The clinical and economic burden of proximal femur periprosthetic fractures

Predictors of outcomes after internal fixation of periprosthetic femoral hip fractures Subgroup analysis of the peri-implant and peri-prosthetic fractures Spanish registry (PIPPAS)

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors predisposing patients to poor outcomes after fixation of periprosthetic hip fractures around femoral stems.

METHODS

Prospective multicentre cohort study of fractures around a hip replacement stem managed by internal fixation. The primary outcome was one-year mortality, while secondary outcomes were local complications and healthcare burden-related outcomes (nursing facility utilization and hospital length of stay).

RESULTS

One-year mortality was 16.2%. Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score (OR=1.17; 95%CI=1.03-1.33)), Pfeiffer Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) score (OR=1.16; 1.06-1.28), prosthetic dysfunction (OR=1.90; 1.00-3.61), and postoperative medical complications (OR=1.97; 1.06-3.68) were predictors of mortality. Patients with prior prosthetic dysfunction, lower Pfeiffer SPMSQ scores, Vancouver A fractures, and fractures fixed only using cerclages were at higher risk of local complications, which occurred in 9.3% of cases. Medical (OR=1.81; 1.05-3.13) and local complications (OR=5.56; 2.42-3.13) emerged as consistent risk factors for new institutionalization. Average hospitalization time was 13.9±9.2 days. Each day of fixation delay led to an average 1.4-day increase in total hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Frail periprosthetic hip-fracture patients with poorer functional status, dysfunctional replacements, and postoperative complications are at increased risk of mortality. Postoperative complications are more common in patients with dysfunctional arthroplasties, Vancouver A fractures, and fixation using cerclages alone. Postoperative complications were the most consistent predictor of higher healthcare resource utilization.

The Megaendoprosthesis in Revision Arthroplasty - a Cost-revenue Analysis in the aG-DRG System

Megaendoprosthesis offer a viable treatment in complex revision arthroplasty cases with good functional outcome. In the context of a neoplastic indication, the diagnosis-related group (DRG) I95A is usually assigned with a relative weight of 4.906 (2021). In contrast, in revision arthroplasty, the appropriate DRG is assigned, depending on the joint replacement. The additional costs compared to the invoiced DRG are to be compensated by agreeing on hospital-specific individual fees. These complex revision arthroplasties set high technical and operative demands and are mainly performed in specialised departments. We conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the use of the megaendoprosthesis in revision cases in a specialised orthopaedic clinic, as a single centre study. The question we sought to answer was: Is cost recovery possible in the modified German DRG system (aG-DRG)?A retrospective single centre analysis of treatment costs was performed. From 2018 to 2020, 113 patients treated with a megaendoprosthesis reconstruction in a referral centre due to extensive bone loss after aseptic or septic revision of a hip or knee prosthesis were included in the study. Relevant case-related cost drivers of the aG-DRG matrix (including staff and material costs of the operating theatre area and the ward) were taken into account. The actual costs were determined according to the specifications of the calculation manual published by the German institute for the remuneration system in hospitals (InEK). For each case, the contribution margin was calculated by relating the hospital's internal costs to the corresponding cost pool of the aG-DRG matrix.According to the DRG system 2021, 17 different DRGs were used for billing - in 70% based on a patient clinical complexity level (PCCL) ≥ 4. Compared with the InEK calculation, there is a deficit of -2,901 € per case in the examined parameters. The costs of physicians show a shortfall in both the operating theatre and on the ward. Implant costs, which were supposed to be compensated by hospital-specific additional charges, show a hospital-specific shortage of -2,181 €. When analysing the risk factors for cost recovery, only these showed a significant difference.Implantation of the megaendoprosthesis in revision arthroplasty is often the last option to preserve limb function. At present, despite a high degree of specialisation and process optimisation, this treatment cannot be provided cost-effectively even in tertiary care. The politically desired specialised department structure requires sufficient reimbursement for complex cases. The economic outcome of each treatment case is often unpredictable, however the surgeon is confronted with these cases and is expected to treat them. The high standard deviation indicates large differences in the cost/revenue situation of each individual case. Our results show for the first time a realistic cost analysis for megaprosthesis in revision arthroplasty and underline the importance of an adequate hospital-specific charge, individually agreed by the funding units. The calculation should include not only the implant costs, but also the increased staff costs (increased, complex planning effort, quality management, surgery time, etc.).

Proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic conditions: a systematic review on current outcomes

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a well-established treatment for neoplasia of the proximal femur. The use of this surgical technique for non-neoplastic conditions has increased over the years. We carried out a systematic review of the literature to study the indications, complications, and functional results when PFR is used for non-neoplastic conditions. Twenty-seven studies were included in the review with a total of 828 PFRs with a mean follow-up of 50 months (range 1-225 months). The main indications were infection (28%), periprosthetic fracture (27%), aseptic loosening (22%), and fracture (16%). The rate of reoperation was 20.3% overall. The overall revision rate was 15.4%. The main complications were dislocation (10.2%) and infection (7.3%). After 2010, the rates of reoperation (25.5% versus 18.2%), loosening (9.4% versus 3.2%), and dislocation (15.7% versus 7.9%) were lower than before 2010. The 30-day mortality ranged from 0% to 9%. The hip function scores improved post-surgery. In conclusion, the use of PFR in non-neoplastic conditions remains a marginal tool, associated with low direct mortality and high complication rates, but we expect its use to increase in the near future.

Optimal configuration of a three-rod ortho-bridge system in the treatment of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures: A finite element analysis

Introduction and Aim

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) represent an increasing clinical and economic burden. This study aims to determine the optimal configuration of a bridge-combined internal fixation system in the treatment of Vancouver type B1 PFF, using finite element analysis.

Materials and methods

A three-rod ortho-bridge system (OBS) fixation model was used to evaluate the optimal configuration of four target parameters: position of the third rod; intersection angle between the proximal screws; connecting rod diameter; and number of screws used. Femoral displacement and the maximum von Mises stress of the OBS were used as the evaluation indices, to analyze the PFF and to determine the optimal use of an OBS. For each parameter, various candidate options were tested.

Results

Finite element analysis revealed that the rate of femoral displacement and the maximum von Mises stress of the OBS were at a minimum when there was a 35 mm downward movement of the third rod from the baseline. Therefore, the optimal position of third rod fixation was 35 mm below the fovea capitis of the femur. The optimal intersection angles between the proximal screws were found to be 71.92° or 84°. A 6 mm diameter connecting rod proved to be most effective. Configuration d, utilizing 7 screws, represented the most clinically appropriate screw number configuration, despite configuration f, utilizing 9 screws, eliciting the best evaluation indices.

Conclusion

An OBS used in the above-described configuration is well suited to the characteristics of PFF and provides an effective and reliable means for their treatment.

LOQTEQ® VA Periprosthetic Plate-A New Concept for Bicortical Screw Fixation in Periprosthetic Fractures: A Technical Note

Internal fixation using angle stable plates is the treatment standard in periprosthetic fractures around stable implants. To provide instant postoperative full weight-bearing, bicortical screw fixation is advisable but often surgically demanding. This work presents the first clinical results of the LOQTEQ^® VA Periprosthetic Plate (aap Implantate AG, Berlin, Germany), a new plate system to simplify screw placement around implants. This plate system uses insertable hinges that allow for variable angle screw anchorage. Data of 26 patients with a mean age of 80 years and a mean follow-up of 13.9 months were retrospectively collected. Patients were clinically and radiologically examined. Bony union was achieved in 14 out of 15 patients with no signs of non-union or implant loosening. One patient, however, presented with implant failure. Clinical scores demonstrated acceptable results. Since the hinge plates are easy to apply, the first results are promising.