Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Revision THA and TKA are growing and important clinical and economic challenges. Healthcare systems tend to combine revision joint replacement procedures into a single service line, and differences between revision THA and revision TKA remain incompletely characterized. These differences carry implications for guiding care and resource allocation. We therefore evaluated epidemiologic trends associated with revision THAs and TKAs. Questions/purposes We sought to determine differences in (1) the number of patients undergoing revision TKA and THA and respective demographic trends; (2) differences in the indications for and types of revision TKA and THA; (3) differences in patient severity of illness scoring between THA and TKA; and (4) differences in resource utilization (including cost and length of stay [LOS]) between revision THA and TKA. Methods The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to evaluate 235,857 revision THAs and 301,718 revision TKAs between October 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010. Patient characteristics, procedure information, and resource utilization were compared across revision THAs and TKAs. A revision burden (ratio of number of revisions to total number of revision and primary surgeries) was calculated for hip and knee procedures. Severity of illness scoring and cost calculations were derived from the NIS. As our study was principally descriptive, statistical analyses generally were not performed; however, owing to the large sample size available to us through this NIS analysis, even small observed differences presented are likely to be highly statistically significant. Results Revision TKAs increased by 39% (revision burden, 9.1%–9.6%) and THAs increased by 23% (revision burden, 15.4%–14.6%). Revision THAs were performed more often in older patients compared with revision TKAs. Periprosthetic joint infection (25%) and mechanical loosening (19%) were the most common reasons for revision TKA compared with dislocation (22%) and mechanical loosening (20%) for revision THA. Full (all-component) revision was more common in revision THAs (43%) than in TKAs (37%). Patients who underwent revision THA generally were sicker (> 50% major severity of illness score) than patients who underwent revision TKA (65% moderate severity of illness score). Mean LOS was longer for revision THAs than for TKAs. Mean hospitalization costs were slightly higher for revision THA (USD 24,697 +/− USD 40,489 [SD]) than revision TKA (USD 23,130 +/− USD 36,643 [SD]). Periprosthetic joint infection and periprosthetic fracture were associated with the greatest LOS and costs for revision THAs and TKAs. Conclusions These data could prove important for healthcare systems to appropriately allocate resources to hip and knee procedures: the revision burden for THA is 52% greater than for TKA, but revision TKAs are increasing at a faster rate. Likewise, the treating clinician should understand that while both revision THAs and TKAs bear significant clinical and economic costs, patients undergoing revision THA tend to be older, sicker, and have greater costs of care.

Background Despite the overall effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA), a subset of patients remain dissatisfied with their results because of persistent pain or functional limitations. It is therefore important to develop predictive tools capable of identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes before surgery. Questions/purposes The purpose of this study was to use preoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores to predict which patients undergoing THA are most likely to experience a clinically meaningful change in functional outcome 1 year after surgery. Methods A retrospective cohort study design was used to evaluate preoperative and 1-year postoperative SF-12 version 2 (SF12v2) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) scores from 537 selected patients who underwent primary unilateral THA. Minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) were calculated using a distribution-based method. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to calculate threshold values, defined as the levels at which substantial changes occurred, and their predictive ability. MCID values for HOOS and SF12v2 physical component summary (PCS) scores were calculated to be 9.1 and 4.6, respectively. We analyzed the effect of SF12v2 mental component summary (MCS) scores, which measure mental and emotional health, on SF12v2 PCS and HOOS threshold values. Results Threshold values for preoperative HOOS and PCS scores were a maximum of 51.0 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.74; p < 0.001) and 32.5 (AUC, 0.62; p < 0.001), respectively. As preoperative mental and emotional health improved, which was reflected by a higher MCS score, HOOS and PCS threshold values also increased. When preoperative mental and emotional health were taken into account, both HOOS and PCS threshold values’ predictive ability improved (AUCs increased to 0.77 and 0.69, respectively). Conclusions We identified PROM threshold values that predict clinically meaningful improvements in functional outcome after THA. Patients with a higher level of preoperative function, as suggested by HOOS or PCS scores above the defined threshold values, are less likely to obtain meaningful improvement after THA. Lower preoperative mental and emotional health decreases the likelihood of achieving a clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA. The results of this study may be used to facilitate discussion between physicians and patients regarding the expected benefit after THA and to support the development of patient-based informed decision-making tools. For example, despite significant disease, patients with high preoperative function, as measured by PROM scores, may choose to delay surgery given the low likelihood of experiencing a meaningful improvement postoperatively. Similarly, patients with notably low MCS scores might best be counseled to address mental health issues before embarking on surgery. Level of Evidence Level III, prognostic study.

Previous projections of total joint replacement (TJR) volume have not quantified demand for TJR surgery in young patients (< 65 years old). We developed projections for demand of TJR for the young patient population in the United States. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify primary and revision TJRs between 1993 and 2006, as a function of age, gender, race, and census region. Surgery prevalence was modeled using Poisson regression, allowing for different rates for each population subgroup over time. If the historical growth trajectory of joint replacement surgeries continues, demand for primary THA and TKA among patients less than 65 years old was projected to exceed 50% of THA and TKA patients of all ages by 2011 and 2016, respectively. Patients less than 65 years old were projected to exceed 50% of the revision TKA patient population by 2011. This study underscores the major contribution that young patients may play in the future demand for primary and revision TJR surgery. Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The current risk of infection in contemporary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as well as the relative importance of risk factors remains under debate as a result of the rarity of the complication and temporal changes in the treatment and prevention of infection. We therefore determined infection incidence and risk factors after TKA in the Medicare population. The Medicare 5% national sample administrative data set was used to identify and longitudinally follow patients undergoing TKA for deep infections and revision surgery between 1997 and 2006. Cox regression was used to evaluate patient and hospital characteristics. In 69,663 patients undergoing elective TKA, 1400 TKA infections were identified. Infection incidence within 2 years was 1.55%. The incidence between 2 and up to 10 years was 0.46%. Women had a lower risk of infection than men. Comorbidities also increased TKA infection risk. Patients receiving public assistance for Medicare premiums were at increased risk for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Hospital factors did not predict an increased risk of infection. PJI occurs at a relatively high rate in Medicare patients with the greatest risk of PJI within the first 2 years after surgery; however, approximately one-fourth of all PJIs occur after 2 years. Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Understanding the cause of failure and type of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures performed in the United States is essential in guiding research, implant design, and clinical decision making in TKA. We assessed the causes of failure and specific types of revision TKA procedures performed in the United States using newly implemented ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes related to revision TKA data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Clinical, demographic, and economic data were reviewed and analyzed from 60,355 revision TKA procedures performed in the United States between October 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006. The most common causes of revision TKA were infection (25.2%) and implant loosening (16.1%), and the most common type of revision TKA procedure reported was all component revision (35.2%). Revision TKA procedures were most commonly performed in large, urban, nonteaching hospitals in Medicare patients ages 65 to 74. The average length of hospital stay (LOS) for all revision TKA procedures was 5.1 days, and the average total charges were $49,360. However, average LOS, average charges, and procedure frequencies varied considerably by census region, hospital type, and procedure performed. Level of Evidence: Level II, economic and decision analysis. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

With payers and policymakers' focus on improving the value (health outcomes achieved per health care dollar spent) of health care delivery, physicians are increasingly taking on senior leadership/management positions in health care organizations (Carsen & Xia, 2006). Little research has been done to understand the impact of physician leadership on the delivery of care. The aim of this study was to examine whether hospital systems led by physicians were associated with better U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) quality ratings, financial performance, and operating efficiency as compared with those led by nonphysician managers. Cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative data from Medicare Cost Reports and the USNWR on the 115 largest U.S. hospitals was performed. Bivariate analysis of physician-led and non-physician-led hospital networks included three categories: USNWR quality ratings, hospital volume, and financial performance. Multivariate analysis of hospital leadership, percent operating margin, inpatient days per hospital bed, and average quality rating was subsequently performed. Hospitals in physician-led hospital systems had higher quality ratings across all specialties and more inpatient days per hospital bed than did non-physician-led hospitals; however, there were no differences in the total revenue or profit margins between the groups. Physician leadership was independently associated with higher average quality ratings and inpatient days per bed. Large hospital systems led by physicians in 2015 received higher USNWR ratings and bed usage rates than did hospitals led by nonphysicians, with no differences in financial performance. This study suggests that physician leaders may possess skills, qualities, or management approaches that positively affect hospital quality and the value of care delivered. Hospital quality and efficiency ratings vary significantly and can impact consumer decisions. Hospital systems may benefit from the presence of physician leadership to improve the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients. In addition, medical education should help prepare physicians to take on leadership roles in hospitals and health systems.

BackgroundDeep infection following total hip arthroplasty is a devastating complication for the patient and a costly one for patients, surgeons, hospitals, and payers. The purpose of this study was to compare revision total hip arthroplasty for infection, revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening, and primary total hip arthroplasty with respect to their impact on hospital and surgeon resource utilization and referral patterns to a tertiary-care hospital.MethodsClinical, demographic, and economic data were obtained for twenty-five consecutive patients with an infection after a total hip replacement who underwent a two-stage revision arthroplasty (Group 1) performed by one of two surgeons, between March 2001 and December 2002, at a single institution. Similar data were collected during the same time-period for a cohort of twenty-five consecutive patients who underwent revision of both components because of aseptic loosening (Group 2) and twenty-five consecutive patients who underwent a primary hip arthroplasty (Group 3). Quantitative and categorical variables were compared among the groups. Referral patterns were examined by reviewing the primary diagnosis for all patients referred to our institution for a revision total hip arthroplasty during a five-year period.ResultsRevision procedures for infection were associated with longer operative time, more blood loss, and a higher number of complications compared with revisions for aseptic loosening or primary total hip arthroplasty (p < 0.02 for all). Revisions for infection were also associated with a higher total number of hospitalizations, total number of days in the hospital, total number of operations, total hospital costs, total outpatient visits, and total outpatient charges during the twelve-month period following the index procedure (p < 0.001 for all). The incidence of referrals to our institution for a diagnosis of infection following total hip arthroplasty increased significantly over a five-year period (Spearman rank correlation, 1.0; p = 0.0083), while referral rates for revision for causes other than infection remained relatively constant (Spearman rank correlation, 0.500; p = 0.3910).ConclusionsThe treatment of patients with an infection after a total hip arthroplasty is associated with significantly greater hospital and physician resource utilization compared with the treatment of patients who have a revision because of aseptic loosening or who have a primary total hip arthroplasty. We believe that the lack of incremental reimbursement associated with these procedures results in strong financial disincentives for physicians and hospitals to provide treatment for patients with an infection after a total hip arthroplasty.

Background Cost estimates derived from traditional hospital cost accounting systems have inherent limitations that restrict their usefulness for measuring process and quality improvement. Newer approaches such as time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) may offer more precise estimates of true cost, but to our knowledge, the differences between this TDABC and more traditional approaches have not been explored systematically in arthroplasty surgery. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to compare the costs associated with (1) primary total hip arthroplasty (THA); (2) primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA); and (3) three surgeons performing these total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) as measured using TDABC versus traditional hospital accounting (TA). Methods Process maps were developed for each phase of care (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) for patients undergoing primary TJA performed by one of three surgeons at a tertiary care medical center. Personnel costs for each phase of care were measured using TDABC based on fully loaded labor rates, including physician compensation. Costs associated with consumables (including implants) were calculated based on direct purchase price. Total costs for 677 primary TJAs were aggregated over 17 months (January 2012 to May 2013) and organized into cost categories (room and board, implant, operating room services, drugs, supplies, other services). Costs derived using TDABC, based on actual time and intensity of resources used, were compared with costs derived using TA techniques based on activity-based costing and indirect costs calculated as a percentage of direct costs from the hospital decision support system. Results Substantial differences between cost estimates using TDABC and TA were found for primary THA (USD 12,982 TDABC versus USD 23,915 TA), primary TKA (USD 13,661 TDABC versus USD 24,796 TA), and individually across all three surgeons for both (THA: TDABC = 49%–55% of TA total cost; TKA: TDABC = 53%–55% of TA total cost). Cost categories with the most variability between TA and TDABC estimates were operating room services and room and board. Conclusions Traditional hospital cost accounting systems overestimate the costs associated with many surgical procedures, including primary TJA. TDABC provides a more accurate measure of true resource use associated with TJAs and can be used to identify high-cost/high-variability processes that can be targeted for process/quality improvement. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Background Patient, surgeon, health system, and device factors are all known to influence outcomes in THA. However, patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of early failure are poorly understood, particularly in elderly patients. Questions/purposes We identified specific demographic and clinical characteristics associated with increased risk of early revision in Medicare patients with THA. Methods The Medicare 5% national sample administrative database was used to calculate the relative risk of revision within 12 months following primary THA as a function of baseline medical comorbidities in 56,030 Medicare patients who underwent primary THA between 1998 and 2010. The impact of 29 comorbid conditions on risk of early revision was examined using Cox regression, controlling for age, sex, race, US Census region, socioeconomic status, and all other baseline comorbidities. Results Depression, rheumatologic disease, psychoses, renal disease, chronic urinary tract infection, and congestive heart failure were associated with revision THA within 12 months of the index arthroplasty (p ≤ 0.038 for all comparisons; risk factors listed in order of significance). Conclusions This information is important when counseling elderly patients with THA regarding the risk of early failure and for risk stratifying publicly reported outcomes in Medicare patients with THA. Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background Understanding the type and magnitude of services that patients receive postdischarge and the financial impact of readmissions is crucial to assessing the feasibility of accepting bundled payments. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to (1) determine the cost and service components of a 30-day total joint arthroplasty (TJA) episode of care; (2) analyze the portion of the total payment that is used for postdischarge services, including home care; and (3) to evaluate the frequency of readmissions and their impact on total episode-of-care payments. Methods All payments to Medicare providers (hospitals, postacute care facilities, physicians, and other healthcare providers) for services beginning with the index procedure and extending 30-days postdischarge were analyzed for 250 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing primary or revision TJA from a single institution over a 12 months. Payments and services were aggregated by procedure type and categorized as index procedure, postacute care, and related hospital readmissions. Results Mean episode-of-care payments ranged from USD 25,568 for primary TJA in patients with no comorbidities to USD 50,648 for revision TJA in patients with major comorbidities or complications, with wide variability within and across procedures. Postdischarge payments accounted for 36% of total payments. A total of 49% of patients were transferred to postacute care facilities, accounting for 70% of postdischarge payments. The overall 30-day unplanned readmission rate was 10%, accounting for 11% of postdischarge payments. Conclusions Episode-of-care payments for TJAs vary widely depending on the type of procedure, patient comorbidities and complications, discharge disposition, and readmission rates. Postdischarge care accounted for more than one-third of total episode payments and varied substantially across patients and procedures. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.