Implant Optimisation for Primary Hip Replacement in Patients over 60 Years with Osteoarthritis: A Cohort Study of Clinical Outcomes and Implant Costs Using Data from England and Wales

Unexpected Repercussions of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Total Hip Arthroplasty with Cemented Hip Prosthesis versus Cementless Implants

(1) Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common procedures used for adult hip reconstruction, employing mainly two types of prostheses: cemented (CHP) and cementless (CLHP). This study aims to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on THA with CHP and CLHP, in terms of the benefit/cost ratio. (2) Methods: This article represents a retrospective analysis of the differences concerning the benefit/cost ratio between THA with the two types of prostheses in 2950 patients admitted for THA in the two orthopedic clinics of our hospital between 1 January 2015-1 March 2020 in comparison with 1005 THA subjects seen between 1 April 2020-31 December 2022. (3) Results: In the first period, THA with CHP was performed in 45.83% of cases, while CLHP was used in 54.16% of patients. During the COVID-19 period, CHP was inserted in 52% of THA patients, while the other 48% had CLHP inserted, with a hospitalization duration reduced by over 50% for both types of implants (p ˂ 0.001). (4) Conclusions: CHP offered good outcomes, with quicker mobilization, and shorter hospitalization duration, compared to CLHP, but optimization of the patients' management can be achieved mainly by reducing the length of hospitalization through an appropriate preoperative patient evaluation through a multidisciplinary approach, an aspect that was proven during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of a digital joint school educational programme on post-operative outcomes following lower limb arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Background

As part of an ongoing service improvement project, a digital ‘joint school’ (DJS) was developed to provide education and support to patients undergoing total hip (THR) and total knee (TKR) replacement surgery. The DJS allowed patients to access personalised care plans and educational resources using web-enabled devices, from being listed for surgery until 12 months post-operation. The aim of this study was to compare a cohort of patients enrolled into the DJS with a cohort of patients from the same NHS trust who received a standard ‘non-digital’ package of education and support in terms of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), functional outcomes and hospital length of stay (LoS).

Methods

A retrospective comparative cohort study of all patients undergoing primary TKR/THR at a single NHS trust between 1st Jan 2018 and 31st Dec 2019 (n = 2406) was undertaken. The DJS was offered to all patients attending the clinics of early adopting surgeons and the remaining surgeons offered their patient’s standard written and verbal information. This allowed comparison between patients that received the DJS (n = 595) and those that received standard care (n = 1811). For each patient, demographic data, LoS and patient reported outcome measures (EQ-5D-3L, Oxford hip/knee scores (OKS/OHS)) were obtained. Polynomial regressions, adjusting for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and pre-operative OKS/OHS or EQ-5D, were used to compare the outcomes for patients receiving DJS and those receiving standard care.

Findings

Patients that used the DJS had greater improvements in their EQ-5D, and OKS/OHS compared to patients receiving standard care for both TKR and THR (EQ-5D difference: TKR coefficient estimate (est) = 0.070 (95%CI 0.004 to 0.135); THR est = 0.114 (95%CI 0.061 to 0.166)) and OKS/OHS difference: TKR est = 5.016 (95%CI 2.211 to 7.820); THR est = 4.106 (95%CI 2.257 to 5.955)). The DJS had a statistically significant reduction on LoS for patients who underwent THR but not TKR.

Conclusion

The use of a DJS was associated with improved functional outcomes when compared to a standard ‘non-digital’ method. The improvements between pre-operative and post-operative outcomes in EQ-5D and OKS/OHS were higher for patients using the DJS. Furthermore, THR patients also had a shorter LoS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07989-1.

Should patient age thresholds dictate fixation strategy in total hip arthroplasty?

AIMS

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a very successful and cost-effective operation, yet debate continues about the optimum fixation philosophy in different age groups. The concept of the 'cementless paradox' and the UK 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative encourage increased use of cemented fixation due to purported lower revision rates, especially in elderly patients, and decreased cost.

METHODS

In a high-volume, tertiary referral centre, we identified 10,112 THAs from a prospectively collected database, including 1,699 cemented THAs, 5,782 hybrid THAs, and 2,631 cementless THAs. The endpoint was revision for any reason. Secondary analysis included examination of implant survivorship in patients aged over 70 years, over 75 years, and over 80 years at primary THA.

RESULTS

Cemented fixation had the lowest implant survival in all age groups, with a total ten-year survivorship of 97.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.8 to 97.8) in the cemented group, 97.6% (95% CI 96.9 to 98.1) in the hybrid group, and 97.9% (95% CI 96.9 to 98.6) in the cementless group. This was not statistically significant (p = 0.092). There was no age group where cemented fixation outperformed hybrid or cementless fixation.

CONCLUSION

While all fixation techniques performed well at long-term follow-up, cemented fixation was associated with the lowest implant survival in all age groups, including in more elderly patients. We recommend that surgeons should carefully monitor their own outcomes and use fixation techniques that they are familiar with, and deliver the best outcomes in their own hands. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):206-211.

Cost-effectiveness analyses comparing cemented, cementless, hybrid and reverse hybrid fixation in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic overview and critical appraisal of the current evidence

Background: This study aims to present an overview and critical appraisal of all previous studies comparing costs and outcomes of the different modes of fixation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A secondary aim is to provide conclusions regarding the most cost-effective mode of implant fixation per gender and age-specific population in THA, based on high quality studies.Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing different modes of implant fixation in THA. Analysis of results was done with solely CEAs that had a high methodological quality.Results: A total of 12 relevant studies were identified and presented, of which 5 were considered to have the methodological rigor for inclusion in the analysis of results. These studies found that either cemented or hybrid fixation was the most cost-effective implant fixation mode for most age- and gender-specific subgroups.Conclusion: Currently available well performed CEAs generally support the use of cemented and hybrid fixation for all age-groups relevant for THA and both genders. However, these findings were mainly based on a single database and depended on assumptions made in the studies' methodology. Issues discussed in this paper have to be considered and future work is needed.

To cement or not to cement acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and re-evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip has evolved to a very safe and cost-effective intervention with revision rates below 5% after 10 years. To this day, however, controversy remains on whether or not to cement the acetabular cup.

METHODS

A comprehensive PubMed search of the English literature for studies published between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Studies comparing the clinical (revision rate, functionality), radiological (wear) or economic (cost) differences between cemented (cemented stem with cemented cup) and hybrid (cemented stem with uncemented cup) prostheses for primary osteoarthritis of the hip were identified as eligible.

RESULTS

A total of 1032 studies were identified whereof twelve were included for qualitative synthesis. All studies concerning the risk of revision were based on registry data, covering a total of 365,693 cups. Cemented prostheses had a similar or lower risk of revision compared to hybrid prostheses in every study, but performed slightly worse on functionality and quality of life. While cemented prostheses were the cheapest option, hybrids were the most cost-effective.

DISCUSSION

The widespread preference for cementless fixation of the acetabulum cannot be explained by a superior survival of cementless or hybrid models. Irrespective of age, cemented fixation of the acetabulum remains the gold standard to which other techniques should be compared.

Choice of Prosthetic Implant Combinations in Total Hip Replacement: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using UK and Swedish Hip Joint Registries Data

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic implants used in total hip replacements (THR) have a range of bearing surface combinations (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, and metal-on-metal), head sizes (small [<36 mm in diameter] and large [≥36 mm in diameter]), and fixation techniques (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and reverse hybrid). These can influence prosthesis survival, patients' quality of life, and healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implants for patients of different age and sex profiles.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of various implants against small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants. The probability that patients required 1 or more revision surgeries was estimated from analyses of more than 1 million patients in the UK and Swedish hip joint registries, for men and women younger than 55, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 years and older. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices, national tariffs, and the literature. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THR in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants were the most cost-effective for men and women older than 65 years. These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Small-head cemented ceramic-on-polyethylene implants were most cost-effective in men and women younger than 65 years, but these results were more uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

The older the patient group, the more likely that the cheapest implants, small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants, were cost-effective. We found no evidence that uncemented, hybrid, or reverse hybrid implants were the most cost-effective option for any patient group. Our findings can influence clinical practice and procurement decisions for healthcare payers worldwide.

The Morscher Press-Fit Acetabular Component: An Independent Long-Term Review at 18-22 Years

BACKGROUND

There are relatively few 20-year results of uncemented acetabular components, and most of these are modular designs. This study reports the 20-year results of a monoblock press-fit acetabular component.

METHODS

A total of 122 total hip arthroplasties (111 patients) using the Morscher cup were reviewed at a mean of 19.7 years. The average age at implantation was 57.3 years (range, 36-74 years), and 81 (66%) were men.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (25 hips) had died. Seven hips were revised, including 5 acetabular revisions. Six patients (6 hips) declined to participate but were known not to have been revised. The mean Oxford hip score was 41.1 (range, 22-48), and the mean reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score was 5.7/48 (range, 0-24). Eccentric wear was seen in 13 (15.7%) and major osteolysis in 14 (17%) of 82 surviving hips with radiographs. The all-cause revision rate was 0.32 per 100 observed component years (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.66). The 20-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 93.4% (CI, 86.6-96.8) for all-cause revisions, 95.5% (CI, 89.4-98.1) for any acetabular revision, and 97.1% (CI, 91.2-99.1) for acetabular aseptic loosening, wear, or osteolysis.

CONCLUSION

The Morscher acetabular component has continued to perform well at 20 years despite using conventional polyethylene with results that match or surpass other cementless acetabulae.