The Hidden Cost of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Roof MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9249566 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The Hidden Cost of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.
Roof Mackenzie A MA Levine Brett R BR Schwarzkopf Ran R
Arthroplasty today 20220623
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe increasing incidence of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to an increase in both the incidence and the cost burden of revision TKA procedures. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost of revision TKA for septic and aseptic causes and to identify the major cost components contributing to the cost burden.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. Selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias and cost transparency within the studies were conducted by two independent reviewers, after which the cost data were analysed narratively for 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision; 2-stage septic revision with re-revision; and aseptic revision with and without re-revision, respectively. The major cost components identified in the respective studies were also reported.ResultsThe direct medical cost from the healthcare provider perspective for high-income countries for 2-stage septic revision with re-revision ranged from US$66,629 to US$81,938, which can be about 2.5 times the cost of 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision, (range: US$24,027 - US$38,109), which can be about double the cost of aseptic revision without re-revision (range: US$13,910 - US$29,213). The major cost components were the perioperative cost (33%), prosthesis cost (28%), and hospital ward stay cost (22%).ConclusionsSeptic TKA revision with re-revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) increases the cost burden of revision TKA by 4 times when compared to aseptic single-stage revision and by 2.5 times when compared to septic TKA revision that does not undergo re-revision. Cost reductions can be achieved by reducing the number of primary TKA that develop PJI, avoidance of re-revisions for PJI, and reduction in the length of stay after revision.Trial registrationPROSPERO; CRD42020171988 .
| S-EPMC8371784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Septic loosening of total hip and knee endoprostheses gains an increasing proportion of revision arthroplasties. Operative revisions of infected endoprostheses are mentally and physically wearing for the patient, challenging for the surgeon and a significant economic burden for healthcare systems. In cases of early infection within the first three weeks after implantation a one-stage revision with leaving the implant in place is widely accepted. The recommendations for the management of late infections vary by far. One-stage revisions as well as two-stage or multiple revision schedules have been reported to be successful in over 90% of all cases for certain patient collectives. But implant associated infection still remains a severe complication. Moreover, the management of late endoprosthetic infection requires specific logistics, sufficient and standardized treatment protocol, qualified manpower as well as an efficient quality management. With regard to the literature and experience of specialized orthopaedic surgeons from several university and regional hospitals we modified a commonly used treatment protocol for two-stage revision of infected total hip and knee endoprostheses. In addition to the achievement of maximum survival rate of the revision implants an optimisation of the functional outcome of the affected artificial joint is aimed for.
| S-EPMC3252662 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionThe Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is a validated risk stratification model referring to the cumulative deficits model of frailty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the HFRS as a predictor of 90-day readmission and complications after revision total hip (rTHA) and knee (rTKA) arthroplasty.MethodsIn a retrospective analysis of 565 patients who had undergone rTHA or rTKA between 2011 and 2019, the HFRS was calculated for each patient. Rates of adverse events were compared between patients with low and intermediate or high frailty risk. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between the HFRS and post-operative adverse events.ResultsPatients with intermediate or high frailty risk showed higher rates of readmission (30days: 23.8% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.006; 90days: 26.2% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.018), surgical complications (28.6% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.001), medical complications (11.9% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001), other complications (28.6% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001), Clavien-Dindo grade IV complications (14.3% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.009), and transfusion (33.3% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed a high HFRS as independent risk factor for surgical complications (OR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.45-8.18, p = 0.005), medical complications (OR = 7.29, 95% CI 1.72-30.97, p = 0.007), and other complications (OR = 14.15, 95% CI 5.16-38.77, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe HFRS predicts adverse events after rTHA and rTKA. As it derives from routinely collected data, the HFRS could be implemented automated in hospital information systems to facilitate identification of at-risk patients.
| S-EPMC8560670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Massive allograft can be a useful option in revision total joint arthroplasty for treatment of significant bone loss. In rare cases, revision hip and knee arthroplasty procedures can be performed simultaneously using massive allograft-prosthetic composites. We present an 18 year follow up of a patient who received a simultaneous revision hip and knee total femoral allograft and discuss recent literature as it relates to this case.
| S-EPMC4956687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformation on the revision risk of implants is useful for improving the quality of care for elective hip and knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to report on the revision risk of implants using a state-wide registry in the United States.MethodsThe Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative systematically collects data on elective primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty cases in Michigan. It contained data on 139,970 hip and 245,499 knee arthroplasty cases from February 15, 2012, to December 31, 2021. Kaplan-Meier estimates of revision risk were computed using time to first revision as the dependent variable, and the results were computed and expressed as the cumulative percent revision (CPR). CPR estimates were computed for all implants having at least 500 cases in the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative dataset.ResultsAt 5-years postoperatively, elective primary conventional total hip arthroplasty implant stem/cup combinations had CPR values from 0.95% (0.39%-2.30%, 95% confidence intervals [CI]) to 5.77% (4.22%-7.85%, 95% CI), and elective primary total knee arthroplasty CPR ranged from 1.10% (0.64%-1.89%, 95% CI) to 12.52% (8.37%-18.50%, 95% CI). Unicondylar knee arthroplasty CPR at 5-years went from 4.23% (3.54%-5.06%, 95% CI) to 7.13% (6.20%-8.20%, 95% CI).ConclusionsThe wide variation in CPR points to the need for surgeons to choose implants wisely to improve quality of care.
| S-EPMC10230163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWait list times for total joint arthroplasties have been growing, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing operating room (OR) efficiency by reducing OR time and associated costs while maintaining quality allows the greatest number of patients to receive care.MethodsWe used propensity score matching to compare parallel processing with spinal anesthesia in a block room vs general anesthesia in a retrospective cohort of adult patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We compared perioperative costs, hospital costs, OR time intervals, and complications between the groups with nonparametric tests using an intention-to-treat approach.ResultsAfter matching, we included 636 patients (315 TKA; 321 THA). Median [interquartile range (IQR)] perioperative costs were CAD 7,417 [6,521-8,109], and hospital costs were CAD 10,293 [9,344-11,304]. Perioperative costs were not significantly different between groups (pseudo-median difference [MD], CAD -47 (95% confidence interval [CI], -214 to -130; P = 0.60); nor were total hospital costs (MD, CAD -78; 95% CI, -340 to 178; P = 0.57). Anesthesia-controlled time and total intraoperative time were significantly shorter for spinal anesthesia (MD, 14.6 min; 95% CI, 13.4 to 15.9; P < 0.001; MD, 15.9; 95% CI, 11.0 to 20.9; P < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in complications.ConclusionSpinal anesthesia in the context of a dedicated block room reduced both anesthesia-controlled time and total OR time. This did not translate into a reduction in incremental cost in the spinal anesthesia group.
| S-EPMC9387885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Revision total hip arthroplasty presents many challenges in regards to reconstructing or managing large amounts of bone loss and soft-tissue damage. Modern revision components, as well as techniques, have helped to address these challenges; however, the goal of any surgery is to provide the least amount of surgery with the most successful outcome. This case highlights a 74-year-old man with a Tronzo total hip arthroplasty placed over 50 years prior. He presented with subjective hip instability and radiographs demonstrating disassociation of the modular component. In an attempt to avoid more extensive and costly surgery, a custom-made all-polyethylene femoral head was used. This case illustrates the revision of likely one of the few Tronzo total hips remaining and the utility of obtaining a compassionate-use clearance from the Food and Drug Administration to create a custom piece, to minimize potential morbidity and mortality from extensive hip revision surgery.
| S-EPMC7225601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Total femur replacement is a well-recognized salvage procedure and an alternative to hip disarticulation in patients with massive femoral bone loss. Compared to conventional total femur replacement, intramedullary total femur (IMTF) requires less soft tissue dissection and preserves femoral bone stock and soft-tissue attachments. Despite these advantages, patients can still anticipate compromised functional outcomes and high complication rates following IMTF. Prior studies describe IMTF with the patient positioned laterally and utilizing posterior or anterolateral approaches to the hip. We describe our IMTF technique performed via the direct anterior approach in the supine position. In our experience, this is an effective method, with potential benefits including intraoperative limb length and rotational assessment, use of fluoroscopy, more convenient exposure of the knee, and potential lower rates of hip instability.
| S-EPMC11345508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cement removal during hip or knee arthroplasty revision surgery is technically demanding and prone to severe complications such as periprosthetic fractures, incomplete cement removal, or perforations. Several alternative techniques have been developed to enable complete, accurate, and safe removal of cement from bone, including osteotomies and cortical windows, endoscopic instruments, ultrasound devices, lithotripsy, and laser-assisted removal. We describe a cement-on-cement technique with a sterile, single-use tool for cement removal. The cement is removed piece by piece using a specifically designed device, without osteotomies or cortical windows.
| S-EPMC8217307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNational projections of future joint arthroplasties are useful in understanding the changing burden of surgery and related outcomes on the health system. The aim of this study is to update the literature by producing Medicare projections for revision total joint arthroplasty procedures from 2040 through 2060.MethodsThe study uses 2000-2019 data from the CMS Medicare Part-B National Summary and combines procedure counts using CPT codes for revision total joint arthroplasty procedures. In 2019, revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) procedures totaled 53,217 and 30,541, respectively, forming a baseline from which we generated point forecasts between 2020 and 2060 and 95% forecast intervals (FI).ResultsOn average, the model projects an annual growth rate of 1.77% for rTHAs and 4.67% for rTKAs. By 2040, rTHAs were projected to be 43,514 (95% FI = 37,429-50,589) and rTKAs were projected to be 115,147 (95% FI = 105,640-125,510). By 2060, rTHAs was projected to be 61,764 (95% FI = 49,927-76,408) and rTKAs were projected to be 286,740 (95% FI = 253,882-323,852).ConclusionsBased on 2019 total volume counts, the log-linear exponential model forecasts an increase in rTHA procedures of 42% by 2040 and 101% by 2060. Similarly, the estimated increase for rTKA is projected to be 149% by 2040 and 520% by 2060. An accurate projection of future revision procedure demands is important to understand future healthcare utilization and surgeon demand. This finding is only applicable to the Medicare population and demands further analysis for other population groups.
| S-EPMC10244911 | biostudies-literature