Introduction. Studies are being done comparing 1-stage vs. 2-stage protocols for PJI. 1-stage protocols take an extended period of time requiring 2 separate preps and sets of instruments in order to ensure optimal sterility. While intraoperative service time is one part of the reimbursement algorithm, reimbursement has lagged behind for single stage treatment. If 1-stage results are acceptable, but not reimbursed appropriately, surgeons may be discouraged from managing PJI in a 1-stage fashion. We ask, “What is the reimbursement and intraoperative service time for 1-stage procedures compared to primary surgery?”. Methods. Relative Value Unit's (RVU's), reimbursement and operative time for 50 PJI procedures were reviewed and compared to 250 primary (1°) THA and 250 primary (1°) TKA by four surgeons. Coding was done per AAOS guidelines. Results. Average work RVU's for 1-stage knees were 19.79 RVU's/hr. vs 23.47 for 1° TKA. Average reimbursement for a 1-stage knee was $2,597.08, with an average intraoperative service time of 259 minutes ($601.60/hr.). Average reimbursement for a 1° TKA was $2,435.00, with an average service time of 100 minutes ($1,461/ hr.). Average work RVU's for a 1-stage hip were 19.57/hr. vs 25.59 for a 1° THA. Average reimbursement for a 1-stage hip was $2,826.17, with an average intraoperative service time of 311 minutes ($545.24/ hr.). The average reimbursement for a 1° total hip was $2,754.71 with an average service time of 104 minutes ($1,589.26/ hr.). Conclusion. While RVUs/hr are similar between primaries and 1-stage procedures, 1-stage procedures for PJI are reimbursed at approximately 1/3 the hourly rate of a primary procedure. This may discourage surgeons from selecting this treatment alternative if studies confirm efficacy. Payers should be encouraged to reimburse physicians commensurate with the intraoperative service time needed to perform a 1-stage procedure as adoption will decrease morbidity and save the healthcare system financially

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. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) can be complex and associated with significant cost, with an increasing burden within the UK and globally. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed aiming to improve outcomes, reduce re-revisions and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for the rTHA service and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed over two consecutive financial years (2018–2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and by mode of failure; infected or non-infected. Patients of ASA grade of 3 or greater or BMI over 40 are considered “high-risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using PLICS and remuneration based on the HRG data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per episode per patient. Comparisons between groups were analysed using analysis of variance and two-tailed unpaired t-test. 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1), 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2) and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). 76 (38%) cases were due to infection. 78 (39%) of patients were in the “high-risk” group. Median length of stay increased with case complexity from 4, to 6 to 8 days (p=0.17) and significantly for revisions performed for infection (9 vs 5 days; p=0.01). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p=0.0002) and for infected revisions (p=0.003). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit, but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£301, £1,820 and £4,757 per case; p=0.02) and for infected failure (£4,023 vs £1,679; p=0.02). The total deficit to the trust for the two-years was £512,202. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHA at major revision centres (MRC) will likely place a greater financial burden on these units

Aims. High body mass index (BMI) is associated with increased rates of complications in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), but less is known about its impact on cost. The effects of low BMI on outcomes and cost are less understood. This study evaluated the relationship between BMI, inpatient costs, complications, readmissions, and utilization of post-acute services. Methods. A retrospective database analysis of 40,913 primary THAs performed between January 2013 and December 2017 in 29 hospitals was conducted. Operating time, length of stay (LOS), complication rate, 30-day readmission rate, inpatient cost, and utilization of post-acute services were measured and compared in relation to patient BMI. Results. Mean operating time increased with BMI and for BMI > 50 kg/m. 2. was approximately twice that of BMI 10 kg/m. 2. to 15 kg/m. 2. Mean inpatient cost did not vary significantly with BMI. Mean total reimbursement was lowest for the lowest BMI cohort and increased with BMI. Mean LOS was greatest at the extremes of BMI (4.0 days for BMI 10 kg/m. 2. to 15 kg/m. 2. ; 3.75 days for BMI > 50 kg/m. 2. ) and twice that of normal BMI. Mean complication rates were greatest in the lowest BMI cohort (16% for BMI 10 kg/m. 2. to 15 kg/m. 2. ) and five times the mean rate of complications in the normal BMI cohorts. Furthermore, 30-day readmissions were greatest in the highest BMI cohort (10% for BMI > 50 kg/m. 2. ) and five times the rate for normal BMI patients. Conclusion. LOS, complications, and 30-day readmissions all increase at the extremes of BMI and appear to be greater than those of patients with normal BMI. The lowest BMI patients had the lowest payment for inpatient stay yet were at considerable risk for complications and readmission. Patients with extreme BMI should be counselled about their increased risk of complications for THA and nutritional status/obesity optimized preoperatively if possible. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):62–70

Introduction. The Best Practice Tariff (BpT) for primary THR / TKR was established in 2014 and rewards good clinical practice with a £550 uplift on the £5000 basic reimbursement. For an ‘average unit’ performing 220 primary THR and 260 eligible knee surgeries (NJR data) this equates to £265,000 per year or over £1million since its inception. The aim of this study was to investigate why Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Trust was not receiving this reimbursement. Materials & Methods. BpT is dependent on four factors (NHS England, PROMS): (i) the provider not having an average health gain significantly below the national average, (ii) a minimum National Joint Registry compliance rate of 85%, (iii) an NJR unknown consent rate below 15%, and (iv) a PROMs participation rate of 50%. Results. Data from NHS Digital confirmed that the Trust's health gains were not significantly below average. Our NJR data was exemplary with 95% compliance rate and an unknown consent rate of only 3%. Based on HES data our PROMS returns were found to be considerably below the 50% target each month (Table 1). The HES data being compared against (269 hip replacement, 334 knee replacement) was far greater than our hospital NJR figures (165 hips, 151 knees). NHS England (PROMs) confirmed that BpT was collated on a Trust not hospital level. Our investigation established that PROMs data for the other hospital within our Trust was not being submitted under the correct ‘ODS’ code and was therefore not contributing to the Trust totals. Discussion. This investigation has precipitated resubmission of all data to NHS Digital under the correct Trust code. This will ensure compliance with the 50% target for PROMs Q1 submission, overall conformity with the BpT standards and a reimbursement of £370,000 to the Trust. For any figures and tables, please contact the authors directly

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) incidence following hip replacement surgery continues to rise. There is a national drive to centralise PFF treatment within specialist centres to improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The financial implications of treating PFFs must be analysed to guide allocation of funding. Data were collected for 129 PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014–19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by the Patient Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) team. Primary outcomes were cost, revenue and margin for each PFF. Additional data were collected on length of stay (LOS), critical care requirements and clinical outcomes. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type (fixation vs revision). Significance was set to p<0.05. Across the entire cohort, total cost was £2,389,901, total revenue was £1,695,435 and total loss was £694,481. Highest costs were ward stay (£714,591), theatre utilisation (£382,625), and overheads (£249,110). Median cost was £15,863 (IQR, £11,092-£22,221), median revenue was £11,305 (IQR, £7,147-£15,222) and median loss was £3,795 (IQR, £605-£8687). Median LOS was 21 days (IQR 13–34) and 28.7% patients required critical care admission. Ninety-six patients were treated operatively with either fixation (n=53) or revision (n=43). Median operating time was lower for fixation versus revision (132 [IQR, 115–185] vs 201 [IQR, 159–229] minutes, p=0.001). Median cost (£17,455 [IQR, £13,095-£22,824] vs £17,399 [£13,394-£23,404]) and median loss (£5,774 [IQR, £2,092-£10,472] vs £3,860 [IQR, £96-£7,601]) were similar for fixation and revision (p=0.99 and p=0.18, respectively). Median revenue was greater for revision versus fixation (£13,925 [IQR, £11,294-£17,037] vs £12,160 [IQR, £8,486-£14,390], p=0.02). There was no difference in LOS (21 [13–34] vs 21 [14–30] days, p=0.94), critical care requirements (20 [37.7%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.30), reoperations (3 [5.7%] vs 6 [14.0%], p=0.29], local complications (8 [15.1%) vs 12 [27.9%], p=0.20) or systemic complications (11 [20.8%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.75) between fixation and revision. PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement through tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce costs associated with LOS, theatre utilisation and implants. Treatment cost should not be used when deciding between fixation and revision surgery

Introduction. The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model for total hip arthroplasty (THA) involves a target reimbursement set by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Many patients exceed these targets, but predicting risk for incurring these excess costs remains challenging, and we hypothesized that select patient characteristics would adequately predict CJR cost overruns. Methods. Demographic factors and comorbidities were retrospectively reviewed in 863 primary unilateral CJR THAs performed between 2013 and 2017 at a single institution. A predictive model was built from 31 validated comorbidities and a base set of 5 patient factors (age, gender, BMI, ASA, marital status). A multivariable logistic regression model was refined to include only parameters predictive of exceeding the target reimbursement level. These were then assigned weights relative to the weakest parameter in the model. Results. The overall cost of care for 225 patients (26.1%) exceeded the target price, and a comprehensive model containing all 36 parameters demonstrated adequate discrimination (AUC: 0.748). This model was narrowed to 12 parameters retained for their statistical value in predicting excess cost, without substantial loss of predictive ability (AUC: 0.735). A single score formed from the sum of each patient's weighted parameters also showed adequate discrimination (AUC: .732), with predicted risk for exceeding CJR targets ranging from 10% for a patient score of 10 to 80% for a score of 30. Average scores for patients exceeding the target price were significantly higher than those who did not (19.5 vs 15.0, p < 0.0001). Conclusions. A model composed of weighted comorbidities and base demographics provides adequate discrimination in predicting whether THA costs will exceed CJR targets. This not only helps identify patients who may benefit from further pre-operative optimization, but also allows health systems to predict the likely minimum incurred costs for select patients scheduled for surgery

Introduction. There have been significant advancements in postoperative care following total hip arthroplasty (THA) over the past decade and it is essential to quantify the impact of efforts made to better optimize patients and improve postoperative care. The purpose of this study was to assess trends in discharge destination, length of stay (LOS), and readmissions following primary THA. Methods. Patients undergoing primary THA during 2011–2017 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program using CPT code 27130. Non-elective surgery and simultaneous bilateral THA procedures were excluded. Patients were classified as having discharged home or to not home locations. Trends in discharge destination, LOS, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Results. Of the 155,638 primary THA patients analyzed, 81% discharged home and 19% did not discharge home. From 2011–2017 there was a 21% increase in percentage of patients discharging home (72% in 2011, 87% in 2017, p<0.001) despite a significantly increasing number of patients with ASA score ≥ 3 (34% to 40%, p<0.001, Figure 1). Over this time period, hospital LOS decreased from 3.1 to 2.0 days for those discharging home (p<0.001) and from 3.8 to 3.6 days those not discharging home (p=0.003). There were no significant changes in 30-day reoperation rates for patients discharging home and readmission rates significantly decreased over time (3.2% in 2011 to 2.6% in 2017, p=0.02). Conclusion. From 2011–2017, patients undergoing THA were more likely to discharge home, had shorter hospital LOS and significantly decreased readmission rates. These trends persisted despite an increasingly comorbid patient population. It is likely these trends have resulted in significant cost savings, for both payers and hospitals. The efforts necessary to create and maintain such improvements should be considered when changes to reimbursement are being evaluated. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. We are a high-volume arthroplasty unit performing over 800 primary THRs annually at an approximate reimbursement of £6.5 million to the Trust. 70% are hybrid and we have been using the Taperfit - Trinity combination (Corin, Cirencester) since March 2016. We aimed to investigate the potential cost-savings and clinical benefits of instrument rationalisation using this system following GIRFT principles. Methods. Taperfit (ODEP 10A) is a polished, collarless, double tapered stem available in multiple sizes/offsets. Trinity is a hemispherical porous titanium cementless shell. A prospective audit of implant size was performed for the first 50 cases. Based on these findings, instruments were reduced to a single tray per component based on predicted size, named ‘Corin Hip for the Osteoarthritic Patient’ (CHOP). A further re-audit was performed to confirm correct tray constituent sizes. Financial data were calculated using known TSSU costs of approximately £50 per tray. Results. The audit revealed 92% (46/50) of stem sizes 2 or smaller and 86% (43/50) of shell sizes 54 or smaller. Trays per case were then rationalised from 6 to 2. Each acetabular tray had seven reamers (‘CHOP 1’ 42, 46–56 or CHOP 2 46, 54–64) and each femoral tray had broaches sized 0–2 (CHOP 1) or 2–4 (CHOP 2). Re-audit confirmed the CHOP 1 sets covered approximately 85% of cases. A TSSU saving of £192/case was achieved. Additional benefits were: all trays easily kept under laminar flow, time spent counting instruments was reduced and theatre shelving space liberated. Conclusion. Rationalisation of surgical instruments has saved the Trust approximately £100,000/year. Fewer instruments potentially reduce the risk of ‘never events’ and infection. Industry savings on consigned instruments have been passed on with significant reduction in our implant procurement costs allowing the use of hybrid implants for the price of our all cemented combination

Introduction. Inpatient rehabilitation services following joint replacement have been estimated to cost over $3 billion/ yr. A shift in reimbursement strategies to bundle payments with the goal of decreasing cost and improving quality has given discharge disposition after joint replacement a front row seat. Our objectives were (1) to establish a correlation between the accuracy of current tools utilized to predict discharge location and (2) compare preoperative and postoperative patient oriented outcomes (POO's) according to discharge disposition. Methods. 188 consecutive total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgeries performed by a single surgeon were prospectively studied. Pre-intervention assessment of the probable and preferred discharge disposition was performed using one of 5 tools (1) experienced surgical coordinator evaluation (2) Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool (RAPT); (3) Charlson Score; (4) ASA Score; and (5) Patient Self-Reported Health Status. Demographic characteristics, Visual Analogue Scale, QWB-7, SF-36, WOMAC, clinical scores were recorded before and after surgery. Correlation between final discharge disposition (home vs rehab) and its predictors was performed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared, p<0.05 was considered significant. Results. Most accurate predictor of discharge disposition was determined by our experienced surgical coordinator (OR: 11.05; 95% CI of 2.21 to 55.32; p<0.001), followed by the RAPT (OR: 1.56; 95% CI of 1.29 to 1.90; p=0.01). We found a significant difference in age (Rehab: 72.4 SE 1.2 vs Home: 70.3 SE 1.0; p=0.01) and length of stay (Rehab: 3.6 SE 0.01 vs Home: 3.14 SE 0.07; p<0.001) between those discharged to rehab than those discharged home. Mean follow-up time was 2.22 years (range 1–4 years). There was a significant difference between groups on most outcome measures preoperatively (rehab worse than home; p<0.001). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in all patient perceived outcome measures after THA, but those discharged to rehab continue to report worse scores for the QWB (Rehab: 0.62 SE 0.02 vs Home: 0.67 SE 0.01; p=0.02) and Hip Harris Score (Rehab: 83.07 SE 1.75 vs Home: 88.65 SE 1.31; p=0.01). Discussion. Clinical intuition and personal interaction proved to be the best predictor for discharge disposition. Worse outcomes were observed in patients being discharged to rehab. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Aims

Core decompression is a commonly performed procedure to treat osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) prior to femoral head collapse. The aim of the study was to identify the incidence of hip arthroplasty after core decompression and the potential risk factors for conversion through a nationwide population-based study.

Introduction. The goal of the current study was to determine if SES affects PROMs in patients treated with THA. Specifically, we sought to determine any potential differences between low and high SES patients in pre-surgical PROMs, post-surgical PROMs, and PROM improvement after surgery while controlling for any potential confounding demographic factors. Methods. Patients were selected from a clinical registry at an urban tertiary academic medical center. All patients undergoing primary THA between January 1, 2000 and April 1, 2016 were eligible for this study. During this period, patients were asked to complete the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Euro-QoL 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), 0–10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain, 0–10 NRS Satisfaction (only given postoperatively), the Charnley Classifier, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score. To determine SES, patients were matched by zip code to corresponding median household income as reported by the United States Census Bureau. Patients were then dichotomized into low and high SES groups using 2016 median household income of $57,617 USD as a cutoff point. Statistical differences between low and high SES patients were determined for demographic factors, preoperative PROMs, postoperative PROMs, and PROM change. Non-parametric variables were tested with the Mann Whitney U test and categorical variables were tested with the Chi squared test. Multivariate models were created to determine if SES group was independently predictive of achieving a minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) in PROMs (18.0 for HHS, −2.0 for NRS Pain, and 0.92 for UCLA). As potential confounders, we tested body mass index (BMI), preoperative health state from EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS), age at surgery, preoperative Charnley class, sex, and time between PROMs. Results. 4,580 operations met our basic inclusion criteria, representing a follow-up frequency of 73.5% of 6,235 total captured primary total hip procedures during the study period. There was no difference between the SES groups in any of the demographics. In every preoperative PROM, low SES patients performed significantly worse than high SES patients. Low SES patients also performed significantly worse on HHS, EQ VAS, and UCLA postoperatively. In contrast, there was no difference improvement for any PROM between the preoperative and postoperative intervals of the two groups. Multivariate models demonstrated that SES is not an independent predictor of achieving an MCII in HHS, NRS Pain, or UCLA Activity when controlling for possible confounders. Conclusions. We found that while SES is associated with health status, it does not preclude low SES patients from receiving the benefits of THA. We recommend that value-based reimbursement models adjust for SES when evaluating postoperative PROMs

Aims

This work aimed at answering the following research questions: 1) What is the rate of mechanical complications, nonunion and infection for head/neck femoral fractures, intertrochanteric fractures, and subtrochanteric fractures in the elderly USA population? and 2) Which factors influence adverse outcomes?

Aims

Patients with femoral neck fractures (FNFs) treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) have an almost ten-fold increased risk of dislocation compared to patients undergoing elective THA. The surgical approach influences the risk of dislocation. To date, the influence of differing head sizes and dual-mobility components (DMCs) on the risk of dislocation has not been well studied.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to determine the access to and ability to use telemedicine technology in adult patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and to determine associations with the socioeconomic characteristics of the patients, including age, sex, race, and education. We also sought to understand the patients’ perceived benefits, risks, and preferences when dealing with telemedicine.

Aims

Advances in surgical technique and implant design may influence the incidence and mechanism of failure resulting in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The purpose of the current study was to characterize aetiologies requiring rTHA, and to determine whether temporal changes existed in these aetiologies over a ten-year period.

Aims

This study aimed to describe preoperative waiting times for surgery in hip fracture patients in Norway, and analyze factors affecting waiting time and potential negative consequences of prolonged waiting time.

Aims

Although there is increasing legalization of the use of cannabis in the USA, few well-powered studies have evaluated the association between cannabis use disorder and outcomes following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether patients who use cannabis and undergo primary THA have higher rates of in-hospital length of stay (LOS), medical complications, implant-related complications, and costs.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether national standards of best practice are associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in hip fracture patients.

Aims

It has been suggested that the direct anterior approach (DAA) should be used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) instead of the posterior approach (PA) for better early functional outcomes. We conducted a value-based analysis of the functional outcome and associated perioperative costs, to determine which surgical approach gives the better short-term outcomes and lower costs.