What are the inpatient and day case costs following primary total hip replacement of patients treated for prosthetic joint infection: a matched cohort study using linked data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics.
Cohort study
Costs
Hip replacement
Hospital Episode Statistics
National Joint Registry
Orthopaedics
Prosthetic joint infection
Surgical site infection
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 11 2020
18 11 2020
Historique:
received:
29
05
2020
accepted:
30
09
2020
entrez:
18
11
2020
pubmed:
19
11
2020
medline:
23
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip replacement (THR) surgery is a serious complication that negatively impacts patients' lives and is financially burdensome for healthcare providers. As the number of THRs increases, so does this financial burden. This research estimates the economic burden with respect to inpatient and day case hospital admissions for patients receiving revision surgery for PJI following primary THR. In this matched cohort study, the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) was used to identify patients. Patients revised for PJI with a one- or two-stage revision following THR and patients not revised for PJI were matched on several characteristics using exact and radius matching. Hospital inpatient and day case healthcare records from the English Hospital Episode Statistics database were obtained for 5 years following the identified patient's primary THR. UK national unit costs were applied to hospital admissions and the 5-year total cost was estimated. A two-part model (Probit and generalised linear model) was employed to estimate the incremental difference in costs between those revised and not revised for PJI. Between 2006 and 2009, 1914 revisions for PJI were identified in the NJR. The matching resulted in 422 patients revised for PJI and 1923 matches not revised for PJI who were included in the analysis. The average cost of inpatient and day case admissions in the 5 years following primary THR was approximately £42,000 for patients revised for PJI and £8000 for patients not revised for PJI. The difference in costs over the 5 years was £33,452 (95% CI £30,828 to £36,077; p < 0.00). In the 5 years following primary THR, patients who develop PJI and have revision surgery cost approximately £33,000 (over 5-fold) more than patients not revised for PJI based on their hospital inpatient and day case admissions alone. The total burden of PJI is likely to be much higher when also considering outpatient, primary and community care costs. This highlights the need to find both ways to reduce the incidence of PJI following THR and cost-effective treatment strategies if PJI occurs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip replacement (THR) surgery is a serious complication that negatively impacts patients' lives and is financially burdensome for healthcare providers. As the number of THRs increases, so does this financial burden. This research estimates the economic burden with respect to inpatient and day case hospital admissions for patients receiving revision surgery for PJI following primary THR.
METHODS
In this matched cohort study, the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) was used to identify patients. Patients revised for PJI with a one- or two-stage revision following THR and patients not revised for PJI were matched on several characteristics using exact and radius matching. Hospital inpatient and day case healthcare records from the English Hospital Episode Statistics database were obtained for 5 years following the identified patient's primary THR. UK national unit costs were applied to hospital admissions and the 5-year total cost was estimated. A two-part model (Probit and generalised linear model) was employed to estimate the incremental difference in costs between those revised and not revised for PJI.
RESULTS
Between 2006 and 2009, 1914 revisions for PJI were identified in the NJR. The matching resulted in 422 patients revised for PJI and 1923 matches not revised for PJI who were included in the analysis. The average cost of inpatient and day case admissions in the 5 years following primary THR was approximately £42,000 for patients revised for PJI and £8000 for patients not revised for PJI. The difference in costs over the 5 years was £33,452 (95% CI £30,828 to £36,077; p < 0.00).
CONCLUSIONS
In the 5 years following primary THR, patients who develop PJI and have revision surgery cost approximately £33,000 (over 5-fold) more than patients not revised for PJI based on their hospital inpatient and day case admissions alone. The total burden of PJI is likely to be much higher when also considering outpatient, primary and community care costs. This highlights the need to find both ways to reduce the incidence of PJI following THR and cost-effective treatment strategies if PJI occurs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33203455
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01803-7
pii: 10.1186/s12916-020-01803-7
pmc: PMC7672908
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
335Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025643/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1210-12005
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Programme Grants for Applied Research
ID : RP-PG-1210-12005
Pays : International
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Dec 18;95(24):2177-84
pubmed: 24352771
Bone Joint Res. 2017 Jun;6(6):391-398
pubmed: 28642256
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2008 Apr;16(1):58-65
pubmed: 18453662
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jul;31(7):1422-6
pubmed: 26948176
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep;27(8 Suppl):61-5.e1
pubmed: 22554729
Bone Joint J. 2015 Aug;97-B(8):1024-30
pubmed: 26224816
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jul;475(7):1891-1900
pubmed: 28389865
J Hosp Infect. 2013 Nov;85(3):213-9
pubmed: 24011668
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010 Apr;96(2):124-32
pubmed: 20417910
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1619-26
pubmed: 8245054
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:489-505
pubmed: 29328879
J Orthop Traumatol. 2010 Sep;11(3):167-74
pubmed: 20811922
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Feb;472(2):464-70
pubmed: 23801061
JAMA. 1996 Mar 20;275(11):858-65
pubmed: 8596224
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Sep;18(9):1004-1014
pubmed: 30056097
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 May;94(5):619-23
pubmed: 22529080
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Sep;30(9):1492-7
pubmed: 25865815
J Hosp Infect. 2005 Jun;60(2):93-103
pubmed: 15866006
Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393(10172):647-654
pubmed: 30782340
Bone Joint J. 2015 Aug;97-B(8):1076-81
pubmed: 26224824
Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1768-77
pubmed: 23021846
Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2016 Jul-Aug;60(4):227-33
pubmed: 27161768
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 03;11(3):e0150866
pubmed: 26938768
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Nov;69(11):1659-1667
pubmed: 28152269
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 07;5(12):e009495
pubmed: 26644124
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Aug;87(8):1746-51
pubmed: 16085614