Cargando…

Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany

BACKGROUND: Postoperative rehabilitation after primary total hip arthroplasty (p-THA) differs between the Netherlands and Germany. Aim is to compare clinical effectiveness and to get a first impression of cost effectiveness of Dutch versus German usual care after p-THA. METHODS: A transnational pros...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wijnen, Annet, Seeber, Gesine H., Dietz, Günter, Dijkstra, Baukje, Dekker, Johan S., Vermeulen, Karin M., Slager, Geranda E. C., Hessel, Aike, Lazovic, Djordje, Bulstra, Sjoerd K., Stevens, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10294515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37370054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06654-w
_version_ 1785063215351201792
author Wijnen, Annet
Seeber, Gesine H.
Dietz, Günter
Dijkstra, Baukje
Dekker, Johan S.
Vermeulen, Karin M.
Slager, Geranda E. C.
Hessel, Aike
Lazovic, Djordje
Bulstra, Sjoerd K.
Stevens, Martin
author_facet Wijnen, Annet
Seeber, Gesine H.
Dietz, Günter
Dijkstra, Baukje
Dekker, Johan S.
Vermeulen, Karin M.
Slager, Geranda E. C.
Hessel, Aike
Lazovic, Djordje
Bulstra, Sjoerd K.
Stevens, Martin
author_sort Wijnen, Annet
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Postoperative rehabilitation after primary total hip arthroplasty (p-THA) differs between the Netherlands and Germany. Aim is to compare clinical effectiveness and to get a first impression of cost effectiveness of Dutch versus German usual care after p-THA. METHODS: A transnational prospective controlled observational trial. Clinical effectiveness was assessed with self-reported questionnaires and functional tests. Measurements were taken preoperatively and 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. For cost effectiveness, long-term economic aspects were assessed from a societal perspective. RESULTS: 124 working-age patients finished the measurements. German usual care leads to a significantly larger proportion (65.6% versus 47.5%) of satisfied patients 12 weeks postoperatively and significantly better self-reported function and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST) results. German usual care is generally 45% more expensive than Dutch usual care, and 20% more expensive for working-age patients. A scenario analysis assumed that German patients work the same number of hours as the Dutch, and that productivity costs are the same. This analysis revealed German care is still more expensive but the difference decreased to 8%. CONCLUSIONS: German rehabilitation is clinically advantageous yet more expensive, although comparisons are less straightforward as the socioeconomic context differs between the two countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the German Registry of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011345, 18/11/2016). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06654-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10294515
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102945152023-06-28 Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany Wijnen, Annet Seeber, Gesine H. Dietz, Günter Dijkstra, Baukje Dekker, Johan S. Vermeulen, Karin M. Slager, Geranda E. C. Hessel, Aike Lazovic, Djordje Bulstra, Sjoerd K. Stevens, Martin BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: Postoperative rehabilitation after primary total hip arthroplasty (p-THA) differs between the Netherlands and Germany. Aim is to compare clinical effectiveness and to get a first impression of cost effectiveness of Dutch versus German usual care after p-THA. METHODS: A transnational prospective controlled observational trial. Clinical effectiveness was assessed with self-reported questionnaires and functional tests. Measurements were taken preoperatively and 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. For cost effectiveness, long-term economic aspects were assessed from a societal perspective. RESULTS: 124 working-age patients finished the measurements. German usual care leads to a significantly larger proportion (65.6% versus 47.5%) of satisfied patients 12 weeks postoperatively and significantly better self-reported function and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST) results. German usual care is generally 45% more expensive than Dutch usual care, and 20% more expensive for working-age patients. A scenario analysis assumed that German patients work the same number of hours as the Dutch, and that productivity costs are the same. This analysis revealed German care is still more expensive but the difference decreased to 8%. CONCLUSIONS: German rehabilitation is clinically advantageous yet more expensive, although comparisons are less straightforward as the socioeconomic context differs between the two countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the German Registry of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011345, 18/11/2016). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06654-w. BioMed Central 2023-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10294515/ /pubmed/37370054 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06654-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Wijnen, Annet
Seeber, Gesine H.
Dietz, Günter
Dijkstra, Baukje
Dekker, Johan S.
Vermeulen, Karin M.
Slager, Geranda E. C.
Hessel, Aike
Lazovic, Djordje
Bulstra, Sjoerd K.
Stevens, Martin
Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany
title Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany
title_full Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany
title_fullStr Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany
title_short Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany
title_sort effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the netherlands and germany
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10294515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37370054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06654-w
work_keys_str_mv AT wijnenannet effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT seebergesineh effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT dietzgunter effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT dijkstrabaukje effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT dekkerjohans effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT vermeulenkarinm effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT slagergerandaec effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT hesselaike effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT lazovicdjordje effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT bulstrasjoerdk effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany
AT stevensmartin effectivenessofrehabilitationforworkingagepatientsafteratotalhiparthroplastyacomparisonofusualcarebetweenthenetherlandsandgermany