Literature DB >> 19122087

The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States.

Kevin J Bozic1, Steven M Kurtz, Edmund Lau, Kevin Ong, Thomas P Vail, Daniel J Berry.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding the causes of failure and the types of revision total hip arthroplasty performed is essential for guiding research, implant design, clinical decision-making, and health-care policy. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the mechanisms of failure and the types of revision total hip arthroplasty procedures performed in the United States with use of newly implemented ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) diagnosis and procedure codes related specifically to revision total hip arthroplasty in a large, nationally representative population.
METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to analyze clinical, demographic, and economic data from 51,345 revision total hip arthroplasty procedures performed between October 1, 2005, and December 31, 2006. The prevalence of revision procedures was calculated for population subgroups in the United States that were stratified according to age, sex, diagnosis, census region, primary payer class, and type of hospital. The cause of failure, the average length of stay, and total charges were also determined for each type of revision arthroplasty procedure.
RESULTS: The most common type of revision total hip arthroplasty procedure performed was all-component revision (41.1%), and the most common causes of revision were instability/dislocation (22.5%), mechanical loosening (19.7%), and infection (14.8%). Revision total hip arthroplasty procedures were most commonly performed in large, urban, nonteaching hospitals for Medicare patients seventy-five to eighty-four years of age. The average length of hospital stay for all types of revision arthroplasties was 6.2 days, and the average total charges were $54,553. However, the average length of stay, average charges, and procedure frequencies varied considerably according to census region, hospital type, and type of revision total hip arthroplasty procedure performed.
CONCLUSIONS: Hip instability and mechanical loosening are the most common indications for revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. As further experience is gained with the new diagnosis and procedure codes specifically related to revision total hip arthroplasty, this information will be valuable in directing future research, implant design, and clinical decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19122087     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00155

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  381 in total

1.  Incidence and risk factors of in-hospital prosthesis-related complications following total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective Nationwide Inpatient Sample database study.

Authors:  Qinfeng Yang; Jian Wang; Yichuan Xu; Yuhang Chen; Qiang Lian; Yang Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-06-27       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  In vitro Wear Rate and Co Ion Release of Compositionally and Structurally Graded CoCrMo-Ti6Al4V Structures.

Authors:  Stanley Dittrick; Vamsi Krishna Balla; Susmita Bose; Amit Bandyopadhyay
Journal:  Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 7.328

3.  Does dual antibiotic prophylaxis better prevent surgical site infections in total joint arthroplasty?

Authors:  Amy Sewick; Amun Makani; Chia Wu; Judith O'Donnell; Keith D Baldwin; Gwo-Chin Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Monitoring the one year postoperative infection rate after primary total hip replacement.

Authors:  David J Biau; Philippe Leclerc; Simon Marmor; Valerie Zeller; Wilfrid Graff; Luc Lhotellier; Philippe Leonard; Patrick Mamoudy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Adenosine A2A receptor activation prevents wear particle-induced osteolysis.

Authors:  Aránzazu Mediero; Sally R Frenkel; Tuere Wilder; Wenjie He; Amitabha Mazumder; Bruce N Cronstein
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 17.956

6.  Prevention of orthopedic device-associated osteomyelitis using oxacillin-containing biomineral-binding liposomes.

Authors:  Xin-Ming Liu; Yijia Zhang; Fu Chen; Irine Khutsishvili; Edward V Fehringer; Luis A Marky; Kenneth W Bayles; Dong Wang
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 4.200

7.  Improving cup positioning using a mechanical navigation instrument.

Authors:  Simon D Steppacher; Jens H Kowal; Stephen Barry Murphy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The 2013 Frank Stinchfield Award: Diagnosis of infection in the early postoperative period after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul H Yi; Michael B Cross; Mario Moric; Scott M Sporer; Richard A Berger; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Risk factors for early revision after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christopher J Dy; Kevin J Bozic; Ting Jung Pan; Timothy M Wright; Douglas E Padgett; Stephen Lyman
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.794

10.  Experience of the posterior lip augmentation device in a regional hip arthroplasty unit as a treatment for recurrent dislocation.

Authors:  L Hoggett; C Cross; T Helm
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2017-08-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.