Short-term outcome after posterior versus lateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty - a randomized clinical trial*

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>Currently, total hip replacement (THR) is most commonly performed via a posterior or a direct lateral approach, but the impact of the latter on the invention's outcome has yet not been quantified.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared the short-term outcome of cementless THR using the both approaches in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. 60 patients with unilateral osteoarthritis were included. Outcome assessment was performed one day before surgery and one week, four weeks, six weeks and 12 weeks after surgery, respectively, using the Harris Hip score as primary objective.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found no significant difference in the intraindividual Harris Hip Score improvement at the pre-and three months post-operative assessments between both treatment groups (p = 0.115). However, Harris Hip scores and most functional and psychometric secondary endpoints showed a consistent tendency of a slightly better three months result in patients implanted via the posterior approach. In contrast a significant shorter operating time of the direct lateral approach was recorded (67 minutes versus 76 minutes, p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In our opinion this slightly better short-term functional outcome after posterior approach is not clinical relevant. However, to make definitive conclusions all clinical relevant factors (i.e. mid- to long-term function, satisfaction, complication rates and long-term survival) have to be taken into account. <it>Level of evidence: </it>I - therapeutic</p

Functional outcome after open and arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic shoulder instability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>Both open and arthroscopic Bankart repair are established procedures in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. While the open procedure is still considered as the "golden standard" functional outcome is supposed to be better in the arthroscopic procedure. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional outcome between open and arthroscopic Bankart repair.</p> <p>Materials and methods</p> <p>In 199 patients a Bankart procedure with suture anchors was performed, either arthroscopically in presence of an detached, but not elongated capsulolabral complex (40) or open (159). After a median time of 31 months (12 to 67 months) 174 patients were contacted and agreed to follow-up, 135 after open and 39 after arthroscopic Bankart procedure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Re-dislocations occurred in 8% after open and 15% after arthroscopic Bankart procedure. After open surgery 4 of the 11 re-dislocations occurred after a new adequate trauma and 1 of the 6 re-dislocations after arthroscopic surgery. Re-dislocations after arthroscopic procedure occured earlier than after open Bankart repair. An external rotation lag of 20° or more was observed more often (16%) after open than after arthroscopic surgery (3%). The Rowe score demonstrated "good" or "excellent" functional results in 87% after open and in 80% patients after arthroscopic treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this retrospective investigation the open Bankart procedure demonstrated good functional results. The arthroscopic treatment without capsular shift resulted in a better range of motion, but showed a tendency towards more frequently and earlier recurrence of instability. Sensitive patient selection for arthroscopic Bankart repair is recommended especially in patients with more than five dislocations.</p

Cost effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty from a health care providers' perspective before and after introduction of an interdisciplinary clinical pathway - is investment always improvement?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective, but also cost-intensive health care intervention for end stage osteoarthritis. This investigation was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TKA before versus after introduction of an interdisciplinary clinical pathway from a University Orthopedic Surgery Department's cost perspective as an interdisciplinary full service health care provider.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective trial recruited two sequential cohorts of 132 and 128 consecutive patients, who were interviewed by means of the WOMAC questionnaire. Direct process costs from the health care providers' perspective were estimated according to the German DRG calculation framework. The health economic evaluation was based on margiual cost-effectveness ratios (MCERs); an individual marginal cost effectiveness relation ≤ 100 € per % WOMAC index increase was considered as primary endpoint of the confirmatory cohort comparison. The interdisciplinary clinical pathway under consideration primarily consisted of a voluntary preoperative personal briefing of patients concerning postoperatively expectable progess in health status and optimum use of walking aids after surgery. All patients were supplied with written information on these topics, attendance of the personal briefing also included preoperative training for postoperative mobilisation by the Department's physiotherapeutic staff.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>An individual marginal cost effectiveness relation ≤ 100 €/% WOMAC index increase was found in 38% of the patients in the pre pathway implementation cohort versus in 30% of the post pathway implementation cohort (Fisher p = 0.278). Both cohorts showed substantial improvement in WOMAC scores (39 versus 35% in median), whereas the cohort did not differ significantly in the median WOMAC score before surgery (41% for the pre pathway cohort versus 44% for the post pathway cohort). Despite a locally significant decrease in costs (4303 versus 4194 € in median), the individual cost/benefit relation became worse after introduction of the pathway: for the first cohort the MCER was estimated 108 € per gained % WOMAC index increase (86 - 150 €/%) versus 118 €/% WOMAC gain (93 - 173 €/%) in the second cohort after pathway implementation. In summary, the proposed critical pathway for TKA could be shown to be significantly cost efficient, but not cost effective concerning functional outcome, when the above individual marginal cost effectiveness criterion was concentrated on.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The introduction of an interdisciplinary clinical pathway does not necessarily improve patient related outcomes. On the contrary, cost effectiveness from the health care providers' perspective may even turn out remarkably reduced in the setting considered here (functional outcome assessment after treatment by a full service health care provider).</p