Brian Darrith

Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature

Aims Instability remains a challenging problem in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility components confer increased stability, but there are concerns about the unique complications associated with these designs, as well as the long‐term survivorship. Materials and Methods We performed a systematic review of all English language articles dealing with dual mobility THAs published between 2007 and 2016 in the MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases. A total of 54 articles met inclusion criteria for the final analysis of primary and revision dual mobility THAs and dual mobility THAs used in the treatment of fractures of the femoral neck. We analysed the survivorship and rates of aseptic loosening and of intraprosthetic and extra‐articular dislocation. Results For the 10 783 primary dual mobility THAs, the incidence of aseptic loosening was 1.3% (142 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.1% (122 hips) and the incidence of extraarticular dislocation was 0.46% (41 hips). The overall survivorship of the acetabular component and the dual mobility components was 98.0%, with all‐cause revision as the endpoint at a mean follow‐up of 8.5 years (2 to 16.5). For the 3008 revision dual mobility THAs, the rate of aseptic acetabular loosening was 1.4% (29 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.3% (eight hips) and the rate of extra‐articular dislocation was 2.2% (67 hips). The survivorship of the acatabular and dual mobility components was 96.6% at a mean of 5.4 years (2 to 8). For the 554 dual mobility THAs which were undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck, the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.18% (one hip), the rate of extraarticular dislocation was 2.3% (13 hips) and there was one aseptic loosening. The survivorship was 97.8% at a mean of 1.3 years (0.75 to 2). Conclusion Dual mobility articulations are a viable alternative to traditional bearing surfaces, with low rates of instability and good overall survivorship in primary and revision THAs, and in those undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. The incidence of intraprosthetic dislocation is low and limited mainly to earlier designs. High‐quality, prospective, comparative studies are needed to evaluate further the use of dual mobility components in THA.

Sepsis Within 30 Days of Geriatric Hip Fracture Surgery

BACKGROUND Sepsis after hip fracture typically develops from one of the 3 potential infectious sources: urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia, and surgical site infection (SSI). The purpose of this investigation is to determine (1) the proportion of cases of sepsis that arises from each of these potential infectious sources; (2) baseline risk factors for developing each of the potential infectious sources; and (3) baseline risk factors for developing sepsis. METHODS The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was searched for geriatric patients (aged >65 years) who underwent surgery for hip fracture during 2005-2013. Patients subsequently diagnosed with sepsis were categorized according to concomitant diagnosis with UTI, SSI, and/or pneumonia. Multivariate regression was used to test for associations while adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS Among the 466 patients who developed sepsis (2.4% of all patients), 157 (33.7%) also had a UTI, 135 (29.0%) also had pneumonia, and 36 (7.7%) also had SSI. The rate of sepsis was elevated in patients who developed UTI (13.0% vs 1.7%; P < .001), pneumonia (18.2% vs 1.8%; P < .001), or SSI (14.8% vs 2.3%; P < .001). The mortality rate was elevated among those who developed sepsis (21.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001). CONCLUSION Sepsis occurs in about 1 in 40 patients after geriatric hip fracture surgery. Of these septic cases, 1 in 3 is associated with UTI, 1 in 3 with pneumonia, and 1 in 15 with SSI. The cause of sepsis is often unknown on clinical diagnosis, and this distribution of potential infectious sources allows clinicians for direct identification and treatment.

Do higher-volume hospitals provide better value in revision hip and knee arthroplasty?

Aims The purpose of this study is to determine if higher volume hospitals have lower costs in revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods We questioned the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Charge Data and identified 789 hospitals performing a total of 29 580 revision arthroplasties in 2014. Centres were dichotomised into high‐volume (performing over 50 revision cases per year) and low‐volume. Mean total hospital‐specific charges and inpatient payments were obtained from the database and stratified based on Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes. Patient satisfaction scores were obtained from the multiyear CMS Hospital Compare database. Results High‐volume hospitals comprised 178 (30%) of the total but performed 15 068 (51%) of all revision cases, including 509 of 522 (98%) of the most complex DRG 466 cases. While highvolume hospitals had higher Medicare inpatient payments for DRG 467 (

Reconsidering the Affordable Care Act’s Restrictions on Physician-owned Hospitals: Analysis of Cms Data on Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

21 458 versus

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Implications of Pneumonia After Surgery for Geriatric Hip Fracture

20 632, p = 0.038) and DRG 468 (

Total Knee Arthroplasty Following a Sepsis History

17 003 versus

Can the use of an inclinometer improve the positioning of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty

16 120, p = 0.011), there was no difference in hospital specific charges between the groups. Higher‐volume facilities had a better CMS hospital star rating (3.63 versus 3.35, p < 0.001). When controlling for hospital geographic and demographic factors, high‐volume revision hospitals are less likely to be in the upper quartile of inpatient Medicare costs for DRG 467 (odds ratio (OR) 0.593, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.374 to 0.941, p = 0.026) and DRG 468 (OR 0.451, 95% CI 0.297 to 0.687, p < 0.001). Conclusion While a high‐volume hospital is less likely to be a high cost outlier, the higher mean Medicare reimbursements at these facilities may be due to increased case complexity. Further study should focus on measures for cost savings in revision total joint arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99‐B:1611‐17.

Synovial Fluid Alpha-Defensin Is an Adjunctive Tool in the Equivocal Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Background: Concerns about financial incentives and increased costs prompted legislation limiting the expansion of physician-owned hospitals in 2010. Supporters of physician-owned hospitals argue that they improve the value of care by improving quality and reducing costs. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether physician-owned and non-physician-owned hospitals differ in terms of costs, outcomes, and patient satisfaction in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: With use of the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Charge Data, we identified 45 physician-owned and 2,657 non-physician-owned hospitals that performed ≥11 primary TKA and THA procedures in 2014. Cost data, patient-satisfaction scores, and risk-adjusted complication and 30-day readmission scores for knee and hip arthroplasty patients were obtained from the multiyear CMS Hospital Compare database. Results: Physician-owned hospitals received lower mean Medicare payments than did non-physician-owned hospitals for THA and TKA procedures (

Single-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia in hip and knee arthroplasty

11,106 compared with

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Implications of Pneumonia Following Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

12,699; p = 0.002). While the 30-day readmission score did not differ significantly between the 2 types of hospitals (4.48 compared with 4.62 for physician-owned and non-physician-owned, respectively; p = 0.104), physician-owned hospitals had a lower risk-adjusted complication score (2.83 compared with 3.04; p = 0.015). Physician-owned hospitals outperformed non-physician-owned hospitals in all patient-satisfaction categories, including mean linear scores for recommending the hospital (93.9 compared with 87.9; p < 0.001) and overall hospital rating (93.4 compared with 88.4; p < 0.001). When controlling for hospital demographic variables, status as a non-physician-owned hospital was an independent risk factor for being in the upper quartile of all inpatient payments for Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) 470 (odds ratio, 3.317; 95% confidence interval, 1.174 to 9.371; p = 0.024), which may be because of a difference in CMS payment methodology. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that physician-owned hospitals are associated with lower mean Medicare costs, fewer complications, and higher patient satisfaction following THA and TKA than non-physician-owned hospitals. Policymakers should consider these data when debating the current moratorium on physician-owned hospital expansion. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.