header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

The rising financial burden of revision total hip arthroplasty: expense to the Trust versus compensation by the National Tariff

British Orthopaedic Association/Irish Orthopaedic Association Annual Congress (BOA/IOA)



Abstract

Introduction

The number of revision hip arthroplasty procedures is rising annually with 7852 such operations performed in the UK in 2010. These are expensive procedures due to pre-operative investigation, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay, and pharmacological costs. There is a paucity of robust literature on the costs associated with the common indications for this surgery.

Objective

We aim to quantify the cost of revision hip arthroplasty by indication and identify any short-fall in relation to the national tariff.

Methods

Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1998 and 2008. These operations were categorised by indication into: aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical data included length of stay, operative time, estimated blood loss, prosthesis and instrumentation required.

Financial data was collected on cost of implants, materials and augmentation utilised at time of surgery, operating room costs, recovery, inpatient stay, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy, radiographs and laboratory studies.

Statistical analysis was undertaken using the SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, Il). Non-parametric bootstrap samples were used to obtain consistent 95% confidence intervals. Analysis of variance between groups was performed (p < 0.05).

Results

The mean total cost of revision surgery in aseptic cases (n=194) was £11897 +/− 4629, septic revision (n=76) £21937 +/− 10965, peri-prosthetic fractures (n=24) £18185 +/− 9124, and in dislocations (n=11) £10893 +/− 5476.

Conclusion

Revision procedures for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture were associated with significantly longer operative time, increased blood loss and a higher number of complications compared with revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly greater p< 0.001. Our study shows that financial costs vary significantly between revision subtypes which is not reflected by current National Health Service tariff rates.