To evaluate the costs of performing revision hip and knee surgery at a District General Hospital. A retrospective review of all revision hip and knee surgery between October 2004 and October 2006 was performed. Information was obtained from the notes and theatre log books. Each case was fully costed. The breakdown costs included implant choice, theatre time, length of stay, allograft, blood products and post-operative physiotherapy/OT. The costs were obtained from the hospital financial department and theatre invoices. Payment to the hospital is based on a specific tariff which in turn is determined by coding each patient episode. We individually coded every case, using the OPCS 4.3 coding system, and applied the appropriate tariff. The tariffs that the financial department had applied to each case were also available. A comparison was made between actual costs incurred, the expected reimbursement (from our study coding) and the actual reimbursement received (from finance department).Aim
Methods
We conducted a study of 312 patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty in 2005. The aim was to identify the correlation between length of stay, ASA (American society of Anaesthesiologist) grade and BMI (Body Mass Index). 312 patients underwent hip and knee arthroplasty in 2005. ASA grade for surgery was documented by the anaesthetist and BMI by the nurses. 67 patients had inadequate documentation. SPSS software was used for analysis.Introduction
Method and materials
Forty six patients (25) THRs and (21) TKRs were included in this study. Each were given a LAID which consisted of 0.25% bupivicaine infused at 4ml/hr via an elastometric pump over 48 hours. 100mls of 0.1% bupivicaine with 0.5mg adrenaline was infiltrated locally into the wound at closure. All patients were prescribed regular analgesic as per the multimodal pain regime and an hourly pain score maintained. Rescue opioids were prescribed if pain score crossed 5. Patient satisfaction score was recorded as excellent, some or no pain relief. Eleven patients were given general anaesthetic and 25 patients were given spinal anaesthetic. 26% were able to sit out of bed within 6 hours of surgery and 65% (30 patients) were sitting out by the first post operative day. Average length of stay was 6.15 days, decreased to 4 days for patients mobilised on day zero and compared to eight days prior to this study. 21% had excellent result, 29% had some pain and 6% had poor result. 90% needed oral rescue analgesia within the first 48 hours. LAID allowed some patients to be mobilised within 6 hours of surgery. The use of LAID helps avoids the need for PCA or diamorphine and hence its associated complications though some amount of oral rescue analgesia was necessary. Patient compliance was satisfactory. The early results are encouraging and further studies are been conducted at our hospital.
Recently, there has been a reluctance to perform hip arthrodesis. The number of patients requiring the conversion from hip arthrodesis to arthroplasty has also decreased. We present the functional results following conversion of hip arthrodesis to total hip arthroplasty at a specialist hip centre. 76 patients who underwent conversion of hip arthrodesis to total hip arthroplasty between 1963 and 2000 at the Centre for Hip Surgery, Wrightington Hospital, were included in this retrospective study. 9 patients died of unrelated causes and 7 patients were lost to follow up. The functional scoring was performed using the Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score. The mean age at the time of surgical hip arthrodesis was 16.7 years and at the time of conversion was 48.7 years. Back pain is the most common indication for the conversion. All the patients were pleased with the clinical outcome following conversion to Arthroplasty. 6 patients had postoperative complications. The mean Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score increased from 8.97 to 13.46 at the latest follow-up. The mean wear rate was 0.06 mm/year. Survival of hip arthroplasty was 92.78 % at 18 years.
Patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) often require further orthopaedic surgery including other primary lower limb joint replacements and revision surgery in their lifetime. We analysed the 10-year data of 552 patients who underwent primary total hip replacement between April 1991 and March 1992 at our institute. Data were available for all patients before the index operation. 77% of patients attended their 5-year review and 67% attended their 10-year review. 233 (42%) had had or subsequently had the opposite hip replaced. 30 patients (5%) had a knee replaced and 19 (3%) had both knees replaced. 4.4% underwent revision surgery.
3610 primary and revision total knee replacements were performed at our hospital between 1969 and 1995. We conducted a survivorship analysis of 3234 primary total knee replacements to construct life tables and calculate survival curves. Each knee replacement was entered once only. Revision was defined as the end point. Data was collected both from patient records and by postal questionnaire. Eight types of knee prostheses were evaluated with best-case and worst-case scenarios compared over a 5, 10 and 15 year period. The evidence suggests that certain types of prosthesis are more liable than others to fail or to fail early. The “Condylar type devices” which include the Total Condylar, Press Fit Condylar (PFC), Kinematic, Kinemax and Anatomic Modular Knee (AMK) have very similar survivorship curves and in the main have performed well up to a 10 year period. The LCS mobile bearing knee performed extremely well at 5 years. The Attenborough knee had an inferior result while the Load Angle Inlay (LAI) which was a very early resurfacing arthroplasty had the poorest results in terms of survivorship.
Fifty-seven revision total knee arthroplasties were performed in our hospital using the TC3 system between 1995 and 1997. Twelve patients died. Forty-five patients were followed up for an average of 5.6 years (range 4 – 7 years). No patients were lost to follow-up. All patients were clinically and radiologically evaluated. A postal patient satisfaction questionnaire was completed. Two patients were revised; one for infection and one for instability. Survivorship using revision as the end point was 93.3% at 7 years. Indications for revision were infection (4;9%), instability (38;84%), pain and stiffness (3;7%). 32 (71%) patients were satisfied with their outcome, 7 (16%) were noncommittal and 6 (13%) were disappointed at 5 years. We have analysed the 13 dissatisfied patients and highlight the lessons learned. Pain and stiffness are not good indications for revision; insert thickness of more than 17.5mm is suggestive of elevation of the joint-line; instead the femoral component should be distalised; step wedges should be used in preference to angular wedges; Always long stem the tibial implant if augments are used; stems should be canal filling with adequate grip on the diaphysis. We suggest the above lessons we have learned from our initial revision arthroplasty learning curve may correlate to the clinical outcome of this small group of dissatisfied patients.
In 1999 a statement of best practice in primary total hip replacement was approved by the Council of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) and by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) to provide a basis for regional and national auditable standards: we have compared practice in the North West of England to this document to ascertain adherence to this guide to best practice. A direct comparison of data held on the North West Hip Arthroplasty Register for 2001/2002 and BASK/BOA guidelines was performed. 86 surgeons from 26 hospitals were included in the study. A mean of 93.3% of operations were performed in the surgeon’s usual theatre. All of these theatres had vertical laminar air flow systems. 42.2% of respondents routinely used exhaust suits. 68.1% of respondents routinely used impermeable disposable gowns. All surgeons use some form of anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis. 66.2% use a combination of both mechanical and chemical means. All surgeons used antibiotic prophylaxis. The most popular choice of antibiotic was a cephalosporin. 93.7% of surgeons routinely use antibiotic-loaded cement. The PFC and Kinemax prostheses were the most commonly used pros-theses. Interestingly, 97.7% of all first choice implants were cemented. Only 2 surgeons used uncemented TKR. 69.8% of surgeons used a posterior cruciate retaining design. A midline longitudinal skin incision is used by 87.2% of surgeons, a medial longitudinal skin incision by 7.0% and a lateral longitudinal skin incision by 5.8% 0f surgeons. A medial parapatellar capsular incision is preferred by 91.9% with the remainder using mid vastus or trivector retaining capsulotomy. Closure of capsulotomies is performed in flexion by 65.1% and in extension by 34.9%. In patients with osteoarthritis 38.4% routinely resurfaced the patella, 34.9% never resurfaced the patella and 26.7% selectively resurfaced. This was in direct contrast to practice for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in whom 66.3% routinely resurfaced the patella, 22.1% never resurfaced the patella and 11.6% selectively resurfaced. This study has demonstrated considerable variation of practice in hip arthroplasty across the North West region and significant divergence from the BASK/BOA statement of best practice. The introduction of a properly funded national arthroplasty register will surely help to clarify the effect of such diverse practice on patient outcome.
Patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) often require further orthopaedic surgery including other primary lower limb joint replacements and revision surgery in their lifetime. We analysed the 10-year data of 552 patients who underwent primary total hip replacement between April 1991 and March 1992 at our institute. Data was available for all patients before the index operation. 77% of patients attended their 5-year review and 67% attended their 10-year review. 233 (42%) had had or subsequently had the opposite hip replaced. 30 patients (5%) had a knee replaced and 19 (3%) had both knees replaced. 4.4% underwent revision surgery. Concluding, nearly half the total number of these patients will in due course require the opposite hip replaced. 13% will need another major joint surgery (ie revision or TKR). At £6138 for a primary THR and £8500 for revision THR, and the cost of radiographs (£60) and follow-up appointment (£60), the approximate cost implications on a conservative estimate are 13 million pounds. For a single surgeon undertaking 40 THRs in a single year the cost would be approximately £900,000. In addition, the surgeon in 10 years practice would create enough work to last him the rest of his working lifetime. These factors including cost implications and human resource requirements will have significant influence on future planning of health care trusts.
In 1999 a statement of best practice in primary total hip replacement was approved by the Council of the British Orthopaedic Association and by the British Hip Society to provide a basis for regional and national auditable standards. We have compared practice in the North West of England to this document to ascertain adherence to this guide to best practice. 86 surgeons from 26 hospitals were included in the study. A mean of 93.3% of operations were performed in the surgeon’s usual theatre. All of these theatres had vertical laminar air flow systems. 42.2% of respondents routinely used exhaust suits. 68.1% of respondents routinely used impermeable disposable gowns, 26.1% used impermeable reusable gowns. The Charnley femoral and acetabular prostheses were the most commonly used prostheses. All surgeons use some form of anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis. 66.2% use a combination of both mechanical and chemical means. All surgeons used antibiotic prophylaxis. The most popular choice of antibiotic was a cephalosporin. 70.7% used a three-dose regime over 24 hours. 2.6% of surgeons continued antibiotic prophylaxis for 48 hours after surgery. 93.7% of surgeons routinely use antibiotic-loaded cement.All surgeons routinely cleaned, irrigated and dried the acetabulum and femur before cement insertion. Only one surgeon did not use any form of femoral canal occlusion. 69.4% used an intramedullary bone block. Retrograde filling of the femoral shaft by means of a cement gun was practised by 65.1%. This study has demonstrated considerable variation of practice in THA across the North West region and significant divergence from the statement of best practice approved by the BOA and BHS. The introduction of a properly funded national hip register will surely help to clarify the effect of such diverse practice on patient outcome. We would recommend that all trusts locally audit their practices and correlate them to these nationally agreed guidelines.
A secure bone/cement interface at the bone cement junction is an important requirement for the long-term success in the cemented hip arthroplasty. Cementing techniques have evolved and now involve pressurisation of the acetabulum and femur. It can be difficult to get a complete rim seal and hence adequate pressurisation due to the unique anatomy of the acetabulum and the contyloid notch. Several acetabular pressurisers are commercially available. We have developed an instrument for controlled and reproducible cement pressurisation in the acetabulum before socket insertion. It is a T-bar incorporating a central plunger, which protrudes from an outer sleeve when force is applied. The protrusion of the central plunger and hence the amount of force applied can be limited by a stop-sleeve. A laboratory saw bone model was designed to assess this system and compare it with two existing pressurisers. A polypropylene model of the acetabulum was used. Included in the model were two 1.3mm diameter capillary outlets, one at its pole and one at a point close to its rim opposite the cotyloid notch. Water was free to flow through the capillaries at a pressure of 13.5” WG to represent blood flow. 5 test per pressuriser were performed. CMW 1 Gentamicin bone cement was mixed as per manufacturers instruction in a Vacuum Mix system. The cement was then pressurised using one of three systems; the Depuy T handle pressuriser, the Exeter pressuriser and our new instrument. The cement mantle produced with the Depuy T-handle and the Exeter pressuriser was thicker at the pole than the rim and the cement intrusion was not consistent nor reproducible. The new pressurizer produced a cement mantle equal at the pole and the rim to within 1mm. A reproducible cement mantle compatible to the shape of the socket and with cement intrusion of 5mm (+/− 1mm) could be achieved. We recommend the use of this pressuriser.
The aim of this study was to ascertain if a correlation exists between the indication for revision and the clinical outcome in revision total knee replacement.
Sixteen per cent of patients revised for aseptic loosening were non-committal or disappointed with the outcome in comparison with 33.3% revised for implant failure, 21.4% revised for instability, 62.5% revised for pain and 71.4% revised for infection.
It is usually assumed that there is a correlation between the number of previous operations and the clinical outcome of revision knee arthroplasty though it has not been studied and published. We reviewed our series of 81 revision knee arthroplasty patients to ascertain if a correlation exists. All patients had a semi-constrained prosthesis implanted.
Preoperatively, 16 patients were wheelchair bound and using a frame as a walking aid and 10 used two crutches for ambulation. 5 patients needed plastic surgical input and 5 needed a whiteside’s osteotomy for exposure. Previous surgery on the knee: 2 patients – 1 surgery 13 patients – 2 surgeries 8 patients – 3 surgeries 5 patients – 4 surgeries 2 patients – more than 4 surgeries In the latest review, excluding the deceased patients, there were 24 patients (89%) regarded as having satisfactory and 3 patients (11%) unsatisfactory results. 89% of the patients were subjectively satisfied with the operation, mostly because of a stable, mobile knee with minimal pain, in comparison to their pre-operative debilitating condition.
