RESUMEN
There is an increasing demand to quantify the footprints, ecological, economic and social, in terms of the effect of different interventions in healthcare. The aim of this study was to compare two systems providing patients with diabetes with insoles in terms of their ecological, economic and social footprints. Prefabricated insoles (PRI) were compared with custom-made insoles (CMI). Using a welfare-economic monetary approach, costs were estimated for (1) treatment, (2) travelling to and from the hospital in terms of both fuel and time consumed by the patients and (3) society through emissions contributing to climate change. The proportion of patients/year that could be supplied within the same budget, for each individual treatment, was calculated. The cost of the insoles was 825 SEK (PRI) and 1450 SEK (CMI), respectively. The cost, mean value/patient due to the consumption of patients' time at the department, was 754 SEK (PRI) and 1508 SEK (CMI), respectively. Emissions, in terms of CO2 equivalent, were 13.7 (PRI) and 27.4 (CMI), respectively. Using PRI, a total of 928 patients could be provided/year compared with 500 patients if CMI are used. By using PRI, the cost/treatment was reduced by 46%. The cost of treatment dominated and the cost of time consumed by patients were also substantial. The societal cost of contributing to climate change was of low importance. By using PRI, the needs of 86% more patients could be met within the same budget. Using these methods, the contribution of healthcare systems to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals approved by the UN can be quantified.
RESUMEN
This study describes the changes in hip and pelvic kinematics in 19 trans-femoral amputees, who were treated with an osseointegrated trans-femoral prosthesis. Patients were studied with 3-dimensional gait analysis, walking with socket prosthesis within two days before the osseointergration procedure. The post-operative gait analysis was carried out at the 2 year follow-up visit. Fifty-seven; age-, side- and gender-matched healthy subjects served as controls. Post-operative data showed that patients who had an osseointegrated transfemoral prosthesis increased their hip extension by 7.3° (p=0.007), changing from -2.6° (range -13.4° to 10.7°) to -9.9° (range -29.4° to 5°). Moreover, the pre-operative anterior pelvic tilt was reduced by 4.0° (p=0.016), changing from 21.7° (range 11.9-34.8°) to 17.7° (range 5.5-25.7°). Values for hip extension and pelvic tilt changed toward those of controls. These results confirm that patients treated with osseointegrated trans-femoral prosthesis encounter significant changes of their kinematic pattern in terms of hip extension and anterior pelvic tilt. Even though the changes were moderate they may, in the long-term have a positive influence on low-back biomechanics and could contribute to reducing the risk of further problems with low back pain.
Asunto(s)
Miembros Artificiales , Cadera/fisiología , Movimiento (Física) , Oseointegración , Pelvis/fisiología , Amputados , Fenómenos Biomecánicos , Femenino , Marcha/fisiología , Humanos , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/prevención & control , MasculinoRESUMEN
The Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register records primary hip replacements, revisions and surgical technique/environmental factors. The end-point for failure is revision. A prosthesis still in place, however, does not mean success. Clinical and radiographic outcomes should describe in more detail the efficacy of hip replacement surgery instead of the relatively blunt outcome measure that the register can provide. We performed a clinical outcome analysis on patients with primary total hip replacement thus testing the adequacy of the end-point for failure in the Swedish register. 1,113 randomly selected patients who had had total hip replacement surgery between 1986 and 1995 answered a disease-specific self-administered questionnaire (WOMAC). A cohort of 344 patients was studied, using the Harris Hip Score and a conventional radiographic examination as outcome measures. We found clinical failure rates of 13% and 20% for all implants after 10 years, using 60 points or revision as the definition of failure in the Harris Hip Score and WOMAC, respectively. The result, according to the register during the same period, was a 7% revision rate. The clinical failure rate depended on the type of evaluation tool, definition of failure and demographics, which made it difficult to decide whether there was a need for revision. With the exception of pain measured by the Harris Hip Score, the results showed no significant correlation between clinical failure and radiographic failure. Hence, with the knowledge that there is a difference between the revision rate according to the register and clinical outcome, the strict definition of failure in the register is useful as an end-point for primary hip replacement surgery.