Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012.

Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (sd 4514) vs £9655 (sd 599.7), p < 0.0001).

Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201.

Revision arthroplasty of the hip is expensive owing to the increased cost of pre-operative investigations, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay and drugs. We compared the costs of performing this surgery for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1999 and 2008. The mean total costs for revision surgery in aseptic cases (n = 194) were £11 897 (sd 4629), for septic revision (n = 76) £21 937 (sd 10 965), for peri-prosthetic fracture (n = 24) £18 185 (sd 9124), and for dislocation (n = 11) £10 893 (sd 5476). Surgery for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with longer operating times, increased blood loss and an increase in complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly longer on average (p < 0.001). Financial costs vary significantly by indication, which is not reflected in current National Health Service tariffs.

Aims

The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS.

Revision surgery for total knee replacement is a complex procedure, carrying an increased risk for the patient and cost for hospitals. As well as increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and theatre time, there is a well documented increased length of stay (LOS), accounting for the majority of actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection vs. other causes (aseptic loosening, dislocation, mal-alignment). Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 180 consecutive revision total knee replacements performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2003 and 2012. Actual costs and National Health Service tariffs were compared per patient and mean difference calculated.

Mean age was 66 years (range 17–87) with 62 male and 117 female patients. Mean LOS for aseptic cases was 10 days (range 1–62) and 20 days (range 4–103) for infection. Mean cost difference in aseptic cases (n = 125) was £−933 (SD = £12,204), and £−3907 (SD = £7,256) for infection (n = 54).

Surgery for infection was associated with increased operating times, blood loss and complications compared to revision for aseptic causes. LOS for infection was on average double that for aseptic cases (p < 0.05). Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs associated with providing a revision knee surgery service, with even greater cost incurred by the treating hospital for infected cases. These losses may negatively influence the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

We present a case series of patients who underwent 3 or 4 part proximal humerus fracture fixation using an intra-osseous suture technique. 18 patients are included in the study with follow up data obtained ranging from 1 to 4 years. Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS) and range of movement measurements were taken for all patients.

The mean OSS for the group was 50/60 with a mean forward flexion of 140°, abduction of 132°, external rotation of 48° and internal rotation to the level 10^th thoracic vertebra. Three patients developed adhesive capsulitis, 2 requiring subsequent arthroscopic release. This data compares favourably to outcomes reported in the literature with hemiarthroplasty or locking plate fixation.

An activity based costing analysis estimated that the treatment costs for proximal humerus fractures was approximately £2,055 when performing a soft tissue reconstruction, £3,114 when using a locking plate and £4,679 when performing a hemiarthroplasty. This demonstrates a significant financial saving when using intra-osseous fixation compared to other fixation techniques.

We advocate the use of the intra-osseous suture fixation technique for certain 3 and 4 part fractures. It gives good functional outcomes, significant cost savings and potentially makes revision procedures easier when compared to other fixation techniques.

Knee arthroscopy with meniscectomy is the third most common Orthopaedic surgery performed after TKA and THA, comprising up to 16.6% of all procedures. The efficiency of Orthopaedic care delivery with respect to waiting times and systemic costs is extremely concerning. Canadian Orthopaedic patients experience the longest wait times of any G7 country, yet perioperative surgical care constitutes a significant portion of a hospital's budget. In-Office Needle Arthroscopy (IONA) is an emerging technology that has been primarily studied as a diagnostic tool. Recent evidence shows that it is a cost-effective alternative to hospital- and community-based MRI with comparable accuracy. Recent procedure guides detailing IONA medial meniscectomy suggest a potential node for OR diversion. Given the high case volume of knee arthroscopy as well as the potential amenability to be diverted away from the OR to the office setting, IONA has the potential to generate considerable improvements in healthcare system efficiency with respect to throughput and cost savings. As such, the purpose of this study is to investigate the cost savings and impact on waiting times on a mid-sized Canadian community hospital if IONA is offered as an alternative to traditional operating room (OR) arthroscopy for medial meniscal tears. In order to develop a comprehensive understanding and accurate representation of the quantifiable operations involved in the current state for medial meniscus tear care, process mapping was performed that describes the journey of a patient from when they present with knee pain to their general practitioner until case resolution. This technique was then repeated to create a second process map describing the hypothetical proposed state whereby OR diversion may be conducted utilizing IONA. Once the respective process maps for each state were determined, each process map was translated into a Dupont decision tree. In order to accurately determine the total number of patients which would be eligible for this care pathway at our institution, the OR booking scheduling for arthroscopy and meniscectomy/repair over a four year time period (2016-2020) were reviewed. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effect of the number of patients who select IONA over meniscectomy and the number of revision meniscectomies after IONA on 1) the profit and profit margin determined by the MCS-Dupont financial model and 2) the throughput (percentage and number) determined by the MCS-throughput model. Based on historic data at our institution, an average of 198 patients (SD 31) underwent either a meniscectomy or repair from years 2016-2020. Revenue for both states was similar (p = .22), with the current state revenue being $ 248,555.99 (standard deviation $ 39,005.43) and proposed state of $ 249,223.86 (SD $ 39,188.73). However, the reduction in expenses was significant (p < .0001) at 5.15%, with expenses in the current state being $ 281,415.23 (SD $ 44,157.80) and proposed state of $ 266,912.68 (SD $ 42,093.19), representing $14,502.95 in savings. Accordingly, profit improvement was also significant (p < .0001) at 46.2%, with current state profit being $ (32,859.24) (SD $ 5,153.49) and proposed state being $ (17,678.82) (SD $ 2,921.28). The addition of IONA into the care pathway of the proposed state produced an average improvement in throughput of 42 patients (SD 7), representing a 21.2% reduction in the number of patients that require an OR procedure. Financial sensitivity analysis revealed that the proposed state profit was higher than the current state profit if as few as 10% of patients select IONA, with the maximum revision rate needing to remain below 40% to achieve improved profits. The most important finding from this study is that IONA is a cost-effective alternative to traditional surgical arthroscopy for medial meniscus meniscectomy. Importantly, IONA can also be used as a diagnostic procedure. It is shown to be a cost-effective alternative to MRI with similar diagnostic accuracy. The role of IONA as a joint diagnostic-therapeutic tool could positively impact MRI waiting times and MRI/MRA costs, and further reduce indirect costs to society. Given the well-established benefit of early meniscus treatment, accelerating both diagnosis and therapy is bound to result in positive effects

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the true costs associated with preoperative CT scans performed for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) planning and to determine the value of a formal radiologist’s report of these studies.

Aim

There has been a significant reduction in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures recorded in Australia. This follows several national joint registry studies documenting high UKA revision rates when compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the recent introduction of robotically assisted UKA procedures, it is hoped that outcomes improve. This study examines the cumulative revision rate of UKA procedures implanted with a newly introduced robotic system and compares the results to one of the best performing non-robotically assisted UKA prostheses, as well as all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures.

Aims

To date, no study has demonstrated an improvement in postoperative outcomes following elective joint arthroplasty with a focus on nutritional intervention for patients with preoperative hypoalbuminaemia. In this prospective study, we evaluated differences in the hospital length of stay (LOS), rate of re-admission, and total patient charges for a malnourished patient study population who received a specific nutrition protocol before surgery.

Aims

The objective of this study was to compare early postoperative functional outcomes and time to hospital discharge between conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and robotic-arm assisted TKA.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the optimal regimen for the management of pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by comparing the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of different protocols implemented at a large, urban, academic medical centre.

The rate of peri-prosthetic infection following total joint replacement continues to rise, and attempts to curb this trend have included the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement at the time of primary surgery. We have investigated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the use of antibiotic-loaded cement for primary total knee replacement (TKR) by comparing the rate of infection in 3048 TKRs performed without loaded cement over a three-year period versus the incidence of infection after 4830 TKRs performed with tobramycin-loaded cement over a later period of time of a similar duration. In order to adjust for confounding factors, the rate of infection in 3347 and 4702 uncemented total hip replacements (THR) performed during the same time periods, respectively, was also examined. There were no significant differences in the characteristics of the patients in the different cohorts.

The absolute rate of infection increased when antibiotic-loaded cement was used in TKR. However, this rate of increase was less than the rate of increase in infection following uncemented THR during the same period. If the rise in the rate of infection observed in THR were extrapolated to the TKR cohort, 18 additional cases of infection would have been expected to occur in the cohort receiving antibiotic-loaded cement, compared with the number observed. Depending on the type of antibiotic-loaded cement that is used, its cost in all primary TKRs ranges between USD $2112.72 and USD $112 606.67 per case of infection that is prevented.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:65–9.