The purpose of this study was to assess the variability in implant position between sides in patients who underwent staged, bilateral THA and whether variation from one side to the other affected patient-reported outcomes. A retrospective review was conducted on 207 patients who underwent staged, bilateral THA by the same surgeon from 2017–2022. Leg length, acetabular height, cup version, and coronal and sagittal stem angles were assessed radiographically and compared to the contralateral THA. Surgical approach and technology utilization were further assessed for their impact on variability. Linear regression was used to model the relationship between side-to-side variability and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). Between sides, mean radiographic leg length varied by 4.6mm (0.0–21.2), acetabular height varied by 3.3mm (0.0–13.7), anteversion varied by 8.2° (0.0 to 28.7), coronal stem alignment varied by 1.1° (0.0 to 6.9), and sagittal angulation varied by 2.3° (0.0 to 10.5). The anterior approach resulted in more variability in stem angle position in both the coronal (1.3° vs. 1.0°, p=0.036) and sagittal planes (2.8° vs. 2.0° p=0.012) compared to the posterior approach. The posterior approach generally led to more anteversion than the anterior approach. Use of robotics or navigation for acetabular positioning did not increase side-to-side variability in cup-related position or leg length. Despite considerable side-to-side variability, Hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS JR) were not affected by higher levels of position inconsistency. Staged, bilateral THA results in considerable variability in component position between sides. The anterior approach leads to more side-to-side variability in sagittal stem angle and cup anteversion than the posterior approach. Navigation and robotics do not improve the consistency of component position in bilateral THA. Variation in implant position was not associated with differences in PROMs, suggesting that despite variability, patients can tolerate these differences between sides.
The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was implemented in April-2016 to standardize cost and improve quality of care for two of the most commonly billed inpatient procedures for Medicare patients, total knee and total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to compare one institution's predicted savings and losses under the CJR model with actual savings and losses after two years of implementation and discuss new methods to maintain savings. Using our institution's data, we calculated the mean cost per episode of care. We calculated the percent reduction in target price and percent savings or losses per case for the CJR and Bundle Payment Care Initiative (BPCI) for each Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) using mean cost per episode and CJR and BPCI target prices. We compared the target prices, annual savings, and losses per episode of care for both CJR and BPCI. All CJR savings, projected and actual, were computed by comparing CJR savings to that of 2018 BPCI savings.Background
Methods
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) candidates have received high doses of opioids within the perioperative period for the management of surgical pain. Healthcare systems have responded by improving opioid administration documentation and are now implementing opioid-sparing protocols (OSP) into THA integrated care pathways (ICP). Here we evaluate the effectiveness of a novel OSP in primary THA at out institution. Between January 2019 to April 2019, all patients undergoing primary THA were placed under a novel OSP (Table 1). Patient demographics, inpatient/surgical factors, and inpatient opiate administration events were collected. A historical 2:1 cohort was subsequently derived from patients undergoing THA between January 2018 to August 2018. Opiate administration events collected from our EDW were converted into Morphine Milligram Equivalences (MMEs) and transformed into average MME's per patient per 24-hour interval. Nursing documented visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were also queried and averaged per patient per 12-hour interval. To assess immediate postoperative functional status, the validated Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) Short Forms tool was utilized.Introduction
Methods
