0%, and 8.4%, respectively. Factors associated with an increased risk of an adverse outcome included increased age, gender (men were at higher risk than women), race (blacks were at higher risk than whites), a medical comorbidity, and a low income. Analysis of United States Medicare population data showed that the rates of total hip replacement increased with age up to the age of seventy-five to seventy-nine years and that blacks had a significantly lower rate of total hip replacement than whites. The overall rates of adverse outcomes were relatively low, but they were significantly higher after revision than after primary total hip replacement. Prognostic study, Level II-1 (retrospective study). See p. 2 for complete description of levels of evidence.

To evaluate whether hospital volume and surgeon volume of total hip replacements (THRs) are associated with patient-reported functional status and satisfaction with surgery 3 years postoperatively. We performed a population-based cohort study of a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent elective primary or revision THR in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Colorado in 1995. The primary outcomes were the self-reported Harris hip score and a validated scale measuring satisfaction with the results of surgery. Both outcomes were assessed 3 years postoperatively. Hospital volume was defined as the aggregate number of elective primary and revision THRs performed on Medicare beneficiaries in the hospital in 1995. High-volume hospitals were defined as those in which >100 such procedures are performed annually, and low-volume centers were defined as those in which </=12 procedures (primary THR cohort) or </=30 procedures (revision cohort) are performed annually. In unadjusted analyses, patients who underwent surgery in low-volume centers had worse functional status 3 years following primary and revision THR compared with patients whose surgery was performed in higher-volume centers. Patients whose revision THR was performed by a low-volume surgeon also had worse function. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical variables, however, the association between higher hospital volume and better functional status following primary THR was weak and statistically nonsignificant, and no statistically significant or clinically important associations between hospital or surgeon volume and functional status following revision THR was observed. Patients who underwent elective primary THR in low-volume centers were more likely to be dissatisfied with the results of surgery compared with patients whose surgeries were performed in high-volume centers. Similarly, patients whose surgeons performed </=12 procedures per year were more likely to be dissatisfied with the results of revision THR than were patients whose surgeons performed >12 procedures per year. Hospital volume and surgeon volume have little effect on 3-year functional outcome following THR, after adjusting for patient sociodemographic and select clinical characteristics. However, satisfaction with primary THR is greater among patients who underwent surgery in high-volume centers, and satisfaction with revisions is greater among patients whose operations were performed by higher-volume surgeons. Referring clinicians should incorporate these findings into their discussion of referral choices with patients considering THR. Conclusions regarding the effect of volume on longevity of the implants must await longer-term followup studies. Finally, further research is warranted to better understand the association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and patient satisfaction with surgery.

Implants in total hip replacement (THR) are associated with different clinical and cost-effectiveness profiles,. We estimate the costs and outcomes for NHS patients in the year after THR associated with implant bearing materials using linked routinely collected data.We linked NJR primary elective THR patients for osteoarthritis to HES and National PROMs. We estimated health care costs, health-related quality of life indices, and revision risks, in the year after primary and revision THRs overall. We used generalised linear models adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and estimated 10-year cumulative probability of revision. We imputed utilities using chained equations for half the sample with missing PROMS.We linked 577,973 elective primary THRs and 11,812 subsequent revisions. One year after primary THR, patients with the cemented THRs using cobalt chrome or stainless steel head with HCLPE liner/cup cost the NHS, on average, £13,101 (95%CI £13,080,£13,122), had an average quality-of-life score of 0.788 (95%CI 0.787,0.788), and a 10-year revision probability of 1.9% (95%CI 1.6,2.3). Compared to the reference, patients receiving a cemented THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, hybrid THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, and hybrid THR with alumina head and HCLPE liner/cup had lower 1-year costs (-£572 \[95% CI -£775,-£385\], -£346 \[-£501,-£192\], -£371 \[-£574,-£168\] respectively), better quality of life (0.007 \[95% CI 0.003,0.011\], 0.013 \[0.010,0.016\], 0.009 \[0.005,0.013\] respectively), and lower 10-year revision probabilities (1.4% \[1.03,2.0\], 1.5 \[1.3,1.7\], 1.6%\[1.2,2.1\] respectively).Implant bearing materials are associated with varying mean costs and health outcomes after primary THR. Ours is the first study to derive costs and health outcomes from large, linked databases using multiple imputation methods to deal with bias. Our findings are useful for commissioning and procurement decisions and to inform a subsequent cost-effectiveness model with more granular detail on THR implant types.

Temporal trends in primary and revision total knee and hip replacement in Taiwan

Background and purposeThere is little evidence on improvement after revision total hip replacement (THR). Moreover, improvements may be associated with socioeconomic status (SES). We investigated whether changes in Harris Hip Score (HHS) differ among patients undergoing primary and revision THR, and their association with markers of SES.Patients and methodsWe conducted a population-based cohort study on 16,932 patients undergoing primary and/or revision THR from 1995 to 2018 due to hip osteoarthritis. The patients were identified in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Outcome was defined as mean change in HHS (0–100) from baseline to 1-year follow-up, and its association with SES markers (education, cohabiting, and wealth) was analyzed using multiple linear regression adjusting for sex, age, comorbidities, and baseline HHS.ResultsAt 1-year follow-up, HHS improved clinically relevant for patients undergoing both primary THR: mean 43 (95% CI 43–43) and revision THR: mean 31 (CI 29–33); however, the increase was 12 points (CI 10–14) higher for primary THR. For primary THR, improvements were 0.9 points (CI 0.4–1.5) higher for patients with high educational level compared with low educational level, 0.4 points (CI 0.0–0.8) higher for patients cohabiting compared with living alone, and 2.6 points higher (CI 2.1–3.0) for patients with high wealth compared with low wealth.InterpretationPatients undergoing primary THR achieve higher improvements on HHS than patients undergoing revision THR, and the improvements are negatively related to markers of low SES. Health professionals should be aware of these characteristics and be able to identify patients who may benefit from extra rehabilitation to improve outcomes after THR to ensure equality in health.

Traumatic Posterior Hip Dislocation with an Ipsilateral Comminuted Femoral Intertrochanteric Fracture: A Case Report

The mortality and complication rates of many surgical procedures are inversely related to hospital procedure volume. The objective of this study was to determine whether the volumes of primary and revision total hip replacements performed at hospitals and by surgeons are associated with rates of mortality and complications. We analyzed claims data of Medicare recipients who underwent elective primary total hip replacement (58,521 procedures) or revision total hip replacement (12,956 procedures) between July 1995 and June 1996. We assessed the relationship between surgeon and hospital procedure volume and mortality, dislocation, deep infection, and pulmonary embolus in the first ninety days postoperatively. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, arthritis diagnosis, comorbid conditions, and income. Analyses of hospital volume were adjusted for surgeon volume, and analyses of surgeon volume were adjusted for hospital volume. Twelve percent of all primary total hip replacements and 49% of all revisions were performed in centers in which ten or fewer of these procedures were carried out in the Medicare population annually. In addition, 52% of the primary total hip replacements and 77% of the revisions were performed by surgeons who carried out ten or fewer of these procedures annually. Patients treated with primary total hip replacement in hospitals in which more than 100 of the procedures were performed per year had a lower risk of death than those treated with primary replacement in hospitals in which ten or fewer procedures were performed per year (mortality rate, 0.7% compared with 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.38, 0.89). Patients treated with primary total hip replacement by surgeons who performed more than fifty of those procedures in Medicare beneficiaries per year had a lower risk of dislocation than those who were treated by surgeons who performed five or fewer of the procedures per year (dislocation rate, 1.5% compared with 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.34, 0.69). Patients who had revision total hip replacement done by surgeons who performed more than ten such procedures per year had a lower rate of mortality than patients who were treated by surgeons who performed three or fewer of the procedures per year (mortality rate, 1.5% compared with 3.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.44, 0.96). Patients treated at hospitals and by surgeons with higher annual caseloads of primary and revision total hip replacement had lower rates of mortality and of selected complications. These analyses of Medicare claims are limited by a lack of key clinical information such as operative details and preoperative functional status.

Predictive value of Medicare claims data for identifying revision of index hip replacement was modest

Introduction The Elective Orthopaedic Centre in Epsom has an established patient reported outcome measures programme, into which all patients are enrolled. Postoperative complications, Oxford hip/knee scores (OHS/OKS) and EQ-5D™ (EuroQol, Rotterdam, Netherlands) scores are collected up to the second postoperative year. Our population is ageing and the number of joint replacements being performed on the very elderly is rising. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of joint replacements in a nonagenarian population. Methods Our dataset was reviewed retrospectively for a cohort of nonagenarians undergoing either a primary total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) between April 2008 and October 2011. Postoperative complications, mortality rates and functional outcomes were compared with those of a time matched 70-79-year-old cohort. Results Nonagenarians requiring a THR presented with a lower preoperative OHS (p=0.020) but made a greater improvement in the first postoperative year than the younger cohort (p=0.040). The preoperative OKS was lower for nonagenarians than for the control group (p=0.022). At one and two years after TKR, however, there was no significant difference between the age groups. The nonagenarians had a greater risk of requiring a blood transfusion following both THR (p=0.027; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-5.75) and TKR (p=0.037; 95% CI: 1.08-16.65) while the latter cohort also required a longer stay than their younger counterparts (p=0.001). Mortality rates were higher in the nonagenarian group but these were in keeping with the life expectancy projections identified by the Office for National Statistics. Conclusions Over a two-year period, the functional outcome and satisfaction rates achieved by nonagenarians following a THR or TKR are comparable with 70-79-year-olds.

Background:A patient-engagement and pathway-management program for patients undergoing primary total hip and knee replacement was evaluated. Health-service and multimedia features supported by technology were integrated with existing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) practices. The primary objective was to demonstrate the impact on length of stay. The secondary objective was to assess the impact on clinical, patient-focused, and financial outcomes.Methods:Two thousand and eighty consecutive patients undergoing primary total hip replacement (n = 1,034) and total knee replacement (n = 1,046) were classified into “pre-program” (retrospectively assessed [n = 1,038]) and “program” (prospectively assessed [n = 1,042]) cohorts. Patients in the program cohort were subdivided according to those who were eligible for criteria-based outreach support (OS) (n = 401) and those who were ineligible for this service (NOS) (n = 641). Clinical outcomes were assessed for all patients, and patient-focused outcomes were assessed for a subset (n = 223).Results:The mean reduction in length of stay ranged from 20% (1.2 days) to 42% (2.5 days) following total hip replacement and from 9% (0.6 day) to 31% (2 days) following total knee replacement (p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes (readmissions, complications, emergency department re-attendance rates) were not significantly negatively impacted. The Oxford Hip Score had numerically larger improvement after total hip replacement in the OS group than in the pre-program group (4.1-point increase), and the Oxford Knee Score had numerically larger improvement after total knee replacement in the NOS group than in the pre-program group (0.8-point increase). The patients in the program cohort (either OS or NOS) rated overall health gain as higher than those in the pre-program cohort (gain in numerical rating scale, 1.4 points for patients managed with total hip replacement, 0.6 points for patients managed with total knee replacement). Older patients and those with higher comorbidity indices benefited most with respect to length of stay and multiple clinical outcomes. Patient experience was significantly improved across domains (p < 0.001 to p = 0.003). Potential savings for patients managed with total hip replacement (£401.64 [$267.76] per patient) exceeded estimated program charges of £50 [$33.33] to £60 [$40] per patient, whereas the potential savings for patients managed with total knee replacement (£76.67 [$51.11] per patient) were sufficient to achieve a reduction of total system costs.Conclusions:Technology-enabled programs may deliver enhanced care at lower costs for patients undergoing lower-limb arthroplasty. Shorter durations of inpatient stay without a negative impact on clinical outcomes and improved patient-focused outcomes and experience can deliver substantial value that can be especially beneficial for older patients and those with greater medical complexity.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Peri-prosthetic fracture after joint replacement in the lower limb is associated with significant morbidity. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of peri-prosthetic fracture after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) over a ten-year period using a population-based linked dataset. Between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2008, 52,136 primary THRs, 8726 revision THRs, 44,511 primary TKRs, and 3222 revision TKRs were performed. Five years post-operatively, the rate of fracture was 0.9% after primary THR, 4.2% after revision THR, 0.6% after primary TKR and 1.7% after revision TKR. Comparison of survival analysis for all primary and revision arthroplasties showed peri-prosthetic fractures were more likely in females, patients aged > 70 and after revision arthroplasty. Female patients aged > 70 should be warned of a significantly increased risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after hip or knee replacement. The use of adjuvant medical treatment to reduce the effect of peri-prosthetic osteoporosis may be a direction of research for these patients.

PurposeInfection is a major complication following joint replacement (JR) surgery. However, little data exist regarding antibiotic utilisation following primary JR and how use changes with subsequent revision surgery. This study aimed to examine variation in antibiotic utilisation rates before and after hip replacement surgery in those revised for infection, revised for other reasons and those without revision.MethodsThis retrospective cohort analysis used linked data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Australian Government Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Patients were included if undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for osteoarthritis in private hospitals between 2002 and 2017. Three groups were examined: primary THR with no subsequent revision (n = 102 577), primary THR with a subsequent revision for reasons other than periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 3156) and primary THR with a subsequent revision for PJI (n = 520). Monthly antibiotic utilisation rates and prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the 2 years pre‐ and post‐THR.ResultsPrior to primary THR antibiotic utilisation was 9%–10%. After primary THR, antibiotic utilisation rates were higher among patients revised for PJI (PRR 1.69, 95% CI 1.60–1.79) compared to non‐revised patients, while the utilisation rate was lower in patients revised for reasons other than infection (PRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93–0.98). For those revised for infection, antibiotic utilisation post‐revision surgery was two times higher than those revised for other reasons (PRR 2.16, 95% CI 2.08–2.23). Utilisation of injectable antibiotics including, vancomycin, flucloxacillin and cephazolin was higher in those revised for PJI patients 0–2 weeks following surgery but not in those revised for other reasons compared to the non‐revised group.ConclusionsOngoing antibiotic utilisation after primary surgery may be an early signal of problems with the THR and should be a prompt for primary care physicians to refer patients to specialists for further appropriate investigations and management.

Patients undergoing primary total joint replacement are selected for surgery and thus (other than having a transiently increased mortality rate postoperatively) have a lower mortality rate than age and sex-matched individuals do. Understanding the causes of death following joint replacement would allow targeted strategies to reduce the risk of death and optimize outcome. We aimed to determine the rates and causes of mortality for patients undergoing primary total hip or knee replacement compared with individuals in the general population who were matched for age and sex. We compared causes and rates of mortality between age and sex-matched individuals in the general population (National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; Hospital Episode Statistics; and Office for National Statistics) and a linked cohort of 332,734 patients managed with total hip replacement (26,766 of whom died before the censoring date) and 384,291 patients managed with primary total knee replacement (29,802 of whom died before the censoring date) from 2003 through 2012. The main causes of death were malignant neoplasms (33.8% [9,037] of 26,766 deaths in patients with total hip replacement and 33.3% [9,917] of 29,802 deaths in patients with total knee replacement), circulatory system disorders (32.8% [8,784] of the deaths in patients with total hip replacement and 33.3% [9,932] of the deaths in patients with total knee replacement), respiratory system disorders (10.9% [2,928] of the deaths in patients with total hip replacement and 9.8% [2,932] of the deaths in patients with total knee replacement), and digestive system diseases (5.5% [1,465] of the deaths in patients with total hip replacement and 5.3% [1,572] of the deaths in patients with total knee replacement). There was a relative reduction in mortality (39%) compared with the individuals in the general population that equalized to the rate in the general population by 7 years for hips (overall standardized mortality ratio [SMR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.62); for knees, the relative reduction (43%) partially attenuated by 7 years but still had not equalized to the rate in the general population (overall SMR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.57). Ischemic heart disease was the most common cause of death within 90 days (29% [431] of the deaths in patients with primary hip replacement and 31% [436] of the deaths in patients with primary knee replacement). There was an elevated risk of death from circulatory, respiratory, and (most markedly) digestive system-related causes within 90 days postoperatively compared with 91 days to 1 year postoperatively. Ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of death in the 90 days following total joint replacement, and there is an increase in postoperative deaths associated with digestive system-related disease following joint replacement. Interventions targeted at reducing these diseases may have the largest effect on mortality in total joint replacement patients. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background and purpose There have been no published studies assessing the possible association of medical comorbidities with periprosthetic fracture risk. We therefore assessed whether medical comorbidity is associated with risk of periprosthetic fractures after total hip replacement (THR).Material and methods We used prospectively collected data from 1989–2008 in the Mayo Clinic Total Joint Registry for 2 cohorts: primary THR and revision THR. The main variables of interest were Deyo-Charlson comorbidities at the time of surgery. Outcome of interest was p ostoperative periprosthetic fracture at postoperative day 1 onwards. MultivariableCox regression models were additionally adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, and operative diagnosis.Results We identified 14,065 primary THRs and 6,281 revision THRs with mean follow-up times of 6.3 and 5.6 years, respectively. There were 305 postoperative periprosthetic fractures in the primary THR cohort and 330 in the revision THR cohort. In patients who underwent primary THR, 2 comorbidities were associated with higher risk of periprosthetic fracture: peptic ulcer disease with adjusted hazard ratio of 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1–2.2) and heart disease with adjusted hazard ratio of 1.7 (CI: 1.2–2.4). In patients with revision THR, peptic ulcer disease was associated with a higher adjusted risk of periprosthetic fracture, 1.6 (CI: 1.1–2.3).Interpretation Peptic ulcer disease and heart disease in primary THR patients and peptic ulcer disease in revision THR patients were associated with higher postoperative periprosthetic fracture risk. Further studies are needed to understand whether disease severity or specific medications used for treatment, or both, are responsible for this association. This may allow identification of modifiable factors.

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.