Dataset Information

The association between cement type and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in primary total hip replacement.

ABSTRACT: Background and purpose - To further improve the success of joint replacement surgery, attention needs to be paid to variations associated with improved or worsened outcomes. We investigated the association between the type of bone cement used and the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip replacement. Methods - We conducted a prospective study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013. 199,205 primary total hip replacements performed for osteoarthritis where bone cement was used were included. A multilevel over-dispersed piecewise Poisson model was used to estimate differences in the rate of revision by bone cement type adjusted for implant type, head size, age, sex, ASA grade, and surgical approach. Results - The rate of revision was higher in DePuy CMW3 medium viscosity with gentamicin (IRR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.7) and DePuy SmartSet high viscosity plain (IRR 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-5.5), and lower in DePuy CMW1 high viscosity plain (IRR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-0.89) bone cements compared with Heraeus Palacos high viscosity with gentamicin. Revision rates were similar between plain and antibiotic-loaded bone cement. Interpretation - The majority of bone cements performed similarly well, excluding DePuy SmartSet high viscosity and CMW3 high viscosity with gentamicin, which both had higher revision rates. We found no clear differences by viscosity or antibiotic content.

SUBMITTER: Trela-Larsen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5810831 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The association between cement type and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in primary total hip replacement.

Trela-Larsen Lea L Trela-Larsen Lea L Sayers Adrian A Blom Ashley William AW Webb Jason Crispin John JCJ Whitehouse Michael Richard MR

Acta orthopaedica 20171026 1

Background and purpose - To further improve the success of joint replacement surgery, attention needs to be paid to variations associated with improved or worsened outcomes. We investigated the association between the type of bone cement used and the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip replacement. Methods - We conducted a prospective study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013. 199,205 primary total hip replacemen ...[more]

PMID: 29072088

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about how often patients have revision total hip replacement in the same hospital in which they had the primary procedure.MethodsWe examined Medicare claims data to identify patients who had primary total hip replacement from July 1995 to June 1996 and subsequently had revision through December 31, 2006. We examined whether the revision was performed in the same or different hospital from the primary procedure, with different hospitals being categorized as being in a lower, a higher, or the same hospital volume stratum. Hospital strata included twenty-five or fewer cases of total hip replacement annually in the Medicare population, twenty-six to fifty cases, fifty-one to 100 cases, and >100 cases. We calculated the number of revisions generated (primary procedures eventuating in revision) by hospitals in each volume stratum and the number of revisions performed in these hospitals.ResultsOf 4448 revision procedures, 3306 (74%) were performed in hospitals in the same volume stratum as the hospital where the primary procedure was performed. Four hundred twenty-nine revisions (9.6%) were performed in a lower-volume hospital, and 713 (16%) were performed in a higher-volume hospital. Thirty-one (3%) of 960 patients who had revision within one year after the primary total hip replacement had the revision in a lower-volume center, compared with 204 (15%) of 1393 who had revision more than six years after the primary procedure (odds ratio = 4.6 ; 95% confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.8). The ratio of revisions performed to revisions generated was 1.21 for the highest-volume centers and 0.86 for the lowest-volume centers.ConclusionsOf 4448 revisions examined in this study, 429 (<10%) were performed in centers with a lower volume of total hip replacement than the center at which the initial hip replacement was performed, whereas 713 (16%) were performed in higher-volume centers. Higher-volume centers performed 21% more revisions than they generated (531 revisions performed, compared with 438 generated). These data will help to inform health-care policy with regard to the utilization of resources for revision total hip replacement.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundA 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.MethodsTwo 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsTechnology-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 evidenceTherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:The number of prosthesis brands used for hip replacement has increased rapidly, but there is little evidence on their effectiveness. We compared patient-reported outcomes, revision rates, and mortality for the three most frequently used brands within each prosthesis type: 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 Trilogy, and CPT Trilogy).We used three national databases of patients who had hip replacements between 2008 and 2011 in the English NHS to compare functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score (OHS) ranging from 0 (worst) to 48 (best)) in 43,524 patients at six months. We analysed revisions and mortality in 187,201 patients. We used multiple regression to adjust for pre-operative differences. Prosthesis type had an impact on post-operative OHS and revision rates (both p<0.001). Patients with hybrid prostheses had the best functional outcome (mean OHS 39.4, 95%CI 39.1 to 39.7) and those with cemented prostheses the worst (37.7, 37.3 to 38.1). Patients with cemented prostheses had the lowest reported 5-year revision rates (1.3%, 1.2% to 1.4%) and those with cementless prostheses the highest (2.2%, 2.1% to 2.4%). Differences in mortality according to prosthesis type were small and not significant (p = 0.06). Functional outcome varied according to brand among cemented (p = 0.05, with Exeter V40 Duration having the best) and cementless prostheses (p = 0.01, with Corail Pinnacle having the best). Revision rates varied according to brand among hybrids (p = 0.05, with Exeter V40 Trident having the lowest).Functional outcomes were better with cementless cups and revision rates were lower with cemented stems, which underlies the good overall performance of hybrids. The hybrid Exeter V40 Trident seemed to produce the best overall results. This brand should be considered as a benchmark in randomised trials.

Dataset Information

The association between cement type and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in primary total hip replacement.

Publications

The association between cement type and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in primary total hip replacement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets