Literature DB >> 10611872

Cost analysis of revision total hip arthroplasty. A 5-year followup study.

R L Barrack1, J Sawhney, J Hsu, R H Cofield.   

Abstract

A stratified, unselected sample of 30 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty between 1990 and 1992 for whom complete clinical and financial data were available was studied. Clinical data included age, gender, diagnosis, length of stay, operative time and blood loss. Financial data included cost of implants, bone graft and accessories, hospital charge, and surgeon reimbursement. Results were compared with the results of an analogous group of 50 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty at the same institution between 1995 and 1997. Cases were classified as simple (involving revision of only acetabular liner and/or femoral head), routine (revision of acetabular and/or femoral components), or complex (major structural graft, antiprotrusio cage, impacted grafting). For patients undergoing routine revision total hip arthroplasty, a dramatic decline of 52% occurred in length of stay during the 5-year span (10.7 days to 5.1 days). The average operative time also declined significantly (238 minutes to 199 minutes) as did the average implant cost ($4349 to $2827). Despite this, the average hospital charge increased 16% ($29,666 to $34,328). There was a significant and dramatic 35% decline in surgeon reimbursement ($3240 to $2178). There was no significant difference in surgeon reimbursement between simple, routine, and complex total hip arthroplasty. Patients who underwent complex procedures had a significantly greater length of stay (7.3 versus 5.1 days) and operative time (297 versus 199 minutes). The hospital charge was dramatically higher for patients undergoing complex procedures ($51,290 versus $34,328) but the surgeon reimbursement was lower on average, although not statistically significant ($1926 versus $2178). There was a significant increase in the number and complexity of revision total hip arthroplasties between the two periods. Significant decreases were achieved in length of stay, operating room time, and implant cost. Benefits from these changes were accrued to the hospital but not the surgeon because hospital costs decreased significantly whereas surgeon reimbursements declined dramatically.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10611872     DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199912000-00018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  16 in total

1.  [The infected hip prosthesis].

Authors:  S Ruchholtz; G Täger; D Nast-Kolb
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails.

Authors:  Bryan D Springer; Thomas K Fehring; William L Griffin; Susan M Odum; John L Masonis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Irish National Joint Registry: a concept.

Authors:  K O Oduwole; M B Codd; F Byrne; J O'Byrne; P J Kenny
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 1.568

4.  What is the Long-term Economic Societal Effect of Periprosthetic Infections After THA? A Markov Analysis.

Authors:  Thomas J Parisi; Joseph F Konopka; Hany S Bedair
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Accumulation of fatty marrow in the osteonecrotic hip mimicking joint infection.

Authors:  Tae-Young Kim; Sun-Joo Kim; Young-Kyun Lee; Kyung-Hoi Koo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure.

Authors:  S Mehdi Jafari; Catelyn Coyle; S M Javad Mortazavi; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Femoral osteolysis following total hip replacement.

Authors:  R Dattani
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.401

8.  [Preservation of hip prosthesis with local surgical revision and creation of a fistula persistens : an option for palliative treatment of periprosthetic infection in old, polymorbid patients?].

Authors:  A H Tiemann; L Homagk; M Diefenbeck; T Mückley; G O Hofmann
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 9.  Clinical magnetic resonance imaging of arthroplasty at 1.5 T.

Authors:  Matthew F Koff; Alissa J Burge; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  [Infections of hip and knee endoprostheses. Spectrum of pathogens and the role of multiresistant bacteria].

Authors:  D Zajonz; L Wuthe; A C Rodloff; T Prietzel; G Freiherr von Salis-Soglio; A Roth; C-E Heyde; C Josten; M Ghanem
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 0.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.