The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:1746-1751.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02937
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 CME 3: July, August, September 2005
Adult Hip Reconstruction Test 15: Fall 2005
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bozic, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Ries, M. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bozic, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Ries, M. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Hip
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Impact of Infection After Total Hip Arthroplasty on Hospital and Surgeon Resource Utilization

Kevin J. Bozic, MD, MBA1 and Michael D. Ries, MD1

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Avenue, MU 320W, San Francisco, CA 94143-0728. E-mail address for K.J. Bozic: bozick{at}orthosurg.ucsf.edu

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California

In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation Health Services Research Grant. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: Deep infection following total hip arthroplasty is a devastating complication for the patient and a costly one for patients, surgeons, hospitals, and payers. The purpose of this study was to compare revision total hip arthroplasty for infection, revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening, and primary total hip arthroplasty with respect to their impact on hospital and surgeon resource utilization and referral patterns to a tertiary-care hospital.

Methods: Clinical, demographic, and economic data were obtained for twenty-five consecutive patients with an infection after a total hip replacement who underwent a two-stage revision arthroplasty (Group 1) performed by one of two surgeons, between March 2001 and December 2002, at a single institution. Similar data were collected during the same time-period for a cohort of twenty-five consecutive patients who underwent revision of both components because of aseptic loosening (Group 2) and twenty-five consecutive patients who underwent a primary hip arthroplasty (Group 3). Quantitative and categorical variables were compared among the groups. Referral patterns were examined by reviewing the primary diagnosis for all patients referred to our institution for a revision total hip arthroplasty during a five-year period.

Results: Revision procedures for infection were associated with longer operative time, more blood loss, and a higher number of complications compared with revisions for aseptic loosening or primary total hip arthroplasty (p < 0.02 for all). Revisions for infection were also associated with a higher total number of hospitalizations, total number of days in the hospital, total number of operations, total hospital costs, total outpatient visits, and total outpatient charges during the twelve-month period following the index procedure (p < 0.001 for all). The incidence of referrals to our institution for a diagnosis of infection following total hip arthroplasty increased significantly over a five-year period (Spearman rank correlation, 1.0; p = 0.0083), while referral rates for revision for causes other than infection remained relatively constant (Spearman rank correlation, 0.500; p = 0.3910).

Conclusions: The treatment of patients with an infection after a total hip arthroplasty is associated with significantly greater hospital and physician resource utilization compared with the treatment of patients who have a revision because of aseptic loosening or who have a primary total hip arthroplasty. We believe that the lack of incremental reimbursement associated with these procedures results in strong financial disincentives for physicians and hospitals to provide treatment for patients with an infection after a total hip arthroplasty.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
P. Birmingham, J. M. Helm, P. A. Manner, and R. S. Tuan
Simulated Joint Infection Assessment by Rapid Detection of Live Bacteria with Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2008; 90(3): 602 - 608.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
Q. Cui, W. M. Mihalko, J. S. Shields, M. Ries, and K. J. Saleh
Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement Spacers for the Treatment of Infection Associated with Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 2007; 89(4): 871 - 882.
[Full Text] [PDF]