Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:10:34.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

EVALUATION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF HIP JOINT REPLACEMENT TECHNIQUES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2001

José M. Quintana
Affiliation:
Hospital de Galdakao
Jesús Azkarate
Affiliation:
Hospital del Bajo Deba
J. Ignacio Goenaga
Affiliation:
Hospital de Santiago
Inmaculada Aróstegui
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco
Ignacio Beldarrain
Affiliation:
Hospital de Aránzazu
Jose M. Villar
Affiliation:
Hospital de Crúces

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the appropriateness of the use of hip joint replacements (HJRs) using explicit criteria developed by an expert panel.

Methods: Observational study. Nine hundred ninety-seven patients from five hospitals with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, hip fracture, or revision who were undergoing HJR were consecutively included in the study during a 1-year period. The appropriateness of the indication was judged by explicit criteria. Complications were recorded at the time of the intervention and 3 months postoperatively.

Results: Of the 1,030 interventions, 604 were for osteoarthritis, 31 avascular necrosis, 191 fractures, and 204 revisions. No differences were found among the hospitals for the main clinical and patient variables. Indications for surgery were considered appropriate in 59% of cases, uncertain in 32%, and inappropriate in 8%, mainly in the osteoarthritis group. Differences were found in the rates of appropriateness among some centers. The complication rate did not differ among the groups based on the level of appropriateness of the procedure.

Conclusions: The appropriate use of HJR, as measured by the criteria established by the panel, identified a moderate percentage of inappropriate indications. Those equivocal and inappropriate cases demand further studies to identify patients with an adequate risk-to-benefit ratio from this procedure.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)