Background Various clinical and biomechanical studies suggest certain acetabular positions may be associated with higher wear and failure rates in modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties. However, there are no widely available, reliable, and cost-effective surgical techniques that ensure surgeons are able to place an acetabular component within the safe range of inclination angles after hip resurfacing surgeries. Questions/purposes We investigated the accuracy of intraoperative radiographs to determine the acetabular inclination angle in resurfacing arthroplasty procedures. Patients and Methods The study group included the first 100 resurfacing arthroplasties performed after we started routinely checking the intraoperative acetabular inclination angles. The acetabular component was repositioned if the intraoperative acetabular inclination angle was out of the target range of 30°to 50°. The control group included the previous 100 resurfacing arthroplasties performed without the benefit of intraoperative radiographs. A posterior minimally invasive surgical approach was used in both groups. Demographics and diagnoses were similar in both groups. ResultsThe average (± SD) difference between the intraoperative and 6-week radiographs was 2.7°± 2.5°. The acetabular inclination angles at 6-week followup were within the targeted range more frequently in the study group than in the control group (outliers: 4% versus 29%). Conclusions These data suggest a single intraoperative radiograph is a quick, reliable, and cost-effective method for ensuring the acetabular inclination angle is within the targeted range. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Recent advancements in arthroplasty surgical techniques and perioperative protocols have reduced the duration of hospitalization and length of recovery, allowing surgeons to perform joint replacement as an outpatient procedure. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient hip resurfacing. Two experienced surgeons performed 485 resurfacing surgeries. We retrospectively compared clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with published outpatient total hip results. Furthermore, we compared average insurance reimbursement with that of local inpatient hip replacement. No major complications occurred within 6 weeks. Of the 39 patients with previous inpatient experience, 37 (95%) believed their outpatient experience was superior. The average reimbursement for hip arthroplasty at local hospitals was $50,000, while the average payment for outpatient resurfacing at our surgery center was $26,000. We conclude that outpatient hip resurfacing can be accomplished safely, with high patient satisfaction, and at a tremendous financial savings to the insurer/patient. Level of evidence III Keywords Total hip arthroplasty • Outpatient • Hip resurfacing • Minimally invasive • Hip replacement Abbreviations THA Total hip arthroplasty HRA Hip resurfacing arthroplasty Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (
Infection rates for total joint arthroplasty range from 1% to 2%, and infection carries significant risk. The traditional course of treatment is irrigation and debridement, but historically, success rates have been variable. The goals of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Hickman catheterization in the treatment of prosthetic joint infection and to assess its value as an alternative to irrigation and debridement. The authors retrospectively analyzed 26 Hickman catheterizations in the treatment of acute early, acute late, and chronic late infections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Initial arthroplasty procedures were performed between 2006 and 2018, with all cases followed for a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. The authors evaluated surgical data, clinical outcomes, and success rates, and they compared their success rates with reported values for cases treated with irrigation and debridement. The authors' success rate was 100% for acute early hip infection, 100% for chronic knee infection, and 80.0% for chronic hip infection. They reported a 75.0% success rate in the treatment of acute late infection for hip arthroplasty and a rate of 62.5% for knee arthroplasty. Postoperative clinical outcomes were significantly improved for both hips and knees for all infection types. The success rates for the treatment of acute early prosthetic joint infection and chronic late prosthetic knee infection were superior to available reported rates on irrigation and debridement. The authors also reported the highest success rate for the treatment of acute late infection. The current data suggest that Hickman catheterization is a promising safe and effective alternative to irrigation and debridement for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. [ Orthopedics . 2021;44(3):e395–e401.]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.