Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Surg Oncol ; 128(3): 425-429, 2023 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37537984

ABSTRACT

Musculoskeletal oncology is a clinical specialty dealing with a diverse population of patients with metastatic bone disease, hematological malignancies with musculoskeletal manifestations, primary bone malignancies and soft tissue sarcomas. There are wide-spread disparities including socioeconomic (SES) and insurance-related disparities reported in the literature. In this review, we'll summarize the disparities surrounding the musculoskeletal oncology.


Subject(s)
Bone Neoplasms , Sarcoma , Soft Tissue Neoplasms , Humans , Socioeconomic Factors , Socioeconomic Disparities in Health , Bone Neoplasms/therapy , Sarcoma/therapy , Healthcare Disparities
3.
J Arthroplasty ; 31(9 Suppl): 63-8, 2016 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27430185

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ideal bearing surface for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients remains a debate. Data on recent national trends are lacking. The purpose of this study is to provide an analysis on the national epidemiologic trends of bearing surface usage in patients aged ≤30 years undergoing THA from 2009 through 2012. METHODS: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2012, 9265 THA discharges (4210 coded by bearing surface) were identified in patients aged ≤30 years. Prevalence of surface type was analyzed along with patient and hospital demographic data. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS (SAS version 9.1; SAS, Inc, Cary, NC). Significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) bearing surfaces were most commonly used, representing 35.6% of cases, followed by metal-on-polyethylene (MoP; 28.0%), metal-on-metal (MoM; 19.3%), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC; 17.0%) bearing surfaces. Hard-on-hard bearing surfaces (MoM and CoC) represented only 36.4% of cases, a significant decrease from previously reported findings (2006-2009) where hard-on-hard bearing surfaces were the majority (62.2%; P < .05). Hard-on-hard bearing surface usage decreased from 2009 to 2012 (MoM: 29.7% to 10.2%; CoC: 20.0% to 14.7%), whereas hard-on-soft bearing surface usage (MoP and CoP) increased. CoP bearing surfaces saw the most significant increase from 25.7% in 2009 to 48.2% in 2012. A cost analysis revealed that CoP discharges were associated with higher hospital charges than other surface types, with an average charge of $66,457 (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Use of hard-on-hard surfaces has decreased significantly in this population, whereas CoP and MoP surfaces have become increasingly common. Determining the optimal bearing surface for extremely young patients continues to be a challenge for orthopedic surgeons as they weigh the risks and benefits of each.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/trends , Hip Prosthesis/statistics & numerical data , Prosthesis Design/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/economics , Ceramics/chemistry , Costs and Cost Analysis , Data Collection , Female , Health Care Costs , Hip Prosthesis/economics , Hospitals , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Metals/chemistry , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Polyethylene , Prosthesis Failure , Surface Properties , United States , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...