Aims. The aims of this study were to estimate the cost of surgical treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus using a micro-costing methodology, contrast this cost with the national reimbursement tariff and establish the major determinants of cost. Methods. A detailed inpatient treatment pathway was constructed using semi-structured interviews with 32 members of hospital staff. Its content validity was established through a Delphi panel evaluation. Costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the determinants of cost. Results. The mean cost of the different surgical treatments was estimated to be £3282. Although this represented a profit of £1138 against the national tariff, hemiarthroplasty as a treatment choice resulted in a net loss of £952. Choice of implant and theatre staffing were the largest cost drivers. Operating theatre delays of more than one hour resulted in a loss of income. Discussion. Our findings indicate that the national tariff does not accurately represent the cost of treatment for this condition. Effective use of the operating theatre and implant discounting are likely to be more effective cost containment approaches than control of bed-day costs. Take home message: This cost analysis of fractures of the proximal humerus reinforces the limitations of the national tariff within the English National Health Service, and underlines the importance of effective use of the operating theatre, as well as appropriate implant procurement where controlling costs of treatment is concerned. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:249–59

Progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD) is a common condition with an estimated prevalence of 3.3% in women greater than 40 years. Progressive in nature, symptomatic flatfoot deformity can be a debilitating condition due to pain and limited physical function; it has been shown to have one of the poorest preoperative patient reported outcome scores in foot and ankle pathologies, second to ankle arthritis. Operative reconstruction of PCFD can be performed in a single-stage manner or through multiple stages. The purpose of this study is to compare costs for non-staged (NS) flatfoot reconstructions, which typically require longer hospital stays, with costs for staged (S) reconstructions, where patients usually do not require hospital admission. To our knowledge, the comparison between single-staged and multi-staged flatfoot reconstructions has not been previously done. This study will run in conjunction with one that compares rates of complications and reoperation, as well as patient reported outcomes on function and pain associated with S and NS flatfoot reconstruction. Overall, the goal is to optimize surgical management of PCFD, by addressing healthcare costs and patient outcomes. At our academic centre with foot and ankle specialists, we selected one surgeon who primarily performs NS flatfoot reconstruction and another who primarily performs S procedures. Retrospective chart reviews of patients who have undergone either S or NS flatfoot reconstruction were performed from November 2011 to August 2021. Length of operating time, number of primary surgeries, length of hospital admission, and number of reoperations were recorded. Cost analysis was performed using local health authority patient rates for non residents as a proxy for health system costs. Rates of operating room per hour and hospital ward stay per diem in Canadian dollars were used. The analysis is currently ongoing. 72 feet from 66 patients were analyzed in the S group while 78 feet from 70 patients were analyzed in the NS group. The average age in the S and NS group are 49.64 +/− 1.76 and 57.23 +/− 1.68 years, respectively. The percentage of female patients in the S and NS group are 63.89% and 57.69%, respectively. All NS patients stayed in hospital post-operatively and the average length of stay for NS patients is 3.65 +/− 0.37 days. Only 10 patients from S group required hospital admission. The average total operating room cost including all stages for S patients was $12,303.12 +/− $582.20. When including in-patient ward costs for patients who required admission from S group, the average cost for operating room and in-patient ward admission was $14,196.00 +/− $1,070.01 after flatfoot reconstruction. The average in-patient ward admission cost for NS patients was $14,518.83 +/− $1,476.94 after flatfoot reconstruction. The cost analysis for total operating room costs for NS patients are currently ongoing. Statistical analysis comparing S to NS flatfoot reconstruction costs are pending. Preliminary cost analysis suggests that multi-staged flatfoot reconstruction costs less than single-staged flatfoot reconstruction. Once full assessment is complete with statistical analysis, correlation with patient reported outcomes and complication rate can guide future PCFD surgical management

Aims. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is now commonly used in major surgical operations including orthopaedics. The TRAC-24 randomized control trial (RCT) aimed to assess if an additional 24 hours of TXA postoperatively in primary total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reduced blood loss. Contrary to other orthopaedic studies to date, this trial included high-risk patients. This paper presents the results of a cost analysis undertaken alongside this RCT. Methods. TRAC-24 was a prospective RCT on patients undergoing TKA and THA. Three groups were included: Group 1 received 1 g intravenous (IV) TXA perioperatively and an additional 24-hour postoperative oral regime, Group 2 received only the perioperative dose, and Group 3 did not receive TXA. Cost analysis was performed out to day 90. Results. Group 1 was associated with the lowest mean total costs, followed by Group 2 and then Group 3. The differences between Groups 1 and 3 (-£797.77 (95% confidence interval -1,478.22 to -117.32) were statistically significant. Extended oral dosing reduced costs for patients undergoing THA but not TKA. The reduced costs in Groups 1 and 2 resulted from reduced length of stay, readmission rates, emergency department attendances, and blood transfusions. Conclusion. This study demonstrated significant cost savings when using TXA in primary THA or TKA. Extended oral dosing reduced costs further in THA but not TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):536–542

Tranexamic Acid (TXA) is now commonly used in major surgical operations including orthopaedics. The TRAC-24 randomised control trial aimed to assess if an additional 24 hours of TXA post – operatively in primary total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reduced blood loss. Contrary to other orthopaedic studies to date this trial included high risk patients. This paper presents the results of a cost analysis undertaken alongside this RTC. TRAC-24 was a prospective randomised controlled trial on patients undergoing TKA and THA. Three groups were included, Group 1 received 1 g intravenous (IV) TXA perioperatively and an additional 24-hour post-operative oral regime, group 2 received only the perioperative dose and group 3 did not receive TXA. Cost analysis was performed out to day 90. Group 1 was associated with the lowest mean total costs, followed by group 2 and then group 3. The difference between groups 1 and 3 −£797.77 (95% CI −1478.22, −117.32) were statistically significant. Extended oral dosing reduced costs for patients undergoing THA but not TKA. The reduced costs in groups 1 and 2 resulted from reduced length of stay, readmission rates, Accident and Emergency (A&E) attendances and blood transfusions. This study demonstrated significant cost savings when using TXA in primary THA or TKA. Extended oral dosing reduced costs further in THA but not TKA

The increased demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is having a significant impact on healthcare resources, resulting in increased interest in outpatient care pathways to reduce resource consumption. This study compared costs between patients who underwent outpatient THA using a Direct Anterior (DA) approach compared to a Direct Lateral (DL) approach to understand the effect of surgical approach on resource use.

We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial for DA patients undergoing primary THA. We compared patients in the outpatient arm of the trial to a prospective cohort of outpatient DL approach THAs. We recorded all costs including: equipment, length of stay in hospital, and laboratory or other medical tests. Following discharge, participants also completed a self-reported cost diary recording resource utilization such as emergency department visits or subsequent hospitalizations, tests and procedures, consultations or follow-up, healthcare professional services, rehabilitation, use of pain medications, informal care, productivity losses and out of pocket expenditures.

We report costs from both Canadian public health care payer (HCP) and a societal perspective. The HCP perspective includes any direct health costs covered by the publicly funded system. In addition to the health care system costs, the societal perspective also includes additional costs to the patient (e.g. physiotherapy, medication, or assistive devices), as well as any indirect costs such as time off paid employment for patients or caregivers.

We included 127 patients in the DA group (66.6 years old) and 51 patients in the DL group (59.4 years old) (p<0.01).

There were no statistically significant differences in costs between groups from both the healthcare payer (DA= 7910.19, DL= 7847.17, p=0.80) and societal perspectives (DA= 14657.21, DL= 14581.21, p=0.96)

In patients undergoing a successful outpatient hip replacement, surgical approach does not have an effect on cost from in hospital or societal perspectives.

Aims. Falls are a common occurrence among hospital inpatients and can lead to injury, prolonged hospitalisation and delayed rehabilitation. There is major economic burden associated with this. Post operative orthopaedic patients have certain risk factors that predispose them to falls including decreased mobility, use of opioids and, in some cases, history of previous falls. Methods. A Prospective cohort study with a historical control group was performed looking at falls before and after implementation of a Falls Prevention Program (FFP). A cost analysis of the intervention was then undertaken. Patient data, HIPE data and fall-incident report data were reviewed to identify fall-related injuries and related costs. Results. A total of 415 falls occurred over a 5 year period pre-intervention. The fall rate of 3.49/1000 bed days pre-intervention was significantly higher than the fall rate post-intervention (2.68/1000 bed days) (p=0.0348). There was a significant decrease in falls relating to elimination (p=0.0025). Elective patients also fell less in the post-intervention period (p=0.0115). 85 falls occurred in the 12 months pre-intervention. 15.29% (13/85) of falls resulted in minor injuries, and 9.42% (8/85) resulted in major injuries. The total cost incurred during this period as a result of falls was €84,285.74. Over 95% of total costs related to patients who sustained a hip fracture (n=4). The total cost of implementing the FFP was €11,234.25. In the 12 months post-intervention, 52 falls occurred. 25% (13/52) of falls resulted in minor injuries, and 5.76% (2/52) resulted in major injuries (no hip fractures). The total costs accrued during this period as a result of falls was €510.60. Conclusion. Following the implementation of a FPP the incidence of falls and consequent costs decreased significantly. The large proportion of saving results from preventing hip fractures

We recently performed a clinical trial comparing motor sparing blocks (MSB) to periarticular infiltration (PAI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We found that MSBs provided longer analgesia (8.8 hours) than PAI with retention of quadriceps strength, and with similar function, satisfaction, and length of hospital stay. However, its potential increased cost could serve as a barrier to its adoption. Therefore, our aim was to compare the costs of MSBs to PAI following TKA.

We conducted a retrospective review of data from our previous RCT. There were 82 patients included in the RCT (n=41 MSB group, n=41 PAI group). We compared the mean total costs associated with each group until hospital discharge including intervention costs, healthcare professional service fees, intraoperative medications, length of stay, and postoperative opioid use.

Seventy patients were included (n=35 MSB group, n=35 PAI group). The mean total costs for the MSB group was significantly higher ($1959.46 ± 755.4) compared to the PAI group ($1616.25 ± 488.33), with a mean difference of $343.21 (95% CI = $73.28 to $664.11, p = 0.03). The total perioperative intervention costs for performing the MSB was also significantly higher however postoperative inpatient costs including length of stay and total opioid use did not differ significatnly.

Motor sparing blocks had significantly higher mean total and perioperative costs compared to PAI with no significant difference in postoperative inpatient costs. However, its quadricep sparing nature and previously demonstrated prolonged postoperative analgesia can be used to facilitate an outpatient TKA pathway thereby offsetting its increased costs.

Background. Complex tibial fractures are difficult to treat. The costs associated with hospitalization can be substantial, yet it is unknown how these vary depending upon the type of implant used. There have been multiple studies on economics of tibial fractures but none of these studies actually focussed on costing of illizarov and taylor spatial frames. We discuss the cost analysis of 200 tibial fractures treated with illizarov or taylor spatial frames. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of treatment of complex tibial fractures with reimbursement given to the hospital in treating such injuries. Methods. We evaluated the economical data of 200 patients with complex tibial fractures treated with illizarov frame or taylor spatial frame from May 2005 to May 2010. Demographic data, fracture classification and method of surgical treatment along with the length of hospital stay were recorded in detail. The total cost calculated was then compared to the range of reimbursement price based on HRG (human Resource Group) coding. The implant cost was determined from the buying cost of institution. Results. All fractures were sub-classified based on AO classification. Average age of the patients operated was 43.4 years. 30 percent of the patients had multiple bone fractures. 196 fractures healed in a mean time of 18.3 weeks. The average cost of treating isolated tibial fracture with illizarov frame was 5058.2 pounds. The average cost of treating tibial fractures in a polytrauma patient was 18285.4 pounds in our series. The reimbursement to the hospital varied considerably ranging from 1600 pounds to 13000 pounds. Conclusion. Hospital source utilization for tibial fractures treated with illizarov and TSF is quite high compared to the reimbursement being given to hospitals for treating such patients. This can be as low as £ 1600 as acute phase tariff to 13000 pounds in poly trauma patients and the implant cost can vary from 20% to 150% of the total reimbursement cost. Current recording system for these fractures is unclear resulting in discrepancy between resource utilization and reimbursement thus resulting in substantial loss of remuneration for hospitals that perform these procedures

Akins original description of his osteotomy did not describe the use of any metal work. Today the osteotomy is most commonly held and fixed with either a staple or screw. We describe the results obtained with a simple suture technique. Methods Data was collected prospectively on 125 patients undergoing an Akin osteotomy. Hallux valgus (HV) and intermetatarsal (IM) angles pre and postoperatively were recorded. Patients were reviewed at 6 week follow up. Cost analysis was also performed comparing different fixation types. 111 of the patients were female and 14 male. The average age at time of surgery was 49 years. 104 cases were in conjunction with hallux valgus correction while 21 cases were for hallux interphalangeus. The mean preoperative HV angle was 33.3 degrees (range 22 to 53), and the IM angle 13.3 degrees (range 9 to 25). At the 6 week follow up all patients had shown signs of radiological union. The postoperative HV angle was 12.4 degrees (range 7 to 17) and the IM angle 6.4 degrees (range 5 to 11). All patients maintained their correction. There were no complications, infections or fixation problems. All patients were satisfied with their surgery and would have it repeated again. The suture technique was the most cost effective method. We describe a quick, easy, implant free method of fixing the Akin osteotomy. There is no need for metalwork removal and in today's world of austerity and the current climate of widespread budget constraints we describe a cost effective method which is clinically just as effective as methods requiring a staple or screw

Purpose of the study:. Improved technology, increasing experience and techniques warrant an analysis of cost effective ways of medical management in general and shoulder decompression specifically. The question raised was whether a less invasive technique is necessarily the most cost effective way or merely the surgeons' preferred technique. This is a retrospective study of patients at Tertiary Academic Institution who underwent an open or arthroscopic shoulder decompression in the past 3 years. The aim of the study is to do a cost analysis of shoulder surgery as private health care (medical aid) is demanding more cost effective procedures and we have limited funds in the Government setting. Methods:. We focused on the following: the surgeon; the procedure; operating time; inpatient time; intraoperative block; physiotherapy costs, time off work and the cost of instrumentation used. Patients had to comply with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion: All patients that had shoulder decompression surgery in the past three years by a qualified orthopaedic surgeon; Exclusion: sepsis, tumours, rotator cuff tears, conversion of an arthroscopic procedure to an open procedure intraoperatively, inadequate notes, multiple surgical procedure under the same anaesthetic (e.g. scope with a trapezium excision). Results:. We evaluated 260 patients. Only 147 complied with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 54 were open decompressions and 73 were arthroscopic decompressions. Arthroscopic surgery was significantly more expensive than open surgery (p<0.0001). Conclusion:. With a 95% confidence level, we concluded that the total cost of an arthroscopic decompression can be between 257.5% and 285.0% higher than that of an open decompression. The outcome of this study has proven that we need to take the cost of every procedure into consideration as our patients can benefit more by the redistribution of funds for other possible procedures. Level of evidence:. Level III

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.

To assess the sustainability of our institutional bone bank, we calculated the final product cost of fresh-frozen femoral head allografts and compared these costs with the use of commercial alternatives. Between 2007 and 2010 all quantifiable costs associated with allograft donor screening, harvesting, storage, and administration of femoral head allografts retrieved from patients undergoing elective hip replacement were analysed.

From 290 femoral head allografts harvested and stored as full (complete) head specimens or as two halves, 101 had to be withdrawn. In total, 104 full and 75 half heads were implanted in 152 recipients. The calculated final product costs were €1367 per full head. Compared with the use of commercially available processed allografts, a saving of at least €43 119 was realised over four-years (€10 780 per year) resulting in a cost-effective intervention at our institution. Assuming a price of between €1672 and €2149 per commercially purchased allograft, breakeven analysis revealed that implanting between 34 and 63 allografts per year equated to the total cost of bone banking.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1307–11

Introduction. There is no established evidence to support the use of drains after total knee replacement; however 94% of orthopaedic surgeons in UK routinely use closed suction drains. Haematomas can form with or without using drains, presence of which in addition may provide portal for infection and may increase blood loss. Blood group and save is routinely performed for every patient undergoing total knee replacement, however actual cross match and transfusion is needed for a small percentage of patients. Aim. To compare the requirement for blood transfusion after total knee replacement with and without the use of closed suction drains and the cost analysis of performing routine blood group and save pre-operatively. Materials and Methods. In this retrospective study, we reviewed the data over the last 2 years (2008–2009). Patients were divided into 2 groups (drains versus no drains). 11 surgeons preferred drains and 2 did not use drains. We also compared the results of one particular surgeon who used drains for patients operated in the years 2006 and 2007 and did not use drains in the years 2008 and 2009. Results. 1564 knee replacements were performed by 13 surgeons. 8.1% patients (n=128) received blood transfusion post operatively. In the drainage group (n=1451), 8% patients (n=117) received transfusion. In the non-drainage group (n=113), 9.7% patients (n=11) received transfusion. Comparing the results of one particular surgeon (2006–2007), 5.7% patients (n=5) received transfusion (total n=87 with the use of drains) while 5.3% patients (n=3) operated by the same surgeon (2008–2009) had blood transfusion (total n=56 without using drains). As only 8.1% patients received blood transfusion, the blood samples for the remaining 91.9% patients remained unused. A single group and save sample currently costs £30.30. This suggests we could potentially save £21,750 per year by selectively performing group and save. Conclusion. There was no statistically significant difference in blood transfusion requirement in the two groups. In the current financially driven society, we can cut the costs significantly by selectively performing group and save and post operatively, if blood transfusion is indicated clinically, it can be arranged within safe time limit even in the absence of a pre-arranged sample

Introduction

Robotic assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty (rTKA), provides surgeons with preoperative planning and real-time data allowing for continuous assessment of ligamentous tension and range-of-motion. Using this technology, soft tissue protection, reduced early post-operative pain and improved patient satisfaction have been shown. These advances have the potential to enhance surgical outcomes and may also reduce episode-of-care (EOC) costs for patients, payers, and hospitals. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic assisted vs. manual total knee arthroplasty: 1) 90-day episode-of-care (EOC) costs; 2) index costs; 3) lengths-of-stay (LOS); 4) discharge disposition; and 5) readmission rates.

Aims

In the UK, fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture is generally performed under general or regional anaesthetic, with an arm tourniquet and in a hospital setting. We have changed our practice to use local anaesthetic with adrenaline, no arm tourniquet, and perform the surgery in a community setting. We present the outcome of a consecutive series of 30 patients.

Introduction: Increasing costs for health care has forced its providers to economize with current resources. This paper reports on cost analysis from a randomized study where the study group (SG) was subjected to pre-operative education and postoperative home-based rehabilitation after total hip replacement (THR). The comparison group (CG ) comprised patients treated according to routine pathway at the time. Methods: Between 1997 and 2000 a total of 50 patients were operated on in two hospitals, 29 at the Landspíta-linn University Hospital in Reykjavík and 21 in a nearby rural hospital. They were randomized into a study group (SG) of 27 patients and control group of 23. All contacts with the health care during a six month period after the operations were registered. The effectiveness of the treatments was measured with the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Results: The average hospital costs totalled $5,848 in the SG and $7,291 in the CG. Total health care costs was $6,402 on average in the SG and $9,248 in the CG. By including average patient related costs the total rose to $9,570 in the SG and $13,377 in the CG (all costs in 1999 USD). The difference was statistically significant (p=0.0001) for the total costs. The group variable was statistically significant – regression analysis adjusted for age gender etc., not excluding significant factors according to the Ramsey RESET test. The recovery according to the OHS was from 33.1 preoperatively down to 14.2 after six months follow up for the study group. For the CG it was 36.6 and 20.5 respectively. Thus the cost difference (ΔC) was $3,807 and an effectiveness difference (ΔE) of 6.3. No significant difference was found in cost between hospitals, although indications favoured the rural hospital. Conclusions: Our method of shortening hospital stay and transferring parts of the postoperative treatment to the patient’s homes appears to be an effective way of reducing the unit price of THR in Iceland

Background: The treatment of deep infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is long and costly. However, there are few studies in the literature analysing the cost of total hip arthroplasty revision, especially for infection. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost of THA revision performed for infection and to compare it with the cost of revision for aseptic loosening on one hand, as well as the cost of primary THA, on the other hand.

Methods: From January to December 2006, we performed in our hospital 474 primary THA, 57 revisions for aseptic loosening and 40 revisions for infection. We identified for each procedure areas of cost: preoperative evaluation, surgical procedure, medical procedure including intravenous antimicrobial therapy during hospitalization, post-operative follow-up and physiotherapy. For the costs of preoperative evaluation, we used the refunding rate of the CNAM (the public health insurance company) applicable since September 2005. The total cost of the treatment includes direct and indirect costs, corresponding to the expenses of medical and surgical entities involved in the procedure, the operating charges of the hospital and the net expenses of general services. The cost of primary total hip arthroplasty was used as the reference cost.

Results: The average duration of hospital stay was 6 days for a primary THA, 8 days for a revision for aseptic loosening and 24 days for septic revision. The rate of transfer to a hospital for care-following and physiotherapy was 55% for a primary THA, 70% for aseptic revision and 65% for septic revision. Moreover, the rate of the hospitalization at home for the septic revision after the surgery was 30%. The cost of the revision of THA for aseptic loosening was 1.4 fold the cost of primary THA. In case of septic revision, the cost was 3.3 fold.

Discussion: The economic impact of the deep infection following THA is important. The additional cost is due to a longer duration of hospital stay and rehabilitation requiring more human and material resources.

Conclusions: The cost of revision THA for infection is high. The procedures of care must be optimized in order to increase the treatment success rate and minimise the total cost.

With the ever increasing rate of total hip replacement and life span of these patients, there has been an upward trend towards the incidence of peri-prosthetic fractures. Previous studies does suggest the implant cost to as high as 30% of the total reimbursement in primary hip arthroplasty but this figure is much higher in periprosthetic fractures where long stem revisions are commonly used

A prospective comparative study analyzing the total cost of hospital stay for a cohort of 52 consecutive patients with peri-prosthetic fractures of long bones treated in two hospitals from October 2007 to march 2009 was conducted. Demographic data, fracture classification and method of surgical treatment along with the length of hospital stay were recorded in detail. The total cost calculated was then compared to the range of reimbursement price based on HRG (human Resource Group) coding. The implant cost was determined from the buying cost by each institution.

52 patients were available for review. Average age of the patients operated was 78.5 years. 69 percent of the peri-prosthetic fractures in our series were around the proximal femur. The average cost of stay was £ 16453 (£ 1425- 26345). The reimbursement to the hospital ranged from £ 1983 to £ 8735.

Hospital source utilization for peri prosthetic fractures is quite high compared to the reimbursement being given to hospitals for treating such patients. This can be as low as £ 1500 as acute phase tariff to £ 9100 for elective revisions and the implant cost can vary from 50% to 200% of the total reimbursement cost. Current recording system for peri-prosthetic fracture is unclear resulting in discrepancy between resource utilization and reimbursement thus resulting in substantial financial losses for hospitals that perform these procedures.

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a significant challenge to the orthopedic surgeon, patient, hospital, and insurance provider. As the number of total hip and knee replacements has increased, the number of revision procedures has also increased. Revisions for infection require a greater amount of hospital and surgeon resources than noninfectious revisions. Our study compares the financial information for all two-stage revision surgeries performed at our tertiary referral center for hip or knee PJI over the last four years, separating them into two groups: referral versus self-originating cases.

In a time of limited resources, the debate continues over which types of hip prosthesis are clinically superior and more cost-effective. Orthopaedic surgeons increasingly need robust economic evidence to understand the full value of the operation, and to aid decision making on the ‘package’ of procedures that are available and to justify their practice beyond traditional clinical preference.

In this paper we explore the current economic debate about the merits of cemented and cementless total hip replacement, an issue that continues to divide the orthopaedic community.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:874–6.