Hip resurfacing as an outpatient procedure: a comparison of overall cost and review of safety.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gaillard-Campbell MD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7960592 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The hip resurfacing concept was developed for young and active patients, especially for femoral bone stock preservation. However, concerns about metal-on-metal bearings with adverse reactions to metal debris have led to a drop off in hip-resurfacing procedures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The goal of this review is to evaluate our current knowledge of survivorship of second-generation hip resurfacing devices and elaborate international perspectives for product improvement. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search provided information on national joint arthroplasty registers worldwide with a minimum of 3000 reported hip resurfacings. It culminated in the analysis of six registers. RESULTS:Long-term data showed that available hip resurfacing device survivorship ranged from 95 to 99.7% with 10 years of follow-up, in selected patient populations. The criteria for success were well known, male gender, good bone quality, head component size greater than 48 mm, and cup inclination less than 45°. On the other hand, the recent recall of some hip-resurfacing devices has resulted in huge medico-legal problems and has discredited all implants. It has brought about the recent evolution of hip resurfacing. Femoral fixation is now available for cemented and cementless surfaces. Bearings are still always metal-on-metal, but new types have come on board. Newer designs suggest that ceramic-on-ceramic, cross-linked polyethylene, and oxinium may be applied in this configuration. CONCLUSIONS:In 2015, the evolution of hip resurfacing is ongoing in terms of implant design, alternative bearings, and implant fixation with hopes of improving survivorship.
| S-EPMC5264568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeHip resurfacing arthroplasty is claimed to allow higher activity levels and to give better quality of life than total hip arthroplasty. In this literature review, we assessed the therapeutic value of hip resurfacing arthroplasty as measured by functional outcome.MethodsAn extensive literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.Results9 patient series, 1 case-control study, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included. Clinically and statistically significant improvement in sporting activity and hip scores were found in 10 studies.InterpretationStudies with low levels of evidence have shown improvement in various different hip scores and one RCT showed better outcomes with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. There is no high-level evidence to prove that there is improved clinical outcome using hip resurfacing arthroplasty. More randomized research needs to be done.
| S-EPMC3216077 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4048407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA significant proportion of the overall cost of total hip arthroplasty (THA) results from the inpatient hospital stay following the procedure. Considering the substantial and increasing number of these procedures performed annually, shifting to an outpatient model of care where the patient is discharged home the same day as their surgery represents a potential for significant cost savings. The potential significant impact of an outpatient care model on constrained healthcare budgets and lack of high-quality evidence regarding its effectiveness warrants a rigorous comparative trial. The purpose of this prospective, randomized controlled trial is to evaluate outpatient care pathways for THA. Specifically, our objectives are to compare the rate of serious adverse events and estimate the cost-effectiveness of outpatient compared to standard inpatient THA.MethodsWe will include patients undergoing primary THA whom have an American Society of Anaesthetists status equal to or less than three, live within a 60-min driving distance of the institution and have an adult to accompany them home postoperatively and stay with them overnight. Consenting patients will be randomized to be discharged on the same day as surgery, as outpatients, or as inpatients according to standard of care (minimum of one night in hospital) using a modified Zelen consent model. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of serious adverse events at 30 days postoperative. Participants and their caregivers will complete secondary outcomes measures at each follow-up visit including patient-reported outcome measures and self-reported cost questionnaires.DiscussionThis protocol is the first randomized trial to use blinding to evaluate outpatient THA compared to standard overnight stay and first to prospectively perform a full economic evaluation. It is also the first adequately powered trial to prospectively assess the safety of outpatient THA. Successful completion of this study could have the potential to provide clinical evidence for the role of outpatient THA in current practice.Trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03026764 ) on March 9th, 2016.
| S-EPMC7545897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo report on the relative cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty and resurfacing arthroplasty (replacement of articular surface of femoral head only) in patients with severe arthritis suitable for hip joint resurfacing arthroplasty.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis on an intention-to-treat basis of a single-centre, single-blind randomised controlled trial of 126 adult patients within 12 months of treatment. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations with differences in baseline quality of life and gender adjusted using regression techniques.SettingA large teaching hospital trust in the UK.ParticipantsA total of 126 adult patients with severe arthritis of the hip joint suitable for a resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip.ResultsData were received for 126 patients, 4 of whom did not provide any resource use data. For the remainder, data were imputed for costs or quality of life in at least one time point (baseline, 3, 6 months and 1 year) for 18 patients. Patients in the resurfacing arm had higher quality of life at 12 months (0.795 vs 0.727) and received 0.032 more QALYs within the first 12 months postoperation. At an additional cost of £564, resurfacing arthroplasty offers benefits at £17 451 per QALY within the first 12 months of treatment. When covariates are considered, the health economic case is stronger in men than in women.ConclusionsResurfacing arthroplasty appears to offer very short-term efficiency benefits over total hip arthroplasty within a selected patient group. The short-term follow-up in this trial should be noted, particularly in light of the concerns raised regarding adverse reactions to metal debris from metal-on-metal bearing surfaces in the longer term. Longer-term follow-up of resurfacing arthroplasty patients and decision analytic modelling is also advised.Trial registrationCurrent controlled Trials ISRCTN33354155. UKCRN 4093.
| S-EPMC3488749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current role of metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings in hip arthroplasty remains controversial. The low wear offered by MoM bearings compared to metal-on-polyethylene and the possibility of a lower risk of dislocation with larger head sizes, encouraged a trend towards the re-introduction of the MoM bearing couple. However, recent evidence has shown that not all designs of the MoM bearing have been successful.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the use of MoM bearings and address the following issues: (1) the reintroduction of metal-on-metal bearings in total hip arthroplasty, (2) the failure of metal-on-metal bearings in stemmed total hip arthroplasty, (3) the role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in modern orthopaedics and (4) metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty.MethodsA literature search strategy was conducted using various search terms in MEDLINE and Embase. The highest quality articles that met the inclusion criteria and best answered the topics of focus of this review were selected. Key search terms included 'metal-on-metal', 'total hip arthroplasty' and 'hip resurfacing'.ResultsThe initial search retrieved 1240 articles. Twenty-two articles were selected and used in the review.ConclusionMetal-on-metal hip resurfacing is still a suitable treatment option in specific patient populations with the appropriate implant design and surgical skill, while stemmed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty should be avoided in all patient populations. Continued follow-up of patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is critical in order to further understand the long-term outcomes of these patients and why certain complications tend to occur with this procedure.
| S-EPMC5264575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of our study was to prospectively report the clinical results of 280 consecutive hips (240 patients) who received a ReCap Hip Resurfacing System implant (Biomet Inc., Warsaw, USA) in a single district general hospital. Literature reports a large variation in clinical results between different resurfacing designs and published results using this particular design are scarce.Mean follow up was 3.3 years (1.0 to 6.3) and four patients were lost to follow-up. All patients were diagnosed with end-stage hip osteoarthritis, their mean age was 54 years and 76.4% of all patients were male.There were 16 revisions and four patients reported a Harris Hip Score <70 points at their latest follow up. There were no pending revisions. Kaplan-Meier implant survival probability, with revision for any reason as endpoint, was 93.5% at six years follow-up (95%-CI: 88.8-95.3). There were no revisions for Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris (ARMD) and no indications of ARMD in symptomatic non-revised patients, although diagnostics were limited to ultrasound scans.This independent series confirms that hip resurfacing is a demanding procedure, and that implant survival of the ReCap hip resurfacing system is on a critical level in our series. In non-revised patients, reported outcomes are generally excellent.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00603395.
| S-EPMC3529103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFemoroacetabular impingement and degenerative hip osteoarthritis (OA) affect athletes across a wide variety of sports. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) has emerged as a surgical treatment for active individuals with end-stage hip OA to provide pain relief and allow return to high-impact activities. Return to professional sports after HRA has not been well characterized.Purpose/hypothesisThe aim of this study was to report on a series of elite athletes in a variety of sports who underwent HRA. We hypothesized that professional and elite-level athletes would be able to return to sports after HRA for end-stage hip OA.Study designCase series; Level of evidence, 4.MethodsA retrospective case series was conducted on professional athletes who underwent HRA at a single institution between 2007 and 2017. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon using the posterolateral approach. Athletes' return to play and sport-specific performance statistics were obtained using self-reported and publicly available data sources. Athletes were matched to an age- and performance-based cohort to determine changes in performance-based metrics.ResultsEight professional athletes were identified, including 2 baseball pitchers, 1 ice hockey defenseman, 1 foil fencer, 1 men's doubles tennis player, 1 basketball player, 1 ultramarathoner, and 1 Ironman triathlete. All 8 patients returned to sports; 6 of 8 (75%) patients were able to return for at least 1 full season at a professional level after surgery. There were no significant differences between performance statistics for athletes who returned to play and their preoperative performance measures for the years leading up to surgery or the age- and performance-matched cohort.ConclusionHRA remains a surgical alternative for end-stage hip OA in young, high-impact, active patients. While the primary goals of surgery are pain control and quality of life improvement, it is possible to return to elite-level sporting activity after HRA.
| S-EPMC8113959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHip resurfacing is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty.Questions/purposeWe aimed to compare an experienced hip surgeon's initial clinical results of hip resurfacing with a new cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsThe first 55 consecutive hip resurfacing arthroplasties were compared to 100 consecutive cementless THAs using a cylindrical tapered femoral stem. The learning curve between the two procedures was compared utilizing the incidence of reoperation, complications, Harris Hip Scores (HHS), and implant survivorship.ResultsThe reoperation rate was significantly higher (p?=?0.019) for hip resurfacing (14.5%) versus THA (4%). The overall complication rate between the two groups was not significantly different (p?=?0.398). Preoperative HHS were similar between the two groups (p?=?0.2). The final mean HHS was similar in both the resurfacing and THA groups (96 vs. 98.3, respectively, p?<?0.65). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with an endpoint of reoperation suggests complications occurred earlier in the resurfacing group versus the THA group (log-rank test, p?=?0.007).ConclusionsIn comparison to our initial experience with a cementless THA stem, operative complications occur earlier and more often after hip resurfacing during the learning period. The clinical outcomes in both groups however are similar at 5 year follow-up.
| S-EPMC3757479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hip arthroscopy is becoming a more common treatment for femoroacetabular impingement, labral tears, and a variety of other hip pathologies. Unlike arthroscopy of the shoulder and knee, hip arthroscopy requires a significant amount of traction to gain access into the joint. Historically, traction has been achieved with the use of a perineal post. The use of a perineal post in hip arthroscopy can cause several avoidable complications such as neuropraxias (i.e., the pudendal nerve), vaginal or scrotal injuries, and perineal skin injuries. Several articles have been proposed using post-less techniques to obtain hip traction, but many of these techniques are expensive and require the purchase of new equipment. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe a post-less technique for hip arthroscopy, the HAPPI technique (hip arthroscopy post-less procedure impingement), which is more affordable and does not require the addition of any special equipment. In addition, we will review some pearls and pitfalls, as well as advantages and disadvantages of the proposed technique.
| S-EPMC7695574 | biostudies-literature