Introduction

As total knee arthroplasty incidence in the United States continues to increase, health care entities are looking to reform policy to decrease costs while improving efficiency and quality of care. The allocation of hospital and surgeon charges and payments is an important aspect of health care economics, but the trends and relationship between surgeon and hospital charges and payments for knee arthroplasty have not been well examined. The goal of this study is to report trends and variation in hospital charges and payments compared to surgeon charges and payments for total knee arthroplasty in a Medicare population.

Introduction. In November 2017, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the 2018 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule that removed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures from the Medicare inpatient-only (IPO) list of procedures. This action had significant and unexpected consequences. For several years, CMS has utilized a rule called the “Two-Midnight Rule” to define outpatient status for all procedures not on the IPO list. CMS made TKA subject to the “Two-Midnight Rule” in conjunction with the decision to move TKA off the IPO list. According to the “Two-Midnight Rule,” a hospital admission should be expected to span at least two midnights in order to be covered as an inpatient procedure. If it can be reliably expected that the patient will not require at least two midnights in the hospital, the “Two-Midnight Rule” suggests that the patient is considered an outpatient and is therefore subject to outpatient payment policies. Under prior guidance related to the “Two-Midnight Rule;” however, CMS also states that Medicare may treat some admissions spanning less than two midnights as inpatient procedures if the patient record contains documentation of medical need. The final rule was clear in stating CMS's expectation was that the great majority of TKAs would continue to be provided in an inpatient setting. Methods. We looked at 3 different levels of the IPO rule impact on TKA for Medicare beneficiaries: a national comparison of fee for service (FFS) inpatient and outpatient classification for 2017 vs 2018; a survey of AAHKS surgeons completed in April of 2019; and an in-depth analysis of a large academic medical center experience. An analysis of change in inpatient classification of TKA patients over time, number of Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) audits, compliance solutions of organizations for the new rule and cost implications of those compliance solutions were evaluated. Results. Hospital reimbursement averages $10,122 in an outpatient facility (includes implant, other supplies, ancillary staff, etc.) but does NOT include the physician payment. Average hospital reimbursement in the inpatient setting is $11,760. The difference in reimbursement to hospitals varies widely however due to nuances in the CMS reimbursement formula (90. th. percentile decrease, $6,725 vs 10th percentile $2,048). Physician payments are the same in both settings (avg $1,403). TKA patients not designated for in-patient admissions are not eligible for bundle payment programs thus removing the healthiest, most predictable patients from the program. Patients designated as outpatients are subject to higher out of pocket expenses. Patients may have an annual Medicare Part B Deductible ($185) and a 20% copay as well as prescription and durable medical equipment costs. A survey of AAHKS surgeons demonstrated that 44.74% were doing inpatient designation only, 17.89% were doing outpatient designation only, 25.53 % designated patients as necessary, and 10% were designated by the hospital. This survey showed that 66/374 (17.65%) of AAHKS responders had undergone a QIO audit as a result of issues with the IPO rule. An evaluation of a large academic medical center demonstrated that since January 1, 2018, 470/690 (68.1%) of CMS TKA patients left the institution in less than 2 midnights. During this time period the institution was subjected to 2 QIO audits. All CMS patients had been designated as inpatients prior to May 2019. Conclusions. There are many unintended consequences to the IPO rule application to TKA. Clearly, more study is needed to provide better guidelines to knee replacement surgeons. A well-defined outpatient TKA bundle would allow CMS and TKA surgeons to better serve their patients. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Bundled reimbursement models for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have resulted in an effort to decrease the cost of care. However, these models may incentivize bias in patient selection to avoid excess cost of care. We sought to determine the impact of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model at a single center. Methods. This is a retrospective review of primary TKA patients from July 2015-December 2017. Patients were stratified by whether or not their surgery was performed before or after implementation of the CJR bundle. Patient demographic data including age, sex, and BMI were collected in addition to Elixhauser comorbidities and ASA score. In-hospital outcomes were then examined including surgery duration, length of stay, discharge disposition, and direct cost of care. Results. 1,248 TKA patients (546 Medicare and 702 Commercial Insurance) were evaluated, with 27.0% undergoing surgery prior to the start of the bundle. Compared to patients following implementation of the bundle, there was no significant difference in age, gender, or BMI. However, pre-CJR Medicare patients were more likely to have fewer Elixhauser comorbidities (p<0.001), prolonged length of stay (p<0.001), and greater discharges to inpatient facilities (p=0.019). There was no significant difference in direct hospital costs or operative service time comparing pre and post bundle patients. Conclusions. Implementation of the bundled reimbursement model did not result in biased patient selection at our institution; importantly, it also did not result in decreased hospital costs despite apparent improvement in value-based outcome metrics. This should be taken into consideration as future adaptations to reimbursement are made by CMS. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Abstract. Introduction. People from ethnic minority backgrounds are underserved in healthcare and research. We co-developed a checklist to promote good practice for inclusive community patient and public involvement (PPI). Methods. We worked with three community groups in Bristol to develop the checklist – Dhek Bhal (South Asian community), Malcolm X Elders (African Caribbean community) and My Friday Coffee Morning (predominantly Somali women). We worked with group leaders to better understand the needs of the groups. We visited each group at least three times and used informal and open discussions tailored to how each group preferred to work. We paid for community leaders’ time, interpretation and transport where needed, as well as contributing towards activities and catering as suggested by group leaders. Results. The checklist covers 4 broad themes:. Link building – understand the community, gauge interest in topic, build trust and relationships, visit regularly and return to update. Practicalities – visit the communities in their usual space, understand most appropriate meeting formats, consider translation and transport. 3. During the meeting – avoid jargon, be informal and flexible, build in social time, provide culturally preferred food. 4. Giving back – acknowledge the value of people's time, identify preferences for reimbursement, look for opportunities to give back. To complement the checklist, we produced a visual output in the form of an illustration created by a local artist. Discussion. We hope this checklist will facilitate meaningful involvement of people from underserved communities in all stages of research, including identifying research priorities, co-design, research management and dissemination

At our tertiary, large, academic healthcare system, we have access to an academic medical center (AMC), a community based, orthopedic friendly, efficient hospital (CBH) and several ambulatory care centers (ASC) which are being prepared to provide same day discharge (SDD) TJA and UKA. We had a near-capacity AMC with an excellent ability to care for medically and technically complicated TJA patients. However, efficiency was less than desired regardless of case complexity with an average effective case time of 4 hours. Concurrently, the orthopaedically, under-utilized community-based hospital (CBH) wanted to increase volume, improve margins, and become a TJA Center of Excellence with the ability to provide an efficient Hospital Outpatient Department (HOPD) and SDD TJA surgery experience. Methods. The CBH had a main operating floor and a separate floor of four OR suites which were repurposed with the goal of utilizing these rooms for TJA four days per week with an average of 3.5 cases per room per day. We preferentially performed primary, uncomplicated TJA, UKA, and minimally invasive TJA at the CBH. Revision surgeries, patients with extensive medical comorbidities, and complex primary surgeries would be performed at the AMC. Our goals were to decrease costs, readmissions, length of stay, and increase margins at the CBH while increasing efficiency, revenue and volume. Protocols were developed to facilitate SDD UKA and THA at both hospitals as well as rapid recovery protocols for TKA at both hospitals with the understanding that the CBH would perform more of these cases but the efficiency could also be implemented at the AMC when possible. We also needed a strategy to deal with TKA and eventually THA being removed from the Inpatient Only (IPO) list. CMS has utilized the “Two-Midnight Rule” to define outpatient status for both THA and TKA. This has distinct financial implications for the facility's reimbursement with outpatient being $10,123 on average versus $12,380 for inpatient status. A protocol-based system was put in place to make both hospitals compliant with the removal of TKA from the IPO List in order to avoid Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) and Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) after implementation. Results. Comparing FY 2018 to FY 2019, volume increased 26.4% at the CBH. Outpatient case volume rose substantially from 14 cases to 243. Volumes were slightly decreased at the AMC (−4.57%) resulting in a substantial increase in margin contribution for the parent enterprise. Quality metrics at the CBH (surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), readmissions, and mortality) were improved. LOS improved from 52% to 71% discharge before 48 hours. The LOS decreased 12% for THA and 8.1% for TKA. CBH readmission rates decreased from 1.38% to 0.9% with no deaths. Surgeon satisfaction is greatly improved as their volume, efficiency, quality metrics, and finances were enhanced. Financial performance was improved in aggregate and per case for the CBH. Although the CBH per-case revenue was 80.3% and 74.4% of the AMC for THA and TKA: the net margins were 3.6% and 18.8% higher for THA and TKA, respectively. The increased efficiency, lower hospital cost and higher volume at the CBH allowed for an increase in revenue despite lower reimbursement per case. Conclusions. A shifting reimbursement landscape, value-based payment initiatives, and increasing volume have challenged traditional TJA delivery systems. This demonstrates one strategy to help hospital systems improve net margins while improving patient care despite lower net revenue per TJA episode. These strategies will become increasingly important going forward with the transition of higher numbers of TJA patients to outpatient settings including ambulatory surgery centers which will be subjected to even further decreases in net revenue per patient

Introduction. Revision total knee arthroplasty (revision TKA) occurs for a wide variety of indications and along with revision total hip arthroplasty is billed for using Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) 466, 467, and 468 in the United States. However, DRGs do not account for revision etiology, a potentially substantial driver of cost. This study investigates revision TKA costs and 30-day complications by indication, employing both local granular as well as national standardized databases. Methods. Hospitalization costs and complication rates for 1,422 aseptic revision TKAs performed at a high-volume center between 2009 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Additionally, charges for 28,173 revision TKAs in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were converted to costs using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project cost-to-charge ratios. 30-day complication rates for 3,450 revision TKAs were obtained using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP). Costs and complications were compared between revision TKAs performed for the indication of fracture, wear/loosening, and instability with use of simultaneous and pairwise comparisons and a multivariable model accounting for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, age, and sex. Results. Local hospitalization costs for fracture (median, $30,643) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening ($24,734; p < 0.001) or instability ($22,932; p < 0.001), with differences remaining significant even after adjusting for patient comorbidities (p < 0.001). Local fracture patients were admitted for an average of 1.9 days longer (mean length of stay [LOS]: 4.8 days; IQR: 3 – 6) than instability patients (mean LOS: 2.9; IQR: 2 – 3; p < 0.001) and 1.7 days longer than wear/loosening patients (mean LOS: 3.1, IQR: 2 – 3; p < 0.001) but had similar 30-day orthopedic-specific complication rates (10.8%) as compared to instability (11.2%; p > 0.999) and wear/loosening (15.9%; p = 0.333). Nationally, NIS costs for fracture (median, $31,207) were higher than those for other aseptic indications (wear/loosening: $21,747; instability: $16,456; p< 0.001). Combined medical and surgical complication rates for fracture (56.6% of patients with ≥1 complication) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening (19.7%) and instability (15.5%) (p < 0.001), with 3.5 – 5.4 fold increased transfusion rates (45.7% fracture, 13.2% wear/loosening, 8.5% instability; p < 0.001) and 1.2 – 3.3 fold increased urinary tract infection rates (2.3% fracture, 0.7% wear/loosening, 1.9% instability; p = 0.004). Discussion and Conclusion. Hospitalization costs for revision TKA for fracture were 37% to 50% higher than for all other aseptic revision TKAs, both locally and nationally. This increased cost persisted even after multivariable comorbidity adjustment, the current approach for DRG assignment for both revision TKA and THA reimbursement. Indication-specific coding and reimbursement systems are necessary to maintain sustainable access to revision TKA for all patients. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Introduction. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is faced with a challenge of decreasing the cost of care for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but must make efforts to prevent patient selection bias in the process. Currently, no appropriate modifier codes exist for primary TKA based on case complexity. We sought to determine differences in perioperative parameters for patients with “complex” primary TKA with the hypothesis that they would require increased cost of care, prolonged care times, and have worse postoperative outcome metrics. Methods. We performed a single center retrospective review from 2015 to 2018 of all primary TKA. Patient demographics, medial proximal tibial angle (mPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (lDFA), flexion contracture, cost of care, and early postoperative outcomes were collected. ‘Complex’ patients were defined as those requiring stems or augments, and multivariable logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching were performed to evaluate perioperative outcomes. Results. 1046 primary TKA were studied and 84 patients (8.3%) were classified as “complex”. For this cohort, surgery duration was greater (117 vs 82 minutes; p<0.001), cost of care excessive (p<0.001), and patients had a greater likelihood for 90-day hospital return. Deviation of mPTA and lDFA was significantly greater preoperatively before and after propensity score matching. Cutpoint analysis demonstrated that preoperative mPTA <83o or >91o, lDFA <84o or >90o, flexion contracture >10o, and BMI > 35.7 were associated with ‘Complex’ procedures. Conclusions. Complex primary TKA may be identifiable preoperatively and are associated prolonged operative time, excess hospital cost of care and increased 90-day hospital returns. This should be considered in future reimbursement models to prevent patient selection bias, and a complexity modifier is warranted

Introduction. Bundled Payments (BP) were a revolutionary new experiment for CMS that tested whether risk sharing for an episode of care would improve quality and reduce costs. The initial success of BP accelerated their growth as evidence by the launch of both mandatory and commercial bundles. Success in BP is dependent on the target price and the opportunity to reduce avoidable costs during the episode of care. There is concern that the aggressive target pricing methodology in the new model (BPCI-Advanced) penalizes high performing groups that already achieved low episode costs through prior experience and investment in BP. We hypothesize that this methodology incorporates unsustainable downward trends on target prices to a point beyond reasonableness for efficient groups to reduce additional costs and will lead to a large percentage of groups opting out of BPCI-A in favor of a return to fee for service (FFS) reimbursement. Methods. Using CMS data, we compared the target price factors for hospitals that participated in both BPCI classic (2013 –2018) and BPCI Advanced (beginning 10/2018), referred to as “legacy hospitals”, with hospitals that only participated in BPCI Advanced (beginning 10/2018). With the rebasing of BPCI-A target prices in Jan 2020 and the opportunity for participants to drop out of individual episode types or the program all together, we compared the retention of episode types that hospitals initially enrolled at the onset of BPCI-A with the current enrollment in 2020. Locally, we analyzed the BPCI-A target price factors across hospitals for a large orthopaedic practice that participated in BPCI Classic and the impact it had on the financial incentive/disincentive to remain in the lower extremity joint replacement episode type in 2020. Results. At its peak in July 2015, 423 acute care hospitals participated in one or more episode type in BPCI Classic. At its peak in March 2019, 715 acute care hospitals participated in one or more episode types in BPCI-Advanced. 130 (18%) of the hospitals in BPCI Advanced were also legacy participants in BPCI Classic, enrolling in 414 of the same episode types during both programs. In 2020, 251 (61%) of the episode types that hospitals were in enrolled in for both BPCI Classic and BPCI Advanced were dropped, suggesting prior experience in BPCI influences a participant's opportunity for success in BPCI Advanced. Furthermore, an analysis of the target price factors for episode types enrolled in by legacy hospitals during both programs suggests that prior participation in BPCI Classic is correlated with more aggressive target prices. A comparison of target price factors of similar hospitals reveals that legacy BPCI Classic hospitals that participated in lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) BPCI Advanced received a larger negative adjustment on the target price (0.11 lower on average as a product of the Peer Adjusted Trend factor and ACH Efficiency factor) than non-legacy hospitals that participated in BPCI Advanced. Furthermore, analysis of the hospital targets for a large, high-performing legacy Physician Group Practice in BPCI Classic for LEJR revealed even greater negative adjustment on the target price than non-legacy participants. Comparing participants of similar peer groups on the Peer Adjusted Trend and ACH Efficiency factors suggests that CMS expects costs to decline more for legacy hospitals that have achieved efficiency than hospitals with no prior BP experience and higher baseline spend. Conclusions. BPCI Advanced provides little to no opportunity for a reduction in cost for already efficient TJA providers, as evident by the 55% dropout rate for BPCI-A participants in LEJR between model years 1 and 3. Efficient TJA providers in BPCI Advanced are challenged by the program's utilization of a peer adjusted trend factor and efficiency factor that presumes their costs will decline at the same aggressive rate or more than nonefficient TJA providers. It remains to be seen if reverting to Medicare fee for service will support the same level of care coordination, cost and quality achieved in historical TJA bundled payment programs

Introduction. The purpose of bundled payment programs is to reduce cost via risk sharing, while still maintaining quality. If savings are achieved under a historic target price, the orthopedic surgeon will receive a monetary bonus. If costs are higher, a portion is deducted from payment to the orthopedic surgeon. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our experience with the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Program (BPCI) when run by an orthopedic surgeon group to determine patient safety and who benefited the most financially. Methods. This program ran from January 2015 through September 2018. 3,186 Medicare total hip and knee replacements, elective (DRG 470) and for fracture (DRG 469), performed by our group were included. 90 day hospital and all postoperative expenditures were reconciled against our historic cost. All patients were medically optimized with discharge plans established preoperatively. We developed preferred skilled nursing facilities and home health care agencies with synergistic medical providers so that discharges were recommended as soon as appropriate. We hired two full-time case managers to have direct contact with patients pre-and post-operatively. Waiver assistance such as house and pet sitters were used if necessary at our expense. 35% of savings went to the convener, who acted as a liaison between our group and CMS. Expenditures for the 90-day period for all patients were calculated to determine where savings occurred and which entity benefitted financially. Results. There was an average 9.2% reduction in hospital readmissions. An estimated total savings of $5,100,000 occurred. There was a 17% reduction in hospital costs, a 12.1% reduction in admissions to skilled nursing facilities with a 34% reduction in length of stay, and a 5% reduction in admissions to inpatient rehabilitation facilities. There was a 35% reduction in home health visits, but no change in outpatient physical therapy visits. After group expenses, final bonus to the orthopedic provider was on average $262 per patient. Conclusion. The physician managed program was very successful from Medicare's standpoint, achieving significant monetary savings without reducing quality of care. However, the bonus to the providing and managing physicians was nominal. It also does not take into consideration the 50 plus hours spent in meetings to develop this program. Participation could be considered a defensive posture so as not to lose more reimbursement. However, experience was gained which will be valuable for future gain sharing programs. Physicians and physician organizations need to sit at the head of the table to manage future payment bundles and perhaps also act as the convener. We deserve this, as a result of demonstrating high safety and cost savings. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Patient satisfaction is an important outcome measure after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and is the ultimate goal of surgery. However, patient satisfaction reflects a complex construct of the patient's personal expectations and preferences in addition to subjective evaluation of outcome after TKA. Multiple studies have found a patient dissatisfaction rate of approximately 20% at 1 year after TKA. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is an association between a single-item validated TKA satisfaction score and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 3 time points (1, 2, and 5 years after TKA) and to determine if dissatisfaction rate after TKA varies over time. Methods. A multi-center, prospective cohort of 12,952 patients (8,078 patients were assessed at 1-year, 702 patients at 2-year, and 4,172 patients at 5-year) undergoing primary TKA were enrolled by 230 surgeons in 28 states between 2012–2015. Surgeons practices varied in size, reimbursement models, and geographic setting ensuring that the cohort included diverse patient populations and delivery models. Surgeons agreed to invite all TKA patients to participate and sporadic audits of surgical logs validated that all patients were invited and > 90% of patients were included. Demographic and clinical data [age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and modified Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI)] were collected. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected pre-op and post-op at 1, 2, and 5 years using an internet-based platform including the KOOS (total score, and pain, ADL, QoL sub scores), KOOS Jr, SF-36 (PCS and MCS). We used the single-item satisfaction scale which was tested and validated by the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The patients' responses were made on 5-point Likert scale (very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied). Patients were classified into 2 categories: satisfied group for patients who answered satisfied or very satisfied and dissatisfied group for patients answered neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. Univariate analysis of the difference between the satisfied and dissatisfied patients' groups was performed using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. Logistic regression model was performed to study the correlation between the satisfaction and PROMs with 95% confidence interval. Results. Mean age was 66.6 years, 62.7% were female, and mean BMI was 31.6. The CCI was 0 in 55.1%, 1 in 22%, 2–5 in 12.6% and ≥ 6 in 10.3%. Cumulative revision rate was 1.29% at 2 years. The 30-day adverse events incidence was 2.5% while the 90-day adverse events incidence was 4.7%. The dissatisfaction rate was 18.1% at 1-year, 11.5% at 2-year, and 8.5% at 5-year (P<0.001, Chi-square). Dissatisfaction significantly affects younger patients (<55 years) (P=0.04, Chi-square) and patients with high Charlson comorbidity index >1 (P=0.001, Chi-square). Low post-operative KOOS Pain, KOOS ADL, KOOS total score, KOOS JR, SF-36 PCS, and SP-36 MCS scores were significantly associated with dissatisfaction (P<0.001). At 5 years follow-up, in patients with KOOS scores greater than 70, 1.3% of patients were dissatisfied; with KOOS 50–70, 16.3% were dissatisfied and when KOOS < 50, 62.2% are dissatisfied. Logistic regression showed significant correlation of satisfaction with postoperative KOOS pain, KOOS ADL, KOOS QoL, KOOS total score, KOOS JR, and SF-36 PCS (P< 0.001) at 1-year, 2-year, and at 5-year. The MCS was correlated with patient satisfaction only at 1-year (P< 0.001). Conclusion. The patient dissatisfaction rate 5 years after TKA is 8.1% in FORCE-TJR patients which is significantly lower than 18.1% at 1-year. Less improvement of PROM scores after TKA are significantly associated with patient dissatisfaction. Postoperative PROM scores are associated with patient satisfaction at 1-year, 2-years, and 5-years. When the 5-year post- op KOOS total score is >70, 98.7% of patients are satisfied and only 1.3% are dissatisfied. Patient satisfaction is an important outcome measure after TKA that can be determined by asking a single question. However, in order to understand why a patient is dissatisfied, KOOS scores (KOOS pain, KOOS ADL, KOOS QoL) that assess specific postoperative outcomes can assist in determining the reason for patient dissatisfaction after TKA

Introduction. Emergency department (ED) visits following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can lead to poor patient satisfaction, potentially unnecessary readmissions, and greater overall healthcare costs. Reasons for post-operative ED visits are often entirely medical in nature and can be independent of the recent operation. Several strategies have been developed to help reduce ED visits. However, one major factor that can play a critical role in addressing potentially avoidable visits is provider and patient education. A major factor that can play a crucial role in addressing potentially avoidable visits is provider and patient education. It follows that a thorough understanding of which patients are visiting the ED and why can help in avoiding the visits. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate: 1) causes and 2) patient-related factors (demographics and comorbidities) associated with ED visits following primary TKA. Methods. A national private payer database was queried for primary TKAs performed between 2007 and 2016 using the International Classification of Disease, ninth revision (ICD-9) procedural code 81.54. ED visits were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 99281 to 99285. Patients with 90-day ED visits were in the study group (n=28,044) whereas those without 90-day ED visits served as controls (n=82,289). Causes for ED visits were divided into cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, leg pain, or wound-related. Patient demographics and risk factors assessed included age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) as well as several comorbidities (Table 1). Pearson's chi-square tests were performed to compare patient demographics and comorbidities between the cohorts. In order to adjust for potential confounders, multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis was performed to further evaluate the associations between patient factors and 90-day ED visits. A p-value less than 0.01 was considered statistically significant. Results. The most common reasons for ED visits were cardiopulmonary (51.30%), leg/back pain (46.20%), and gastrointestinal (31.60%) reasons. There was a greater proportion of women in the ED visit cohort compared to controls (p<0.0001; Table 1) and comorbidities (p<0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with a history of COPD (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, p<0.001), depression (OR 1.42, p<0.0001), arrhythmias (OR: 1.38, p<0.0001), AIDS (O: 1.32, p<0.0001), and iron deficiency anemia (OR 1.28, p<0.0001), were at an increased risk of visting the ED within 90 days following primary TKA (Table 2). Conclusion. This analysis of over 100,000 patients identified that the most common reasons for ED visits are primarily medical in nature, and are not necessarily directly related to the recent operation. These findings should help guide pre-operative education and manage post-operative expectations to help limit potentially avoidable ED visits. Additionally, the data from this study can lend to policy changes targeting ED visits, particularly given the shift towards certain reimbursement models in arthroplasty. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA.

Aims

The aim was to assess whether robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) had greater knee-specific outcomes, improved fulfilment of expectations, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and patient satisfaction when compared with manual TKA (mTKA).

Aims

The primary aim was to assess whether robotic total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) had a greater early knee-specific outcome when compared to manual TKA (mTKA). Secondary aims were to assess whether rTKA was associated with improved expectation fulfilment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and patient satisfaction when compared to mTKA.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented times worldwide. From lockdowns to masks now being part of our everyday routine, to the halting of elective surgeries, the virus has touched everyone and every part of our personal and professional lives. Perhaps, now more than ever, our ability to adapt, change and persevere is critical to our survival. This year's closed meeting of The Knee Society demonstrated exactly those characteristics. When it became evident that an in-person meeting would not be feasible, The Knee Society leadership, under the direction of President John Callaghan, MD and Program Chair Craig Della Valle, MD created a unique and engaging meeting held on September 10–12, 2020. Special recognition should be given to Olga Foley and Cynthia Garcia at The Knee Society for their flexibility and creativeness in putting together a world-class flawless virtual program. The Bone & Joint Journal is very pleased to partner with The Knee Society to once again publish the proceedings of the closed meeting of the Knee Society. The Knee Society is a United States based society of highly selected members who have shown leadership in education and research in knee surgery. It invites up to 15% international members; this includes some of the key opinion leaders in knee surgery from outside the USA. Each year, the top research papers from The Knee Society meeting will be published and made available to the wider orthopaedic community in The Bone & Joint Journal. The first such proceedings were published in BJJ in 2019. International dissemination should help to fulfil the mission and vision of the Knee Society of advancing the care of patients with knee disorders through leadership, education and research. The quality of dissemination that The Bone & Joint Journal provides should enhance the profile of this work and allow a larger body of surgeons, associated healthcare professionals and patients to benefit from the expertise of the members of The Knee Society. The meeting is one of the highlights of the annual academic calendar for knee surgeons. With nearly every member in attendance virtually throughout the 3 days, the top research papers from the membership were presented and discussed in a virtual format that allowed for lively interaction and discussion. There are 75 abstracts presented. More selective proceedings with full papers will be available after a robust peer review process in 2021, both online and in The Bone & Joint Journal. The meeting commenced with the first group of scientific papers focused on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Dr Berry and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic further help to clarify the issue of serology and aspirate results to diagnose TKA PJI in the acute postoperative setting. 177 TKA's had an aspiration within 12 weeks and 22 were proven to have PJI. Their results demonstrated that acute PJI after TKA should be suspected within 6 weeks if CRP is ≥81 mg/L, synovial WBCs are ≥8500 cells/μL, and/or synovial neutrophils≥86%. Between 6– 12 weeks, concerning thresholds include a CRP ≥ 32 mg/L, synovial WBC ≥7450, and synovial neutrophils ≥ 84%. While historically the results of a DAIR procedure for PJI have been variable, Tom Fehring's study showed promise with the local delivery of vancomycin through the Intraosseous route improved early results. New member Simon Young contrasted the efficacy of the DAIR procedure when comparing early infections to late acute hematogenous PJI. DAIR failed in 63% of late hematogenous PJIs (implant age>1 year) compared to 36% of early (<1year) PJIs. Dr Masri demonstrated in a small group of patients that those with well-functioning articulating spacers can retain their spacers for over 12 months with no difference in infection from those that had a formal two stage exchange. The mental toll of PJI was demonstrated in a longitudinal study by Doug Dennis, where patient being treated with 2 stage exchange had 4x higher rates of depression compared to patient undergoing aseptic revision. The second session focused on both postoperative issues with regards to anticoagulation and manipulation. Steven Haas demonstrated high complication rates with utilization of anticoagulation for treatment of postoperative pulmonary embolism with modern therapeutic anticoagulation (warfarin, enoxaparin, Xa inhibitors) with the Xa inhibitors demonstrating lower complication rates. Two papers focused on the topic of manipulation. Mark Pagnano presented data on timing of manipulation under anesthesia up to even past 12 months. While gains were modest, a subset of patients did achieve substantial gains in ROM > 20degrees even after 3 months post op. Dr Westrich's study demonstrated no difference in MUA outcomes with either IV sedation or neuraxial anesthesia although the length of stay was shorter in the IV sedation group. Several studies in Session II focused on kinematics and femoral component position. Dr Li's in vivo kinematic study during weightbearing flexion and gait demonstrated that several knees rotated with a lateral pivot motion and not all knees can be described with a single motion character. Dr Mayman and his group utilized a computational knee model to demonstrate that additional distal femoral resection results in increasing levels of mid -flexion instability and cautioned against the use of additional bony resection as the first line for flexion contractures. Using computer navigation, Dr Huddleston's study nicely outlined the variability in femoral component rotation to achieve a rectangular flexion gap utilizing a gap balanced method. The third session opened the meeting on Friday morning. The focus was on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and the increasing utilization of robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty. David Murray showed using registry data that for patient with higher comorbidities (ASA >3), UKA was safer and more cost effective than TKA while Dr Della Valle's group demonstrated overall lower average healthcare costs in UKA patients compared to TKA in the first 10 years after surgery. Dr Geller assessed UKA survivorship among 3 international registries. While survivorship varied by nation and designs, certain designs consistently had better overall performance. Dr Nunley and his group showed robotic navigation UKA significantly reduced outliers in alignment and overhang compared to manual UKA. Dr Catani's data demonstrated that full thickness cartilage loss should still be considered a requirement for UKA success even with robotic assistance. Despite a high dislocation rate of 4%, Mr Dodd demonstrated high survivorship for lateral UKA despite historical contraindications. The growing evidence for robotics TKA was demonstrated in two studies. Professor Haddad showed less soft tissue injury, reduced bone trauma and improved accuracy or rTKA compared to manual TKA while Dr Gustke single surgeon study showed his rTKA had improved forgotten joint scores and less ligament releasing required for balancing. Despite these finding, Dr Lee's study demonstrated that a robotic TKA could not guarantee excellent pain relief and other factors such a patient expectations and psychological factors play a role. Our fourth session was devoted to machine learning and smart tools and modeling. Dr Meneghini used machine learning algorithms to identify optimal alignment outcomes that correlated with patient outcomes. Several parameters such as native tibial slope, femoral sagittal position and coronal limb alignment correlated with outcomes. Along the same lines, Bozic and coauthors demonstrated that using AI algorithms incorporated with PROM's improved levels of shared decision making and patient satisfaction. Dr Lombardi demonstrated that a mobile patient engagement platform that provided smart phone-based exercise and education was comparable to traditional methods. Dr Mahfouz demonstrated the accuracy of using ultrasound to produce 3D models of the bone compared to conventional CT based strategies and Dr Mahoney showed the valued of a preop 3D model in reproducing more normal knee kinematics. The last two talks of the session focused on some of the positives of the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the embracing of telemedicine by patients and surgeons as demonstrated by Dr Slover and the increasing and far reaching educational opportunities made available to residents and fellows during the pandemic. Session five focused on risk stratification and optimization prior to TKA. Dr O'Connor demonstrated that that the implementation of an optimization program preoperatively reduced length of stay and ED visits, and Charles Nelson's study showed that risk stratification tool can lower complication rates in obese patients undergoing TKA comparable to those that are nonobese. Dr Markel's study demonstrated that those who have preoperative depression and anxiety are at higher risk of complications and readmissions after surgery and these issues should be addressed preoperatively. Interestingly, a study by Dr Callaghan demonstrated that care improvement pathways have not lowered the gap in complications for morbidly obese patients undergoing TKA, Dr Barsoum argued that the overall complication rates were low and this patient cohort had significant gains in PROMS after TKA that would not be experienced if arbitrary cutoff for limited surgery were established. The final session on Friday, Session six, had several well done and interesting studies. There continues to be mounting evidence that liposomal bupivacaine has little effect on managing post-operative pain to warrant its increased use. Bill Macaulay and colleagues showed no change in pain scores, opioid consumption and functional scores when liposomal bupivacaine was discontinued at a large academic medical center. Dr Bugbee importantly demonstrated that a supervised ambulation program reduced falls in the early postoperative period. Several paper on healthcare economics were presented. Rich Iorio showed that stratifying complexity of total joint cases between hospitals with a system can be efficient and cost savings while Dr Jiranek demonstrated in his study that complex TKAs can be identified preoperatively and are associated with prolonged operative time and cost of care and consideration should be given in future reimbursement models to a complexity modifier. Dr Springer, in their evaluation of Medicare bundled payment models, demonstrated that providers and hospitals in historical bundled models that became efficient were penalized in the new model, forcing many groups to drop out and return to a fee for service model. Ron Delanois important work showed that social determinants can have a major negative impact on outcomes following TKA. Our final day on Saturday opened with Session seven, and several interesting paper on metal ions/debris in TKA. Dr Whitesides simulator study showed the absence of scratches and material loss in a ceramic TKA compared with Co-Cr TKA and suggested an advantage to this material in patients with metal sensitivity. Conversely, in a histological study of failed TKA, perivascular lymphocytic infiltration was not associated with worse clinical outcomes or differences in revision in a series of 617 aseptic revisions, 19% of which had PVLI found on histology. The Mayo group and Dr Trousdale however, noted that serum metal ion levels can be helpful in identifying implant failure in a group of revision TKAs, especially those with metallic junctions. Dr Dalury demonstrated nicely that use of maximally conforming inserts did not have a negative effect on implant loosening in a series of 76 revision TKA's at an average follow up of 7 years, while Kevin Garvin and his group showed no difference in end of stem pain between cemented and cementless stems in revision TKA. The final two studies in the session by Bolognesi and Peters respectively showed that metaphyseal cones continue to demonstrate excelled survivorship in rTKA setting despite extensive bone loss. Session eight was highlighted by a large series of revision reported by new member Dr Schwarzkopf, who showed that revision TKA done by high volume surgeons demonstrated better outcomes and lower revision rates compared to surgeon who did less than 18 rTKA's per year. Dr Maniar importantly showed that preoperatively, patients with high activity level and low pain and indicated by a high preop forgotten joint score did poorly following TKA while David Ayers nicely demonstrated that KOOS scores that assess specific postoperative outcomes can predict patient dissatisfaction after TKA. The final paper in this session by Max Courtney showed that the majority of surgical cancellations are due to medical issues, yet a minority of these undergo any intervention specifically for that condition, but they resulted in a delay of 5 months. The first two studies of Session nine focused on polyethylene thickness. Dr Backstein demonstrated no difference in KSS scores, change in ROM and aseptic revision rates based on polyethylene thickness in a series of 195 TKA's. An interesting lab study by Dr Tim Wright showed a surprising consistency in liner thickness choice among varying levels of surgeon experience that did not correlate with applied forces or gap stability estimates. Two studies looked specifically at the issue of tibial loosening and implant design. Nam and colleagues were not able to demonstrate concerning findings for increasing tibial loosening in a tibial baseplate with a shortened tibial keel at short term follow up, while Lachiewicz demonstrated a 19% revision or revision pending rate in 223 cemented fixed bearing ATTUNE TKA at a mean of 30 months. Our final session of the meeting, began with encouraging news, that despite only currently capturing about 40% of TJA's done in the US, the American Joint Replacement Registry data is representative of data in other representative US databases. An interesting study presented by Robert Barrack looked at bone remodeling in the proximal tibia after cemented and cementless TKA of two different designs. No significant difference was noted among the groups with the exception of the cemented thicker cobalt chrome tray which demonstrated significantly more bone mineral density loss. Along the same lines, a study out of Dr Bostrom's lab demonstrated treatment of a murine tibial model with iPTH prevents fibrous tissue formation and enhances bone formation in cementless implants. New Member Jamie Howard showed no difference in implant migration and kinematics of a single radius cementless design using either a measured resection or gap balancing technique and Dr Cushner show no difference in blood loss with cemented or cementless TKA with the use of TKA. The final two studies looked at staging and bilateral TKA's. Peter Sharkey showed that simultaneous TKA's were associated with higher complication compared to staged TKA and that staged TKA with less than a 90-day interval was not associated with higher risk. However, Mark Figgie showed that patients undergoing simultaneous TKA compared to staged TKA, missed 17 fewer days of work. In spite of the virtual nature of the meeting, there were some outstanding scientific interactions and the material presented will continue to generate debate and to guide the direction of knee arthroplasty as we move forwards

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare ten-year longitudinal healthcare costs and revision rates for patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

Social determinants of health (SDOHs) may contribute to the total cost of care (TCOC) for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between demographic data, health status, and SDOHs on 30-day length of stay (LOS) and TCOC after this procedure.

Aims

It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons.

Aims

To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty.

Aims

There is concern that aggressive target pricing in the new Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) penalizes high-performing groups that had achieved low costs through prior experience in bundled payments. We hypothesize that this methodology incorporates unsustainable downward trends on Target Prices and will lead to groups opting out of BPCI Advanced in favour of a traditional fee for service.