Unexpected Repercussions of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Total Hip Arthroplasty with Cemented Hip Prosthesis versus Cementless Implants
Ahmed Abu-Awwad,
Cristina Tudoran,
Jenel Marian Patrascu,
Cosmin Faur,
Mariana Tudoran,
Gabriel Mihai Mekeres,
Simona-Alina Abu-Awwad,
Andrei Nicolae Csep
Affiliations
Ahmed Abu-Awwad
Department XV—Discipline of Orthopedics—Traumatology, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Eftimie Murgu Square, No. 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
Cristina Tudoran
“Pius Brinzeu” Emergency Clinical County Hospital, Bld Liviu Rebreanu, No. 156, 300723 Timisoara, Romania
Jenel Marian Patrascu
Department XV—Discipline of Orthopedics—Traumatology, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Eftimie Murgu Square, No. 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
Cosmin Faur
Department XV—Discipline of Orthopedics—Traumatology, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Eftimie Murgu Square, No. 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
Mariana Tudoran
“Pius Brinzeu” Emergency Clinical County Hospital, Bld Liviu Rebreanu, No. 156, 300723 Timisoara, Romania
Gabriel Mihai Mekeres
Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, Universitatii Street No.1, 410087 Oradea, Romania
Simona-Alina Abu-Awwad
“Pius Brinzeu” Emergency Clinical County Hospital, Bld Liviu Rebreanu, No. 156, 300723 Timisoara, Romania
Andrei Nicolae Csep
Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, Universitatii Street No.1, 410087 Oradea, Romania
(1) Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common procedures used for adult hip reconstruction, employing mainly two types of prostheses: cemented (CHP) and cementless (CLHP). This study aims to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on THA with CHP and CLHP, in terms of the benefit/cost ratio. (2) Methods: This article represents a retrospective analysis of the differences concerning the benefit/cost ratio between THA with the two types of prostheses in 2950 patients admitted for THA in the two orthopedic clinics of our hospital between 1 January 2015–1 March 2020 in comparison with 1005 THA subjects seen between 1 April 2020–31 December 2022. (3) Results: In the first period, THA with CHP was performed in 45.83% of cases, while CLHP was used in 54.16% of patients. During the COVID-19 period, CHP was inserted in 52% of THA patients, while the other 48% had CLHP inserted, with a hospitalization duration reduced by over 50% for both types of implants (p ˂ 0.001). (4) Conclusions: CHP offered good outcomes, with quicker mobilization, and shorter hospitalization duration, compared to CLHP, but optimization of the patients’ management can be achieved mainly by reducing the length of hospitalization through an appropriate preoperative patient evaluation through a multidisciplinary approach, an aspect that was proven during the COVID-19 pandemic.
