Dataset Information

Trends in obesity prevalence among total hip arthroplasty patients and the effect on surgical outcomes, 2008-2016.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The prevalence of obesity continues to rise in parallel with demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aims to report obesity trends in primary THA and its effects on procedure outcomes in the United States, stratifying based on Body Mass Index (BMI).

Methods

Primary THA procedures were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database (2008-2016). Patient demographic (including BMI), primary outcomes (death; serious morbidity), and secondary outcome variables were analyzed. Using BMI comparison groups (Obese: BMI > 30 [O]; Morbidly Obese: BMI > 40 [MO]) for case populations, univariate, propensity score-matched, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

The prevalence of obesity increased among primary THA (2008: 546/1200 [45.5%], 2016: 16,078/34,137 [47.1%]) cases. Data on 135,013 primary THA cases were analyzed. Propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated that both serious morbidity (O: OR = 0.73, p < 0.001; MO: OR = 0.84, p = 0.001) and frequency of discharges home (O: OR = 0.90, p < 0.001; MO: OR = 0.71, p < 0.001) were significantly reduced. Instead, long operative times (O: OR = 1.30, p < 0.001; MO: OR = 1.53, p < 0.001), readmission (O: OR = 1.27, p < 0.001; MO: OR = 1.49, p < 0.001), and reoperation (O: OR = 1.44, p < 0.001, MO: OR = 1.96, p < 0.001) were all significantly increased in both obese and morbidly obese cases. Death (OR = 0.29; p = 0.016) was decreased in the MO cohort, while length of stay (OR = 1.19, p = 0.004) was increased in the MO cohort.

Conclusion

Both obese and morbidly obese primary THA patient populations were associated with variably increased complication risks; morbidly obese patients had higher complication rates relative to obese patients. Orthopaedic surgeons should continue to consider obesity as a risk factor for THA complications. However, given similar functional outcomes and satisfaction levels as non-obese patients, denying patients THA surgery based on BMI alone may merit reconsideration.

SUBMITTER: Pirruccio K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6458338 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundComparisons of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the United States are limited to series from single surgeons or institutions. Using prospective data from a large, multicenter study, we compare preoperative to postoperative changes in PROs between posterior, transgluteal, and anterior surgical approaches to THA.MethodsPatient-reported function, global health, and pain were systematically collected preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively from patients undergoing primary THA at 26 sites participating in the Comparative Effectiveness of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention After Hip and Knee Replacement (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02810704). Outcomes consisted of the brief Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health score, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Operative approaches were grouped by surgical plane relative to the abductor musculature as being either anterior, transgluteal, or posterior.ResultsBetween 12/12/2016 and 08/31/2019, outcomes from 3018 eligible participants were examined. At 1 month, the transgluteal cohort had a 2.2-point lower improvement in Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (95% confidence interval, 0.40-4.06; P = .017) and a 1.3-point lower improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health score (95% confidence interval, 0.48-2.04; P = .002) compared to posterior approaches. There was no significant difference in improvement between anterior and posterior approaches. At 3 and 6 months, no clinically significant differences in PRO improvement were observed between groups.ConclusionPROs 6 months following THA dramatically improved regardless of the plane of surgical approach, suggesting that choice of surgical approach can be left to the discretion of surgeons and patients without fear of differential early outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17). RESULTS:The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included. CONCLUSIONS:Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.