5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      HOSPITAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION FOR PRIMARY AND REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY :

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population.

          The mortality and complication rates of many surgical procedures are inversely related to hospital procedure volume. The objective of this study was to determine whether the volumes of primary and revision total hip replacements performed at hospitals and by surgeons are associated with rates of mortality and complications. We analyzed claims data of Medicare recipients who underwent elective primary total hip replacement (58,521 procedures) or revision total hip replacement (12,956 procedures) between July 1995 and June 1996. We assessed the relationship between surgeon and hospital procedure volume and mortality, dislocation, deep infection, and pulmonary embolus in the first ninety days postoperatively. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, arthritis diagnosis, comorbid conditions, and income. Analyses of hospital volume were adjusted for surgeon volume, and analyses of surgeon volume were adjusted for hospital volume. Twelve percent of all primary total hip replacements and 49% of all revisions were performed in centers in which ten or fewer of these procedures were carried out in the Medicare population annually. In addition, 52% of the primary total hip replacements and 77% of the revisions were performed by surgeons who carried out ten or fewer of these procedures annually. Patients treated with primary total hip replacement in hospitals in which more than 100 of the procedures were performed per year had a lower risk of death than those treated with primary replacement in hospitals in which ten or fewer procedures were performed per year (mortality rate, 0.7% compared with 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.38, 0.89). Patients treated with primary total hip replacement by surgeons who performed more than fifty of those procedures in Medicare beneficiaries per year had a lower risk of dislocation than those who were treated by surgeons who performed five or fewer of the procedures per year (dislocation rate, 1.5% compared with 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.34, 0.69). Patients who had revision total hip replacement done by surgeons who performed more than ten such procedures per year had a lower rate of mortality than patients who were treated by surgeons who performed three or fewer of the procedures per year (mortality rate, 1.5% compared with 3.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.44, 0.96). Patients treated at hospitals and by surgeons with higher annual caseloads of primary and revision total hip replacement had lower rates of mortality and of selected complications. These analyses of Medicare claims are limited by a lack of key clinical information such as operative details and preoperative functional status.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases.

            The Swedish Hip Register has defined the epidemiology of total hip replacement in Sweden. Most hip implants are fully cemented. Serious complications and rates of revision have declined significantly despite an increasing number of patients at risk. During the past 5 years, only 8-9% of hip replacements are revisions. Aseptic loosening with or without osteolysis is the major problem and constitutes 71% of the revisions, but the incidence had decreased three times during the past 15 years to less than 3% at 10 years. The effectiveness of the surgical technique is the most important factor for reducing the risk of revision because of aseptic loosening, but choice of implant is also important. In practice, total hip replacement in Sweden has improved, as judged by information from this Register about individualized patient risks, implant safety, and the greater efficacy of surgical and cementing techniques.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Distinction Between Cost and Charges

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
                The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0021-9355
                2005
                March 2005
                : 87
                : 3
                : 570-576
                Article
                10.2106/00004623-200503000-00014
                15741624
                07f02e70-190f-4475-9ffa-f7d0f54bc34a
                © 2005
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article