Obesity is associated with an increased risk of undergoing hip replacement in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a known risk factor for the development of hip osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether obesity is associated with the risk of undergoing total hip replacement (THR) in Australia. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted comparing data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from 2017 to 2018. Body mass index (BMI) data for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement and resurfacing for osteoarthritis were obtained from the AOANJRR. The distribution of THR patients by BMI category was compared to the general population, in age and sex sub-groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 32 495 primary THR were performed for osteoarthritis in Australia. Compared to the general population, there was a higher prevalence of Class I, II and III obesity in patients undergoing THR in both sexes aged 35-74 years. Class III obese females and males aged 55-64 years were 2.9 and 1.7 times more likely to undergo THR, respectively (P < 0.001). Class III obese females and males underwent THR on average 5.7 and 7.0 years younger than their normal weight counterparts, respectively. CONCLUSION: Obese Australians are at increased risk of undergoing THR, and at a younger age.

Vancomycin Soaking Is Highly Cost-Effective in Primary ACLR Infection Prevention: A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Although presoaking grafts in vancomycin has been demonstrated to be effective in observational studies for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) infection prevention, the economic benefit of the technique is uncertain. PURPOSE: To 1) determine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin presoaking during primary ACLR to prevent postoperative joint infections and 2) to establish the break-even cost-effectiveness threshold of the technique and determine its cost-effectiveness across various international health care settings. STUDY DESIGN: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A Markov model was used to determine cost-effectiveness and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of additional vancomycin presoaking compared with intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone. A repeated search of the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, using the same criteria as a recent meta-analysis, was completed. A repeated meta-analysis of 9 cohort studies (level 3 evidence) was completed to determine the odds ratio of infection with vancomycin presoaking compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. Estimated costs of the vancomycin technique, treatment of infection, and further surgery were sourced from local hospitals and literature. Transitional probabilities for further surgery, including revision reconstruction and primary arthroplasty, were obtained from the literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a 1-way sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the ACLR infection rate break-even threshold for which the vancomycin technique would be no longer cost-effective. RESULTS: The vancomycin soaking technique provides expected cost savings of $660 (USA), A$581 (Australia), and €226 (Spain) per patient. There was an improvement in the quality-adjusted life-years of 0.007 compared with intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone (4.297 vs 4.290). If the infection rate is below 0.014% with intravenous antibiotics alone, the vancomycin wrap would no longer be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The vancomycin presoaking technique is a highly cost-effective method to prevent postoperative septic arthritis after primary ACLR.

Stakeholders identify similar barriers but different strategies to facilitate return-to-work: A vignette of a worker with an upper extremity condition.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholders involved in the return-to-work (RTW) process have different roles and qualificationsOBJECTIVE:To explore the perspectives of Australian stakeholders of the RTW barriers and strategies for a worker with an upper extremity condition and a complex workers' compensation case. METHODS: Using a case vignette, stakeholders were asked to identify barriers and recommend strategies to facilitate RTW. Content analysis was performed on the open-ended responses. The responses were categorised into RTW barriers and strategies using the biopsychosocial model. Pearson's Chi Square and ANOVA were performed to establish group differences. RESULTS: 621 participants (488 healthcare providers (HCPs), 62 employers, 55 insurers and 16 lawyers) identified 36 barriers (31 modifiable): 4 demographic; 8 biological; 15 psychological and 9 social barriers. 484 participants reported 16 RTW strategies: 4 biological; 6 psychological and 6 social strategies. 'Work relationship stressors' (83.4%) and 'Personal relationship stressors' (64.7%) were the most frequently nominated barriers. HCPs most frequently nominated 'Pain management' (49.6%), while employers, insurers and lawyers nominated 'RTW planning/Suitable duties programs' (40.5%; 42.9%; 80%). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders perceived similar barriers for RTW but recommended different strategies. Stakeholders appeared to be more proficient in identifying barriers than recommending strategies. Future research should focus on tools to both identify RTW barriers and direct intervention.