Orthopaedics What s New in 2015 What Really Works in Orthopaedics: Does Advertising Change our Practice

Transcription

1 Orthopaedics What s New in 2015 What Really Works in Orthopaedics: Does Advertising Change our Practice Warwick J. M. Bruce Clinical Professor The University of Sydney

2 Concord Hospital Sydney Australia

3 the surgeon is no longer proud when he sees the rows of amputation stumps that he has left behind himself; he sees them rather with sorrow as witnesses documenting the imperfection of his art Professor Bernhard von Langebeck

4 What s wrong with Surgery Money Ego Advertising The villains Companies Surgeons Patients

5 How have we done?

6 PATELLOFEMORAL REPLACEMENTS

7 NJRR Australian Orthopaedic Assoc yr cumulative revision rate 13.8% <55 yr 17% 5 yr Males twice revision rate 21.3% 5 yr

8 Arthrosurface HemiCAP Age: < >60 The New Continuum: After Biology before Joint Reconstruction

9 Results Histology A B Goat 3 at POW 26. Remodeling trabecular bone abuts much of the anchoring screw and resurfacing unit. The subchondral bone plate is thickened immediately lateral to the implant. The central cannulation of the anchoring screw is bone lined. Articular cartilage migrates across the resurfacing unit margins. There is no evidence of cyst formation 1+x OM.

10 NJRR Australian Orthopaedic Association yr cumulative revision 16.5% Revision UKR 62.5% TKR 37.5%

11 Advances: Spacer R Hallock Orthopaedic Clinics North America Oct 2005, Vol 36, No 4, % revised in 2 years ( high failure rate reported 2004 ) NJRR 2006

12 NJRR Australian Orthopaedic Association InterCushion unispacers 100% revision Zimmer unispacer 56.7% revised (3yrs) 40% first year

13 Medial Spring High infection rate I was told 27% by company representative These are sold without adequate trial

14

15 Revolutionary knee replacement operation in. 50% of patients currently requiring a knee replacement will be suitable for this new technology

16 National Joint Replacement Registry % of all knee replacements 3.2% failure ( TKR 1.4% failure) NSW and SA most ( Vic third ) SA 2.3 times Victoria per 100,000 NSW 1.9 times Victoria per 100,000 Preservation 4.1% failure since introduction 2.5 yrs before Hospitals performing most procedures highest level failure

17 UNICOMPARTMENTAL 37.3% fewer unicompartmental knees in 2010 compared to yr revision rate 13% compared to 5% of TKRs

18 Other Factors Adequate Operative numbers Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register Number of Mobile bearing UKR/Unit/Year effects outcome Threshold >23/yr Robertson et al JBJS(Br) 2001;83-B:45-9 Unrealistic means need to do 230 knees per year (NJRAOA 9.7%)

19 Best unicompartmental results not significantly different from the best rate for TKR Murray D:JBJS Nov knees, 34 died 109 still living Time since operation 7.6 yrs ( maximum 13.8 ) One knee lost to follow up 10 yrs cumulative survival rate 98% Excluded 39 failures Excluded 28 ACL Excluded 9 previous HTO Excluded 2 knees AVN

20 True Survival Murray D ACL HTO AVN/T 0 10 YRS

21 Minimal Incision: Swedish Registry 2003 Risk ratio for revision Miller Gallante UKR higher than Link UKR Not the case during the 1990 s revision rate similar During the 2000 s Link UKR 22% mini incision, Miller Gallante UKR 72% mini incision.there are indications showing that the mini-incision increases the revision rate.it is conceivable that the new operating procedure may further deteriorate the long-term results.

22 Simple vs. Complex TKR Advance knee Cheap Symmetrical Reliable Journey Knee Left and right Beautiful laboratory studies Sophisticated kinematics Medial pivot principles

23 Revison Rates Primary TKR by Surgeon

24 Revison Rates of Primary TKR by Surgeon Surgeon N Revised N Total Obs. Years Revisions/100 Obs. Yrs (95% CI) Dr W Bruce Advance (NMP)* (0.12, 1.14) Other Surgeon Advance (NMP)* (0.43, 1.45) Other Total Knee (0.69, 0.71) TOTAL (0.69, 0.71)

25

26

27

28 Hip Replacement Anterior approach Done for 100 year

29 Mini Anterior Approach NJRR 2010 The Quadra H femoral stem has been used in 837 procedures and has a one year cumulative percent revision of 3.1%. It has over five times the risk of revision in the first two weeks compared to all other total conventional hip replacement. Cumulative Percent Revision 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% Quadra- H/Versafit Male Quadra- H/Versafit Female Other Male Other Female HR - adjusted for age Quadra- H/Versafit Male vs Quadra- H/Versafit Female Entire Period: HR=0.74 (0.35, 1.54),p=0.418 Quadra- H/Versafit Female vs Other Female Entire Period: HR=1.40 (0.87, 2.26),p=0.164 Quadra- H/Versafit Male vs Other Male Entire Period: HR=1.12 (0.63, 1.98),p=0.695 Other Male vs Other Female Entire Period: HR=0.92 (0.86, 0.99),p= % 0% Years Since Primary Procedure

30 Remember most people do Anterior Approach in Easy Hips

31 100% marketing DAY ONLY

32

33 The Facts Two meetings Arthroplasty Society Advances in Joint Replacement Lucerne I have done second joint of these surgeons I had a hip replacement Large inscision Only on panadol BP 80 / 60 not allowed out of bed Operating 4 weeks Golf 8 Skiing 3 months

34 ASR Withdrawn from Australia in 2009

35 Metallosis

36 Resurfacing No of procedures in 2010 was 22.1% less than in 2009 and 48.6% less than its peak in % of THR s are now resurfacings

37 Surface Replacement: Revision by Type of Prostheses Femoral Component Acetabular Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 BHR BHR 1.6 (1.3, 1.9) 2.0 (1.7, 2.4) 2.5 (2.1, 2.9) 2.9 (2.5, 3.5) 3.7 (3.1, 4.4) ASR ASR 4.1 (2.8, 5.9) 5.2 (3.5, 7.6) Durom Durom 3.8 (2.5, 6.0) 5.0 (3.3, 7.5) Cormet 2000 (HAP) Cormet 6.3(2.9, 13.5) 7.4 (3.6, 14.8) 9.2 (4.6, 17.9) All Resurfacing 1.8 (1.5, 2.1) 2.2 (1.9, 2.6) 2.7 (2.3, 3.1) 3.1 (2.7, 3.6) 3.8 (3.2, 4.6) Data: 1 st September 1999 to 31 st December 2006

38 Outcomes: Resurfacing By Head Size (OA only) HR=3.35 P<0.001 <50 mm 7.5% >=50 mm 1.9% Data: 1 st September 1999 to 31 st December 2006

39 Outcomes of BHR and ASR <50 mm Head Size P = ASR At 2 years = 6.6% BHR At 2 years = 3.2% Data: 1 st September 1999 to 31 st December 2006

40 Volume BHR and success 74% of hospitals performed less than 30 cases in 7 years 64% of hip resurfacings were performed at 16 high volume hospitals >100 cases 249 (3.1%) of the resurfacing procedures were revised. Percentage of Hospitals Resurfacing Cases by Hospital Australian Joint Registry High Volume Hospitals 5 0 < > 500 Total Cases Performed

41 Least Experienced Hospitals vs. all Others 9 Survivorship of Hip Resurfacing and Hospital Volume When adjusted for differences in the age and sex of the patients, the risk of revision was 66% greater in hospitals performing <25 cases. Cumulative Revisions (%) p= Years Post Operation

42 Results My Corail Stems vs. Australia

43 My Revisions All major revisions due to Manufacturer Corail stem revisions 4 stems revised Revision diagnosis Implant breakage stem (2 patients) Osteolysis (2 patients) neither stem loose ASR MINOR revisions 1. Infection 2. Ceramic fracture 3. Prosthesis dislocation

44

45 Bearing Surfaces

46

47

48 What s going to Happen?

49 Osteoarthritis In 2006, 46.4 million Americans (21.6%) had been diagnosed as having arthritis. In 2030 the number of Americans with arthritis will increase to nearly 67 million. Hootman JM Arthritis Rheum 2006

50 PROJECTIONS FOR HEALTHCARE COSTS An analysis of future public and private spending on health care in 21 industrialised nations (Kibasi et al 2012)

51 OECD OBESITY OVERVIEW 18 % in the OECD population are obese. 1/3 in Mexico, NZ and USA are obese. 1/4 in Australia, Canada, Chile and Hungary are obese. In Asian countries 2-4 % are obese. Severely obese people die 8-10 years earlier Obesity is estimated to be responsible for 1% to 3% (5%-10% USA) of health care expenditures.

52 OSTEOPOROSIS osteoporosis in 2005 in USA is estimated to increase from 10 million to >14 million people in 2020 In 2005, total fractures ~2.0 million (Fig. 1A) and costs to be more than $16.9 billion (Fig. 1B). Projection to 2025 Fractures are expected to grow to >3 million Costs are projected to grow by >48%, around at $25.3 billion. Burge et al., Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 2007

53 HIP ARTHROPLASTY The estimated demand for primary total hip and knee arthroplasty and revision INCREASE % Primary THR 208, , % Revision THR 40,800 96, % Primary TKR 450, million 673% Revision TKR 38, , % Primary Primary Revision Revision Kurtz S., J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007

54 USA MANPOWER Between 2000 and 2020, the demand for orthopaedic services increase by 23% orthopaedic surgeons will increase by only 2% during the same interval. Porucznik MA, AAOS 2007 The deficit of orthopaedic surgeons is estimated to be 12,000 to 15,600. Farley FA, J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007

55 PREDICTED RISE IN INFECTION FOR HIP AND KNEE REPLACEMENTS The relative incidence of Periprosthetic Joint Infection ranged between 2.0% and 2.4% of total hip arthroplasties and total knee arthroplasties and increased over time. Kurtz SM J Arthroplasty 2012

56 What should we concentrate on? Education of surgeons do it better What the patient wants: Stopping infections Stopping dislocations Getting the leg length right Reproducible and relatively pain free Not what surgeon wants New toy New approach Marketing edge on colleagues I do a lot of surgery because of word of mouth not advertising

57 What we should concentrate on? What government wants: Evidence based not advertising based What surgeons should want: Reproducibility in results and surgeon s ability to do it No complications related to implant No complications related to approach Laser or customised jigs for accurate implantation Advanced imaging for more accurate surgery

58 33 /19 54yr old female with 36mm MoP

59 Functional anteversion only 4 at seat-off Limited lumbar flexion 20

60 Functional anteversion now 17 at seat-off 41 /30 Doing very 6 months

61 What we won t have Mini incsions adequate incisions Surgeons with unacceptable revision rates registry data Computer navigation or robots Money

62 CONCLUSIONS Nearly all resources will be treating obesity and osteoporosis Surgeons will be held accountable not just by patients but by government Registries will become powerful political tools which will not always be in the interests of patients and surgeons

63

64 Thank You