Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) incidence following hip replacement surgery continues to rise. There is a national drive to centralise PFF treatment within specialist centres to improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The financial implications of treating PFFs must be analysed to guide allocation of funding. Data were collected for 129 PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014–19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by the Patient Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) team. Primary outcomes were cost, revenue and margin for each PFF. Additional data were collected on length of stay (LOS), critical care requirements and clinical outcomes. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type (fixation vs revision). Significance was set to p<0.05. Across the entire cohort, total cost was £2,389,901, total revenue was £1,695,435 and total loss was £694,481. Highest costs were ward stay (£714,591), theatre utilisation (£382,625), and overheads (£249,110). Median cost was £15,863 (IQR, £11,092-£22,221), median revenue was £11,305 (IQR, £7,147-£15,222) and median loss was £3,795 (IQR, £605-£8687). Median LOS was 21 days (IQR 13–34) and 28.7% patients required critical care admission. Ninety-six patients were treated operatively with either fixation (n=53) or revision (n=43). Median operating time was lower for fixation versus revision (132 [IQR, 115–185] vs 201 [IQR, 159–229] minutes, p=0.001). Median cost (£17,455 [IQR, £13,095-£22,824] vs £17,399 [£13,394-£23,404]) and median loss (£5,774 [IQR, £2,092-£10,472] vs £3,860 [IQR, £96-£7,601]) were similar for fixation and revision (p=0.99 and p=0.18, respectively). Median revenue was greater for revision versus fixation (£13,925 [IQR, £11,294-£17,037] vs £12,160 [IQR, £8,486-£14,390], p=0.02). There was no difference in LOS (21 [13–34] vs 21 [14–30] days, p=0.94), critical care requirements (20 [37.7%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.30), reoperations (3 [5.7%] vs 6 [14.0%], p=0.29], local complications (8 [15.1%) vs 12 [27.9%], p=0.20) or systemic complications (11 [20.8%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.75) between fixation and revision. PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement through tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce costs associated with LOS, theatre utilisation and implants. Treatment cost should not be used when deciding between fixation and revision surgery.
With greater numbers of younger patients undergoing
total hip replacement (THR), the effect of patient age on the diameter
of the femoral canal may become more relevant. This study aimed
to investigate the relationship between the diameter of the diaphysis
of the femoral canal with increasing age in a large number of patients
who underwent THR. A total of 1685 patients scheduled for THR had
their femoral dimensions recorded from calibrated radiographs. There
were 736 males and 949 females with mean ages of 67.1 years (34
to 92) and 70.2 years (29 to 92), respectively. The mean diameter
of the femoral canal was 13.3 mm (8.0 to 23.0) for males and 12.7
mm (6.0 to 26.0) for females. There was a poor correlation between
age and the diameter of the canal in males (r = 0.071, p = 0.05)
but a stronger correlation in females (r = 0.31, p <
0.001). The diameter of the femoral canal diameter of a female patient
undergoing THR could be predicted to increase by 3.2 mm between
the ages of 40 and 80 years, in contrast a male would be expected
to experience only a 0.6 mm increase during the same period. This
increase in the diameter of the canal with age might affect the
long-term survival of the femoral component in female patients. Cite this article:
