To Bundle or Not to Bundle? The Financial Impact of Pathologic Hip Disease on Hip Arthroplasty Episodes of Care

BackgroundThe Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model aims to support more efficient care for patients. We examined the impact of patient and surgical characteristics, post-acute care, and clinical outcomes on episode of care (EOC) costs in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for all diagnoses.MethodsWe retrospectively collected data from a large database of patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for oncologic and nononcologic diagnoses between 2014 and 2017. We compared EOC costs and outcomes between the 2 groups using Student’s t-tests. We estimated the association between an oncologic-associated procedure and EOC costs from a multiple regression analysis.ResultsThere were 2122 total patients included: 1993 in the nononcologic group and 129 in the oncologic group. The length of stay was significantly greater in the oncologic group (7.2 vs 4.2 days, P = .00). In the post-acute period, a greater proportion of oncologic patients was readmitted (29% vs 14%, P = .05) and discharged to skilled nursing (93% vs 51%, P = .00). Index hospitalization costs (mean difference [MD] $1561, P = .05), skilled nursing costs (MD $5932, P = .001), and total EOC costs (MD $20,012, P = .00) were all greater in the oncologic group. Along with increasing age and fracture diagnosis, an oncologic diagnosis is independently associated with greater EOC costs from a multivariate analysis (β = 16,163 ± 2258, P = .00, r² = 29%).ConclusionComprehensive Care for Joint Replacement should incorporate risk adjustment for oncologic disease because hip arthroplasty for an oncologic diagnosis is associated with worse outcomes and greater costs than in the general population.     

Is a Calculated Total Hip BMD of Clinical Use?

The diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on bone mass measurement. To avoid the errors associated with the measurement of spinal bone density the total hip has been accepted as the standard measurement site. This information is not available for many early measurements. We have assessed whether it is possible to derive clinically useful information about total hip bone mineral density (BMD) from measurements at other hip sites. The bone mass measurements of 46 patients participating in a current trial of therapy for osteoporosis were reviewed. The total hip BMD as directly measured was compared with that obtained from the formula: Total hip BMD = 0.48×Neck BMD + 0.62×Trochanteric BMD + 0.03. In 30 patients with follow-up data the rate of change in hip BMD over a year was also determined by both methods. In the pretreatment state there was good agreement between the two measures (r ² = 0.96, SEE 0.012 g/cm²). If the formula was used to compute a change in total hip BMD, the agreement between both methods remained good. However, the standard error of the estimate of the change represented 59% of the observed change. This indicates that the error associated with this estimate is too great to allow clinically meaningful conclusions to be drawn from calculated total hip BMD. We conclude that, whilst it may be possible to obtain reasonable point estimates of total hip BMD from other measures in the hip, these estimates are too imprecise to allow conclusions about change in BMD to be made. Received: 27 August 1999 / Accepted: 6 November 1999     

Does Cup Position at the High Hip Center or Anatomic Hip Center in THA for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Result in Better Harris Hip Scores and Revision Incidence? A Systematic Review

BackgroundOne goal of THA is to restore the anatomic hip center, which can be achieved in hips with developmental dysplasia by placing cups at the level of the native acetabulum. However, this might require adjuvant procedures such as femoral shortening osteotomy. Another option is to place the cup at the high hip center, potentially reducing surgical complexity. Currently, no clear consensus exists regarding which of these cup positions might offer better functional outcomes or long-term survival.Question/purposeWe performed a systematic review to determine whether (1) functional outcomes as measured by the Harris hip score, (2) revision incidence, and (3) complications that do not result in revision differ based on the position of the acetabular cup (high hip center versus anatomic hip center) in patients undergoing THA for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).MethodsWe performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including studies comparing the functional outcomes, revision incidence, and complications of primary THA in dysplastic hips with acetabular cups placed at the high hip center versus those placed at the anatomic hip center, over any time frame. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020168183) before commencement. Of 238 records, eight comparative, retrospective nonrandomized studies of interventions were eligible for our systematic review, reporting on 207 hips with cups placed at the high hip center and 268 hips with cups at the anatomic hip center. Risk of bias within eligible studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Due to low comparability between studies, data could not be pooled, so these studies were assessed without summary effects.ResultsSix studies compared Harris hip scores, two of which favored high hip center cup placement and three of which favored anatomic hip center cup placement, although none of the differences between cohorts met the minimum clinically important difference. Five studies reliably compared revision incidence, which ranged from 2% to 9% for high hip center at 7 to 15 years and 0% to 5.9% for anatomic hip center at 6 to 16 years. Five studies reported intra- and postoperative complications, with the high hip center being associated with higher incidence of dislocation and lower incidence of neurological complications. No clear difference was observed in intraoperative complications between the high hip center and anatomic hip center.ConclusionNo obvious differences could be observed in Harris hip score or revision incidence after THA for osteoarthritis secondary to DDH between cups placed at the anatomic hip center and those placed at the high hip center. Placement of the acetabular cup in the high hip center may lead to higher risk of dislocation but lower risk of neurologic complications, although no difference in intraoperative complications was observed. Surgeons should be able to achieve satisfactory functional scores and revision incidence using either technique, although they should be aware of how their choice influences hip biomechanics and the need for adjunct procedures and associated risks and operative time. These recommendations should be considered with respect to the several limitations in the studies reviewed, including the presence of serious confounding factors and selection biases, inconsistent definitions of the high hip center, variations in dysplasia severity, small sample sizes, and follow-up periods. These weaknesses should be addressed in well-designed future studies.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.     

Hip Dislocation: Are Hip Precautions Necessary in Anterior Approaches?

Background  

In 2005, we reported removal of functional restriction after primary THA performed through the anterolateral approach did not increase the incidence of dislocation.     

Hip Osteonecrosis: Does Prior Hip Surgery Alter Outcomes Compared to an Initial Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients who had osteonecrosis to see if prior hip preserving surgery affected outcomes. Implant survivorship, Harris hip scores, and radiographic outcomes were compared between 87 patients (92 hips) who had undergone prior hip preserving procedures and 105 patients (121 hips) who had only undergone THA. Patients were also sub-stratified into low- and high-risk groups for osteonecrosis. At a mean follow-up of 75 months, there were no significant differences in survivorship, clinical, and radiographic outcomes among the cohorts. Higher revision rates were associated with patients who were in the high-risk group. The authors believe that hip joint preserving procedures may not adversely affect the outcomes of later THA in patients with osteonecrosis.     

Does Open Reduction of the Developmental Dislocated Hip Increase the Risk of Osteonecrosis?

Background  

Osteonecrosis (ON) of the femoral head is one of the main complications associated with treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hips (DDH). The reported rates of ON vary widely between 6% and 48%, suggesting varying factors in these studies influence the rate. Several studies suggest open reduction combined with femoral shortening provides protection against ON. However, it is unclear whether confounders such as failed Pavlik harness treatment, preliminary traction, closed versus open reduction, and redislocation influence the rate of ON.     

What is the Interobserver Reliability of an Ultrasound-enhanced Physical Examination of the Hip in Infants? A Prospective Study on the Ease of Acquiring Skills to Diagnose Hip Dysplasia

BackgroundDevelopmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is the most common disorder found in newborns. The consequences of DDH can be mitigated with early diagnosis and nonoperative treatment, but existing approaches do not address the current training deficit in making an early diagnosis.Question/purposeCan ultrasound be taught to and used reliably by different providers to identify DDH in neonates?MethodsThis was a prospective observational study of a series of neonates referred for an evaluation of their hips. An experienced clinician trained three second examiners (a pediatric orthopaedic surgeon, an orthopaedic resident, and a pediatrician) in performing an ultrasound-enhanced physical examination. The 2-hour training process included video and clinical didactic sessions aimed to teach examiners to differentiate between stable and unstable hips in newborns using ultrasound. The experienced clinician was a pediatric orthopaedic surgeon who uses ultrasound regularly in clinical practice. Materials required for training include one ultrasound device. A total of 227 infants (454 hips) were examined by one of the three second examiners and the experienced clinician (gold standard) to assess reliability. Of the 454 hips reviewed, there were 18 dislocations, 24 unstable hips, and 63 dysplastic hips, and the remainder had normal findings. The cohort was composed of a series of patients younger than 6 months referred to a specialty pediatric orthopaedic practice.ResultsUltrasound-enhanced physical examination of the hip was easily taught, and the results were reliable among different levels of providers. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the gold-standard examiner and the other examiners for all hips was 0.915 (p = 0.001). When adjusting for only the binary outcome of normal versus abnormal hips, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.97 (p = 0.001). Thus, the agreement between learners and the experienced examiner was very high after learners completed the course.ConclusionAfter a 2-hour course, physicians were able to understand and reliably examine neonatal children using ultrasound to assess for DDH. The success of the didactic approach outlined in this study supports the need for ultrasound-enhanced examination training for the diagnosis of DDH in orthopaedic surgery and pediatric residency core curriculums. Training programs would best be supported through established residency programs. Expansion of training more residents in the use of ultrasound-enhanced physical examinations would require a study to determine its efficacy. This finding highlights the need for further research in implementing ultrasound-enhanced physical examinations on a broader scale.Level of EvidenceLevel II, diagnostic study.     

What Are the Results of Surgical Treatment of Hip Dysplasia With Concomitant Cam Deformity?

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® - Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is a reliable procedure to correct the deficient acetabular coverage in hips with developmental dysplasia. It is...     

Does Degree of the Pelvic Deformity Affect the Accuracy of Computed Tomography-Based Hip Navigation?

Although some navigation systems have been used for improvement of component positioning, there have been few reports regarding cases of severe pelvic deformity. We performed a retrospective review of 25 cases of total hip arthroplasty with a computed tomography-based navigation system in patients with severe pelvic deformities and estimated acetabular component position and angle between severe deformity group and mild dysplastic group as a control. There were no significant differences in accuracy of navigation system between 2 groups in terms of 3-dimensional component position or angle. Accuracy of computed tomography-based hip navigation does not depend on the degree of pelvic deformity, and this system is also useful to identify acetabular orientation and for precise component implantation in cases of pelvic deformity.