Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
J Arthroplasty. 2024 Feb;39(2):313-319.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.08.017. Epub 2023 Aug 11.
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in hospital costs associated with the use of cemented versus cementless femoral stems in hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the treatment of femoral neck fracture (FNF).
This retrospective cohort study utilizes the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set. Patients undergoing arthroplasty for the treatment of FNF were identified. Patients were grouped by cemented or cementless femoral stem fixation. There were 16,148 patients who underwent arthroplasty for FNF available: 4,913 THAs (3,705 patients who had cementless femoral stems and 1,208 patients who had cemented femoral stems) and 11,235 HAs (6,099 patients who had cementless femoral stems and 5,136 who had cemented femoral stems). Index hospital costs were estimated by multiplying total charges by cost-to-charge ratios. Costs were analyzed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear models.
Cemented femoral stem THA generated 1.080 times (95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.10; P < .001), or 8.0%, greater index hospital costs than cementless femoral stem THA, and cemented femoral stem HA generated 1.042 times (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.05; P < .001), or 4.2%, greater index hospital costs than cementless femoral stem HA.
Cemented femoral stems for FNF treated with either THA or HA are associated with only a small portion of increased cost compared to cementless femoral stems. Providers may choose the method of arthroplasty stem fixation for the treatment of FNF based on what they deem most appropriate for the specific patient.
本研究旨在确定在半髋关节置换术(HA)和全髋关节置换术(THA)治疗股骨颈骨折(FNF)中,使用骨水泥固定股骨柄与非骨水泥固定股骨柄的患者的住院费用是否存在差异。
这是一项回顾性队列研究,利用了 2019 年医疗保险提供者分析和审查有限数据集。确定了接受关节置换术治疗 FNF 的患者。根据骨水泥固定或非骨水泥固定股骨柄将患者分为两组。共有 16148 例 FNF 患者接受了关节置换术:4913 例 THA(3705 例患者使用了非骨水泥固定股骨柄,1208 例患者使用了骨水泥固定股骨柄)和 11235 例 HA(6099 例患者使用了非骨水泥固定股骨柄,5136 例患者使用了骨水泥固定股骨柄)。通过将总费用乘以成本与收费比率来估算指数住院费用。使用单变量和多变量广义线性模型分析成本。
骨水泥固定股骨柄 THA 的指数住院费用比非骨水泥固定股骨柄 THA 高 8.0%(95%置信区间,1.06 至 1.10;P <.001),骨水泥固定股骨柄 HA 的指数住院费用比非骨水泥固定股骨柄 HA 高 4.2%(95%置信区间,1.03 至 1.05;P <.001)。
与非骨水泥固定股骨柄相比,使用骨水泥固定股骨柄治疗 FNF 的 THA 或 HA 仅增加了一小部分费用。提供者可能会根据他们认为最适合特定患者的情况,选择用于治疗 FNF 的关节置换术股骨柄固定方法。