Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_17_библиотеки_им_акад_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
Economics ofSurgical Treatment ofKnee Arthritis– AUS Perspective
https://t.me/medicina_free
483
41
(Nugent et al. 2019). Standard cementing techniques
are well established but variations exist among institutions.
41.7.1 Cementing Technique
Currently, at our institution, we primarily perform
cemented TKA; press-t implants are utilized on a case
by case basis and are attending specic. Intravenous
tranexamic acid is administered prior to incision. A
standard medial parapatellar approach is used. Just
prior to cementing, the tourniquet is inated to achieve
a pressure appropriate to patient habitus (typically
250–300 mmHg). The trial components are removed.
For most TKA, two 40g boxes of cement are adequate.
A pulse lavage is used to remove debris from the bone
surfaces to improve cement interdigitation. During
nal seating of the implants and during curing of the
cement, we soak the knee with a dilute betadine solution
as described by DellaValle etal., to minimize infection
risk, which is both cost-efcient and powerful (Brown
et al. 2012). A standard closure is used with a silverimpregnated colloidal dressing placed after closure.
Early mobilization is emphasized, with the majority of
patients staying in the hospital from zero to one night.
We nd this approach to be the most effective in
time, cost, and outcome, including patient satisfaction
and infection prevention, with minimal complication
prole.
addition of antibiotics, and selection pressure creating
drug resistance remains a possibility (albeit a limited
one). In our opinion, antibiotic cement for primary joint
replacement should be selectively used in patients with
increased risk of infection, such as those with diabetes
or other forms of immunocompromise, or prior open
surgery with retained hardware.
41.8 Surgeons andtheEconomic Future
ofTKA
With changes coming secondary to advancing technology as well as increased administration and oversight,
surgeons must be able to adapt and actively play a role in
the economic decision-making related to providing care
for patients with arthritis of the knee. Though algorithm
medicine has proven benecial in preventing errors and
streamlining care, it remains the surgeon’s responsibility to properly treat each unique patient. Surgeons cannot afford to take a backseat in the economic future of
TKA; they must advocate with their hospitals, advocate
with professional organizations, and strive to do what is
right for the patient population– they must continue to
innovate new care delivery models and provide increasingly high-valued care.
> As previously discussed, a “one-size-ts-all” model of
bundled payments, without accounting for specic
patient risk factors, would jeopardize the accessibility
and quality of TKA.
41.7.2 Antibiotics inBone Cement
Bone cement can elute antibiotics (antibiotic-laden bone
cement, ALBC), and the elution properties are dependent on the amount of porosity of the cement mixture.
This allows for a high local concentration of antibiotics
for hours up to several days (Nugent etal. 2019). The
use of ALBC in primary TKA in the United States is
not standard, and from a US context it has not been
proven efcacious within some clinical studies. However,
the European and Australian joint registries show that
commercially available antibiotic cement tends to be
standard in primary TKA. For example, almost all
TKAs in the United Kingdom use commercially available antibiotic cement, and up to 90% of primary TKAs
in Europe use ALBC (Anagnostakos 2017).
The most common usage in the United States
remains in staged revision cases. Several factors must be
considered when using antibiotic cement (in particular
in the context of admixing): risk for hypersensitivity
exists, properties of the cement can be altered with the
Some research has focused on developing appropriate means for patient-specic, high-value payment
models that will enable a continued improvement of
outcomes important to patients while minimizing the
use of low-efcacy treatments. One such model is the
“condition-based bundle” for knee pain that has been
recently implemented in both Texas and North Carolina in slightly different formats (Andrawis etal. 2019;
O’Donnell etal. 2018). In these models, the goal is to
utilize a team of providers to offer whatever is the most
patient-centered and most favorable to long-term outcomes for a patient’s knee pain in the setting of their
personal health and social history.
Shared decision-making will also have substantial
impact on the future of management of knee arthritis.
Through shared decision-making programs, surgeons
can ensure patient’s needs are being met, and not the
needs of the physician or the health plan. In some cases,
this will involve alternative therapies, while in some it
will involve bypassing much of the traditional “conservative” treatment algorithm (Sambare etal. 2017).

484
https://t.me/medicina_free
J. P. Chapman et al.
41
> The monumental increase in total joint replacement
over the past few decades has led to the need for continued improvement. As the populations of developed
nations continue to age, sustainable economic models
are paramount.
Patients, surgeons, other providers, administrators, and
policy makers should continue to strive for gainsharing
that comes through improved quality, decreased cost,
and an overall increase in value to our patients and to
the healthcare system.
Take-Home Messages
5 Management of symptomatic knee arthritis has
high cost, with a substantial cost burden accrued
in both the operative and non-
operative phases
of management; the benet to society, however,
of returning patients to work often makes TKA
less costly especially for patients age 50 or
younger.
5 Though TKA has high economic cost, the surgery
is highly effective at restoring quality-adjusted life
years, a measure of cost-
efcacy for medical treatments; cost-estimates vary from $18,000 to $28,000
per QALY, far below typical thresholds of $50,000
to be considered economically favorable.
5 In the United States, TKA has been targeted for
cost containment because of high utilization and
its high proportion of health system and payer
cost; this containment effort has led to the introduction of alternative payment models such as
bundled payment models where providers are held
to a target price for the episode costs.
5 Though alternative payment models appear prom-
ising in early studies to reduce costs and maintain
quality, concerns remain about the possibility that
care access will be compromised and that continued cost-reduction will eventually erode the economic feasibility of caring for patients with
symptomatic knee OA; future value-based programs will need to identify ways to economically
reward high-value care for these patients.
5 TKA implants are a signicant cost associated
with surgery and neutral outcomes data is necessary to show effectiveness.
5 Cemented TKA remains standard in the United
States despite uncemented options becoming
increasingly available; the debate within the US
continues whether antibiotic bone cement offers a
more cost-effective alternative than plain bone
cement– especially given the high costs associated
with prosthetic joint infection
References
American Academy of Hip and Knee Surgeons (2019) Biologics for
advanced hip and knee arthritis. American Association of Hip
and Knee Surgeons. http://www.aahks.org/position-statements/
biologics-for-advanced-hip-and-knee-arthritis/. Accessed 20
Dec 2019
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2013) Clinical prac-
tice guideline on treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. https://
www.aaos.org/quality/quality-programs/lower-extremity-programs/osteoarthritis-of-the-knee/
Anagnostakos K (2017) Therapeutic use of antibiotic-loaded bone
cement in the treatment of hip and knee joint infections. J Bone
Jt Infect 2(1):29–37
Andrawis JP, McClellan M, Bozic KJ (2019) Bundled payments are
moving upstream. In: NEJM Catalyst, Boston
Baumgarten KM, Chang PS, Looby PA, McKenzie MJ, Rothrock
CP (2019) Do more expensive total knee arthroplasty prostheses
provide greater improvements in outcomes over less expensive
prostheses sold by a physician-owned distributorship? J Am
Acad Orthop Surg 27(23):e1059–e1067
Baumgartner BT, Karas V, Kildow BJ etal (2018) Inpatient consults
and complications during primary total joint arthroplasty in a
bundled care model. J Arthroplast 33(4):973–975
Bedair H, Cha TD, Hansen VJ (2014) Economic benet to society at
large of total knee arthroplasty in younger patients: a Markov
analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(2):119–126
Bedard NA, Dowdle SB, Anthony CA et al (2017) The AAHKS
clinical research award: what are the costs of knee osteoarthritis in the year prior to total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast
32(9S):S8–S10. e11
Bosco JA, Harty JH, Iorio R (2018) Bundled payment arrangements:
keys to success. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 26(23):817–822
Bovonratwet P, Fu MC, Tyagi V, Gu A, Sculco PK, Grauer JN (2019)
Is discharge within a day of total knee arthroplasty safe in the
octogenarian population? J Arthroplast 34(2):235–241
Brown NM, Cipriano CA, Moric M, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ
(2012) Dilute betadine lavage before closure for the prevention
of acute postoperative deep periprosthetic joint infection. J
Arthroplast 27(1):27–30
Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative: General
Information. In: (CMS) CfMaMS, ed 2013
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. Comprehensive care
for joint replacement model. In: Services CfMaM, ed 2016
Clair AJ, Evangelista PJ, Lajam CM, Slover JD, Bosco JA, Iorio R
(2016) Cost analysis of total joint arthroplasty readmissions in
a bundled payment care improvement initiative. J Arthroplast
31(9):1862–1865
Courtney PM, Rozell JC, Melnic CM, Lee GC (2015) Who should
not undergo short stay hip and knee arthroplasty? Risk factors
associated with major medical complications following primary
total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 30(9 Suppl):1–4
Dibra FF, Silverberg AJ, Vasilopoulos T, Gray CF, Parvataneni HK,
Prieto HA (2019) Arthroplasty care redesign impacts the predictive accuracy of the risk assessment and prediction tool. J
Arthroplast 34(11):2549–2554
Dillon CF, Rasch EK, Gu Q, Hirsch R (2006) Prevalence of knee
osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the Third
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1991-94. J
Rheumatol 33(11):2271–2279
Dummit LA, Kahvecioglu D, Marrufo G etal (2016) Association
between hospital participation in a medicare bundled payment
initiative and payments and quality outcomes for lower extremity joint replacement episodes. JAMA 316(12):1267–1278

Economics ofSurgical Treatment ofKnee Arthritis– AUS Perspective
https://t.me/medicina_free
485
41
Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson JN
(2016) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients older
than 75 results in better clinical outcomes and similar survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty. A matched controlled
study. J Arthroplast 31(12):2668–2671
George J (2018) IBC, Rothman sign long-term deal. In: Philadelphia
Business Journal, Philadelphia
Gogineni HC, Gray CF, Prieto HA, Deen JT, Boezaart AP,
Parvataneni HK (2019) Transition to outpatient total hip and
knee arthroplasty: experience at an academic tertiary care center.
Arthroplast Today 5(1):100–105
Gray CF, Prieto HA, Duncan AT, Parvataneni HK (2018)
Arthroplasty care redesign related to the Comprehensive Care
for Joint Replacement model: results at a tertiary academic medical center. Arthroplast Today 4(2):221–226
Haas DA, Kaplan RS (2017) Variation in the cost of care for primary
total knee arthroplasties. Arthroplast Today 3(1):33–37
Hutt JR, Craik J, Phadnis J, Cobb AG (2015) Arthroscopy for
mechanical symptoms in osteoarthritis: a cost-effective procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(12):3545–3549
Iorio R, Clair AJ, Inneh IA, Slover JD, Bosco JA, Zuckerman JD
(2016) Early results of medicare’s bundled payment initiative for
a 90-day total joint arthroplasty episode of care. J Arthroplast
31(2):343–350
Jeschke E, Citak M, Gunster C etal (2017) Are TKAs performed
in high-volume hospitals less likely to undergo revision than
TKAs performed in low-volume hospitals? Clin Orthop Relat
Res 475(11):2669–2674
Keswani A, Tasi MC, Fields A, Lovy AJ, Moucha CS, Bozic KJ
(2016) Discharge destination after Total joint arthroplasty: an
analysis of postdischarge outcomes, placement risk factors, and
recent trends. J Arthroplast 31(6):1155–1162
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of
primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United
States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785
Losina E, Walensky RP, Kessler CL etal (2009) Cost-effectiveness
of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and
hospital volume. Arch Intern Med 169(12):1113–1121; discussion 1121–1112
Luzzi AJ, Fleischman AN, Matthews CN, Crizer MP, Wilsman J,
Parvizi J (2018) The “bundle busters”: incidence and costs of
postacute complications following total joint arthroplasty. J
Arthroplast 33(9):2734–2739
Navarro SM, Wang EY, Haeberle HS etal (2018) Machine learning
and primary total knee arthroplasty: patient forecasting for a
patient-specic payment model. J Arthroplast 33(12):3617–3623
Nichols CI, Vose JG (2016) Clinical outcomes and costs within 90
days of primary or revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast
31(7):1400–1406. e1403
Nugent M, Wyatt MC, Frampton CM, Hooper GJ (2019) Despite
improved survivorship of uncemented xation in total knee
arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, cemented xation remains
the gold standard: an analysis of a National Joint Registry. J
Arthroplast 34(8):1626–1633
O’Donnell J, Saunders RS, Japinga M etal (2018) Expanding pay-
ment reforms to better incentivize chronic care for degenerative
joint disease. In: Health affairs blog, vol 2020. Health Affairs
Pabinger C, Lothaller H, Geissler A (2015) Utilization rates of knee-
arthroplasty in OECD countries. Osteoarthr Cartil 23(10):1664–
1673
Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK (2018) Health care spending
in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA
319(10):1024–1039
Parvizi J, Huang R, Restrepo C et al (2017) Low-dose aspirin is
effective chemoprophylaxis against clinically important venous
thromboembolism following total joint arthroplasty: a preliminary analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(2):91–98
Pinto D, Robertson MC, Hansen P, Abbott JH (2012) Cost-
effectiveness of nonpharmacologic, nonsurgical interventions
for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: systematic review. Value
Health 15(1):1–12
Postler A, Lutzner C, Beyer F, Tille E, Lutzner J (2018) Analysis
of total knee arthroplasty revision causes. BMC Musculoskelet
Disord 19(1):55
Rozell JC, Courtney PM, Dattilo JR, Wu CH, Lee GC (2016)
Should all patients be included in alternative payment models
for primary total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty? J
Arthroplast 31(9 Suppl):45–49
Sambare T, Uhler L, Bozic KJ (2017) Shared decision making: time
to get personal. In: NEJM Catalyst. New England Journal of
Medicine, Boston
Santaguida PL, Hawker GA, Hudak PL etal (2008) Patient char-
acteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint
arthroplasty: a systematic review. Can J Surg 51(6):428–436
Smith WB 2nd, Steinberg J, Scholtes S, McNamara IR (2017)
Medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: age-stratied costeffectiveness of total knee arthroplasty, unicompartmental
knee arthroplasty, and high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports
Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):924–933
Tessier JE, Rupp G, Gera JT, DeHart ML, Kowalik TD, Duwelius
PJ (2016) Physicians with dened clear care pathways have better discharge disposition and lower cost. J Arthroplast 31(9
Suppl):54–58
Turkiewicz A, Petersson IF, Bjork J et al (2014) Current and
future impact of osteoarthritis on health care: a populationbased study with projections to year 2032. Osteoarthr Cartil
22(11):1826–1832
Vizient Inc (2020) Vizient DRG Compare- 469 470. Vizient, Inc.
https://www.vizientinc.com. Accessed 6 Feb 2020
Wu CH, Gray CF, Lee GC (2014) Arthrodesis should be strongly
considered after failed two-stage reimplantation TKA. Clin
Orthop Relat Res 472(11):3295–3304

487
https://t.me/medicina_free
Conceptualizing theProblem
ofCost inCemented Total Knee
Arthroplasty
KenomaAnighoro andKevinJ.Bozic
Contents
42.1 Introduction – 488
42.2 Methods forAssessing Cost inTKA – 488
42.3 Comparing Costs ofCemented andNon-cemented TKA – 489
42.4 Cost Considerations inSpecial Populations – 490
42
42.5 The Importance ofIncorporating Value Measurement – 491
References – 492
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature 2022
E. Hansen, K.-D. Kühn (eds.), Essentials of Cemented Knee Arthroplasty,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-63113-3_42

488
https://t.me/medicina_free
K. Anighoro and K. J. Bozic
42.1 Introduction
Substantial research and press attention have been
focused on the drivers of increasing health care costs in
recent years. In the United States, it is commonly cited
that economic activity in the health care sector accounts
for nearly a fth of total GDP (Papanicolas etal. 2018).
It is also often pointed out that many individuals are
overburdened by medical bills, some of whom have been
bankrupted by health care treatment costs (Brill 2015).
This is weighed against the apparent lack of superiority
of US health outcomes when compared with those of
other OECD countries. These realities are intertwined
but not interchangeable. In some publications, “cost”
refers to overall economic activity in the health care sector (i.e., societal cost); alternatively, the term may refer to
revenues accrued to health systems via claim reimbursements (i.e., payer costs); or to costs borne by patients
themselves (i.e., out of pocket costs). It is interesting to
note, however, that other economic sectors which constitute signicant swaths of economic output are not
considered as “costs”, per se. For example, we do not
generally speak in terms of “automobile costs” or “food
and beverage costs” when referencing the aggregate market capitalizations of companies in those sectors. Nor
do we refer to consumer prices in these markets as costs.
> The various stakeholders in the health care system–
patients, payers, purchasers, physicians, suppliers,
health care systems, and society – experience costs
differently. When the type of cost and relevant stakeholder are not specied, there can be a conation of
cost, revenue, and prot.
Any discussion of cost must start with identifying the
stakeholder bearing that cost.
42.2 Methods forAssessing Cost inTKA
From an institutional perspective, cost in TKA may be
assessed in several ways. Many examples in the literature provide estimates of cost extrapolated from insurance charges or payer reimbursements, because this
data can be extracted fairly easily (Ong et al. 2006).
By aggregating reimbursements for procedures for a
given time period and multiplying an expected cost/
revenue ratio, a workable cost estimate can be produced (Stargardt 2008). These rates, reimbursements,
and cost/revenue ratios are components of institutional chargemasters, which are proprietary rubrics
of cost, payment, and charge information for health
care systems. They are highly variable between institutions as there is usually a large discrepancy between
charge and reimbursement, and even a greater discrepancy between reimbursement and actual cost. The discrepancies arise as a result cost shifting, multilateral
contract negotiations between suppliers, payers, and
providers, and the existence of moral hazard due to the
existence of third-party payers. The heterogeneity of
these rubrics would make them poor sources for universally applicable nancial information. To simplify
the cost discussion here, we will avoid using references
to charge, reimbursement, or revenue. We will instead
attempt to identify true costs.
Intuitively, the cost of TKA is based on the cost of
direct or indirect supply costs and personnel costs (i.e.,
salaries).
> The true cost of medical services is generally difcult
to accurately measure due to the high level of human
processing required to furnish medical services, and
the inherent variability of the processing methods
used.
> From the business perspective, the cost of a product
or service would encapsulate raw supply and personnel costs required for its production.
42
Because costs to other stakeholders are by nature
“downstream”, it is useful to have a clear understanding
of the true cost to the entity delivering the service.
This chapter’s discussion of cost will explore total
knee arthroplasty (TKA) cost in terms of the fundamental inputs essential for the provision of the service
by the health care institution. We make the assumption
that the impact on other stakeholders, including the
patient, would be derived from the business costs.
Fortunately, in the realm of TKA, many of the inputs
have become standardized and certain general expectations can be assumed. Ongoing research continues to
illuminate areas of potential standardization to decrease
the variability in total joint arthroplasty care. Because
of this reality, we have hope of assessing the cost of
TKA in a manner that may be relevant to a variety of
different settings.
There are two primary methods by which costs are
accounted in health care settings:
5 traditional accounting, and
5 time-driven activity-based accounting (Palsis et al.
2018; Akhavan etal. 2016).

Conceptualizing theProblem ofCost inCemented Total Knee Arthroplasty
https://t.me/medicina_free
489
42
> In traditional accounting, total expenses are calculated
from overall business activity for a given period of time
and these costs are allocated to departments– called
cost centers– based on their average
lization.
proportionate uti-
This is a “top-down” accounting process which relies on
assumptions about how departments generate certain
expenses.
> In time-driven activity-based accounting, all business
processes are broken down into their component
steps by creating detailed process maps from observa-
tion. The personnel and resource time dedicated to
each of the steps is determined, and the cost of the
overall process is calculated.
The per-minute cost of each resource (e.g., operating
room, operating table, etc.) and personnel (e.g., circulating nurse, surgical technician, etc.) is generated and a
more granular service cost may be calculated in a “bottom- up” fashion.
This method offers a more granular cost estimate, but
a shortcoming of this accounting is that total costs will
only be as robust as the process maps they are based on,
and distributive costs which are shared by all patients
could be missed– for example, the cost of maintaining
a sterile processing center, a responsive IT department,
stocked operating room inventory, or a cleanly atmosphere– as they cannot be easily attributed to a particular patient or service experience.
To simplify discussions of cost in terms of surgical resource utilization, a report in the Journal of the
American Medical Association in 2018 by Childers etal.
sought to determine an average cost per operating room
minute (Childers and Maggard-Gibbons 2018). Their
estimate was calculated from total yearly expenses
attributed to the surgery and recovery departments of
302 California-based hospitals divided by the respective aggregate surgery times for the same year. Using
this method, they found that, on average, OR services
cost $36 to $37 per minute across all activities. Notably,
this estimate excluded surgeon, anesthesia, radiology,
implant, or special equipment costs.
Assuming that team composition and other equipment
are more or less unchanged, the cost differential is driven
primarily by the cost of tools, disposables, and implants.
Cemented TKA requires the use of cement, associated
disposables, and the implants themselves.
Non-cemented arthroplasty obviates the need for
cement but the implants are produced by alternate
manufacturing methods to enhance their bony xation
such as tantalum augmentation, porositization, and/or
hydroxyapatite coating (Kamath et al. 2011; Harwin
etal. 2013).
> Cementless implants are sold at a premium presum-
ably to compensate the more specialized manufactur-
ing processes necessary for their production.
The study by Lawrie et al. provided useful cost estimates and analysis regarding cemented and cementless
TKA comparisons (Lawrie etal. 2019). In their study
they reported that the premium for a cementless implant
can be around $366 (differing of course by implant
manufacturer and negotiated price agreements). On the
other hand, PMMA cement and associated disposables
could cost about $325. If antibiotic-loaded cement were
deemed necessary, this would represent yet more cost–
an additional $175 per 40g over non-antibiotic PMMA.
Some studies have demonstrated that the cost of
cement can be decreased dramatically by routinely limiting quantity per case. Yan et al. found that during
routine TKA only about 30g of cement were retained
while about 90g were wasted, representing a signicant
opportunity for waste and cost reduction (Yan et al.
2018). Modifying cement protocol can generally have a
signicant impact on reducing cost while obtaining the
desired result (Kee etal. 2018).
Lawrie etal. demonstrated that even when considering the upfront cost parity of the implants and materials, there was a benet in terms of operative time from
omitting the cement curing process.
> Non-cemented TKAs were of shorter duration by
about 10 min in their study (Harwin et al. 2013).
When quantifying cost in terms of OR minutes, this
would yield real cost differences and signicant aggre-
gate savings from personnel and equipment costs.
42.3 Comparing Costs ofCemented
andNon-cemented TKA
> In the case of cemented TKA vs. non-cemented TKA,
the most signicant cost differences result from materials.
The time savings may also result in a reduction in rates
of adverse outcomes, as some studies have reported
that decreased operative time in TKA is associated with
decreased rates of infection and lengths of stay (George
et al. 2018; Sodhi et al. 2019). Other studies suggest
that these time savings may not have a clinical impact

490
https://t.me/medicina_free
K. Anighoro and K. J. Bozic
42
after a threshold of 100–120min operative time (Pugely
etal. 2015; Ravi etal. 2019). From an institutional perspective, time savings of about 10 min per case could
reduce the opportunity cost, increasing the likelihood
that more such services could be rendered in a given
time frame (Chatterjee etal. 2009). The decreased time
would allow personnel to pursue other essential activities and minimize personnel exhaustion, and improve
patient outcomes.
> Implant costs generally account for a substantial pro-
portion of overall TKA costs, as high as a third of
overall episode cost– even when perioperative care is
included (Carducci etal. 2019).
This aspect of cost depends in large part on negotiated prices between the vendor and the institution. The
study by Robinson etal. demonstrated that a substantial portion of intra- and inter-hospital TKA cost variation (97.5% of total variation) could be attributed to
non- patient factors such as procedure volume, institution teaching status, or surgeon preference (Robinson
etal. 2012). This is made clear by the fact that there are
signicant differences in price for the same implant in
different geographies. Separate from the particular features of implants and their relative production costs,
categorical cost savings could be achieved by improved
provider- supplier deals. Some groups have had success
with collective bargaining by having multiple surgeons
subscribe to a particular vendor and achieving improved
purchase deals (Boylan etal. 2019).
> When considering the time horizon of TKA failure,
cemented knee arthroplasty has historically performed better, and there is much more available data
(Fricka etal. 2019).
Yet more recent studies which explore the long-term survival of cemented and non-cemented TKA have found
more similar implant survival rates (Fricka etal. 2019).
This may be due to more recent innovations in orthopedic basic science and implant manufacturing.
> Later generation non-cemented constructs appear to
have high 5- to 10-year survival rates >91% with good
satisfaction rates (>98%), but longer follow-up data
remains limited (Drexler etal. 2012; Hardeman etal.
2006).
> Cemented TKA has much longer-run data with 15- to
20-year survival rates in excess of 85% compared to
lower rates for non-cemented cohorts (Ranawat etal.
2012).
As would be expected, a revision situation adds cost that
is not accounted for in the initial cost analysis. Revision
surgeries are more technically demanding, requiring
more personnel time and material resources than primary arthroplasty. Implant costs may be nearly 200%
higher, and average surgery durations may also double
(Weber etal. 2018). Revision knee arthroplasty is often
associated with longer lengths of stay and higher infection rates, which account for additional costs.
> Even a small improvement in survival rate for
cemented arthroplasty would confer a substantial
long-term cost advantage when extrapolated over the
entire patient population. It remains to be seen
whether long-term survival rates of cementless
implants are comparable to their cemented counter-
parts.
It will be essential for future studies to elucidate the
difference in long-term outcomes and revision rates
between these two categories of implants, and to determine which patient populations would most benet
from each type of implant.
42.4 Cost Considerations inSpecial
Populations
Antibiotic-loaded cement may benet some populations at higher risk of infection (e.g., revisions) in terms
of infection reduction, but results in routine primary
TKA are mixed (Tayton etal. 2016; King et al. 2018).
Moreover, unique complications such as renal failure may be introduced by the use of antibiotic-loaded
cement (Chan etal. 2019). Pre-mixed antibiotic-loaded
cement currently is FDA approved only for treatment
of infected total joint arthroplasty, specically in the
second phase of a two-stage revision after infection has
been cleared (e.g., simplex P tobramycin; PROSTALAC
is approved as a temporary hip arthroplasty implant in
infection revisions). These options are not approved for
infection prevention in primary TJA (Nelson 2004).
Alternatively, absorbable antibiotic coatings such as
hydrogel or silver may be used as tools to reduce infection rates. In the study by Romano et al., the authors
found no signicant difference in overall outcome, but
there was a lower rate of supercial surgical site infection with hydrogel use (Romanò etal. 2016). The longterm implications of this were unclear given the limited
follow-up, an average of 14.5 months. If the difference
found in this study were true, it would equate to an
approximate 6% absolute risk reduction, corresponding to a number-needed-to-treat of 17. Depending on

Conceptualizing theProblem ofCost inCemented Total Knee Arthroplasty
https://t.me/medicina_free
491
42
the negotiated price for the material, routine use could
generate signicant expense. It could be argued that it
would be more cost-effective to treat patients with a
short course of oral antibiotics when clinical suspicion
arose. Pre-emptive use may be warranted in some subpopulations, however: Trentinaglia et al. explored the
economic benet of antibiotic-loaded cement, hydrogel
coating, and silver coating in primary TKA and found
that these interventions could become cost neutral if
pre-surgical infection risks were 1.5%, 2.6%, and 19.2%,
respectively (Trentinaglia etal. 2018).
Some TKA systems offer all-polyethylene tibial
components as an alternative to standard metal-backed
components.
> All-polyethylene tibial components are signicantly
less expensive than metal-backed components, by as
much as 33%. The survivorship of all-polyethylene
tibial components have been shown to be equivalent
to metal-backed components, especially in the elderly
population (Gustke and Gelbke 2017).
In a study by Browne etal., their team used sensitivity
analysis to show that all-polyethylene tibial components
could be cost-effective unless there was a>9% increased
failure rate relative to metal-backed tibia options
(Browne etal. 2018). In the appropriate population, allpolyethylene tibial components may be the more costeffective option.
Detailed exploration of unsatisfactory outcomes
after TKA has led some authors to explore the potential
impact of metal allergy as a cause of a subset of TKA
failures.
> It is hypothesized that allergy to nickel, chromium,
cobalt, or polymethylmethacralate cement may con-
tribute to earlier aseptic failure.
To address these concerns, surgeons have considered
employing alternate bearing surfaces to minimize allergen exposure and improve outcomes.
Titanium-based implants and oxidized zirconium
(Oxinium) implants exist which would allow avoidance
of allergenic materials. Some manufacturers also produce cobalt-chrome implants with “hypersensitivityfriendly” oxidized titanium nitride or zirconium nitride
coatings, conferring the benets of strong bearing surfaces with reduced allergenic exposure (Ajwani and
Charalambous 2016). These special implants are more
expensive than their standard counterparts, and longterm failure rates may be higher (Vertullo etal. 2017).
The added cost may be warranted in certain patient subpopulations, however.
> Currently, there is no reliable method of identifying
patients who would most benet from hypoallergenic
implants. Self-reports of metal allergy have failed to
correlate with demonstrable improvements in outcome in large retrospective studies (Schmidt et al.
2019).
Skin patch testing and lymphocyte testing may more
accurately identify patients with reactivity, but such
testing would be costly to apply on routine basis in its
current form, and positive results have not been shown
to correlate with worse outcomes even when allergenic
implants are used (Münch etal. 2015; Yang etal. 2019).
There have been case reports, however, of substantial
benet in patients with severe sensitivities (Stathopoulos et al. 2017). It remains to be seen whether future
research will illuminate the clinical relevance of metal
allergy in TKA.
42.5 The Importance ofIncorporating
Value Measurement
Value is the essential counterpart to cost assessment.
> Value should be dened from the perspective of the
ultimate health care customer – the patient. When
considering options to reduce cost in health care, care
must be taken to ensure that value is not compromised.
Many of the studies in the current arthroplasty literature
evaluate process factors such as institutional outcomes
(e.g., length of stay, home discharge rate, etc.) or event
rates (e.g., revision rate, transfusion rate, infection rate,
etc.) as surrogates for value, but these do not necessarily
correspond to patient-perceived value (Andrawis etal.
2013). Interventions with apparently similar complica-
tion rates may in fact have signicantly different clinical
or functional outcomes.
> Ideally, value assessment would be based on patient-
reported outcome measures (PROMs), or health status instruments, that better represent clinical
effectiveness from the patient’s perspective (Franklin
etal. 2013).
Existing examples include the Western Ontario and
McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
or Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
(KOOS). Assessment of the comparative effectiveness
of different TKA-related treatment modalities as measured by PROMs is not routinely included in the pub-

492
https://t.me/medicina_free
K. Anighoro and K. J. Bozic
42
lished literature, so it is impractical to truly compare
value associated with many of the alternatives considered in TKA (Makhni etal. 2015). We assume here
that value to patients is more-or-less similar among the
options available so that they could be interchangeable.
It is important to recognize that this may not be true,
despite apparently similar institutional outcomes or
clinical event rates.
In this chapter’s discussion of cost, we take for
granted that value is preserved. If we explore in more
depth, we may nd that some options force value tradeoffs that are not satisfactory from a patient perspective. Future research will need to explore cost and value
simultaneously.
Take-Home Messages
5 Cost may be interpreted differently depending on
the stakeholder, so cost analysis must rst identify
the perspective.
5 Cost accounting in health care is inconsistent and
unreliable, which may thwart attempts to dene
cost drivers. Time-driven activity-based costing
offers a solution to increase the granularity of cost
accounting, but can be highly resource intensive.
5 Cemented TKA has long history of success, but
cementless TKA could prove to be a viable alternative based on more recently published studies.
Cementless implants tend to be marginally more
expensive than cemented implants but obviate the
need for cement and its associated expense.
5 Special populations may benet from more expen-
sive alternatives such as antibiotic-impregnated
cement, antibiotic coatings, or nickel-sparing biomaterials, but further research is needed to determine when these should be applied.
5 Value is a necessary consideration in all cost analy-
sis. When cost is considered in isolation, efforts to
reduce cost can inadvertently compromise value
from a patient’s perspective.
References
Ajwani SH, Charalambous CP (2016) Availability of total knee
arthroplasty implants for metal hypersensitivity patients. Knee
Surg Relat Res 28(4):312
Akhavan S, Ward L, Bozic KJ (2016) Time-driven activity-based
costing more accurately reects costs in arthroplasty surgery.
Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(1):8–15
Andrawis JP, Chenok KE, Bozic KJ (2013) Health policy implica-
tions of outcomes measurement in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop
Relat Res 471(11):3475–3481
Boylan MR etal (2019) Preferred single-vendor program for total
joint arthroplasty implants: surgeon adoption, outcomes, and
cost savings. JBJS 101(15):1381–1387
Brill S (2015) America’s bitter pill: money, politics, backroom deals,
and the ght to x our broken healthcare system. Random
House Trade Paperbacks
Browne JA et al (2018) When would a metal-backed component
become cost-effective over an all-polyethylene tibia in total knee
arthroplasty? Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 47(6):1–8
Carducci MP etal (2019) Variation in the cost of care for different
types of joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102(5):404–409
Chan JJ et al (2019) Antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary
total knee arthroplasty: utilization patterns and impact on
complications using a national database. J Arthroplast 34(7):
S188–S194
Chatterjee A etal (2009) Opportunity cost: a systematic application
to surgery. Surgery 146(1):18–22
Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M (2018) Understanding costs of
care in the operating room. JAMA Surg 153(4):e176233–e176233
Drexler M etal (2012) Cementless xation in total knee arthroplasty:
down the boulevard of broken dreams–opposes. J Bone Joint
Surg 94(11_Supple_A):85–89
Franklin PD, Harrold L, Ayers DC (2013) Incorporating patient-
reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries: challenges
and opportunities. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(11):3482–3488
Fricka KB, McAsey CJ, Sritulanondha S (2019) To cement or not?
Five-year results of a prospective, randomized study comparing
cemented vs cementless total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast
34(7):S183–S187
George J et al (2018) How fast should a total knee arthroplasty
be performed? An analysis of 140,199 surgeries. J Arthroplast
33(8):2616–2622
Gustke KA, Gelbke MK (2017) All-polyethylene tibial component
use for elderly, low-demand total knee arthroplasty patients. J
Arthroplast 32(8):2421–2426
Hardeman F et al (2006) Cementless total knee arthroplasty with
Prox: a 8-to 10-year follow-up study. Knee 13(6):419–421
Harwin SF et al (2013) Excellent xation achieved with cement-
less posteriorly stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast
28(1):7–13
Kamath AF et al (2011) Prospective results of uncemented tan-
talum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty: minimum
5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years. J Arthroplast
26(8):1390–1395
Kee JR et al (2018) Standardization of acrylic bone cement mix-
ing protocols for total knee arthroplasty results in cost savings.
Orthopedics 41(5):e671–e675
King JD et al (2018) The hidden cost of commercial antibiotic-
loaded bone cement: a systematic review of clinical results and
cost implications following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast
33(12):3789–3792
Lawrie CM et al (2019) The cost of implanting a cemented ver-
sus cementless total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 101(7_
Supple_C):61–63
Makhni EC etal (2015) What are the strength of recommendations
and methodologic reporting in health economic studies in orthopaedic surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(10):3289–3296
Münch HJ etal (2015) The association between metal allergy, total
knee arthroplasty, and revision: study based on the Danish Knee
Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 86(3):378–383
Nelson CL (2004) The current status of material used for depot
delivery of drugs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 427:72–78
Ong KL et al (2006) Economic burden of revision hip and knee
arthroplasty in Medicare enrollees. Clin Orthop Relat Res
446:22–28
Palsis JA etal (2018) The cost of joint replacement: comparing two
approaches to evaluating costs of total hip and knee arthroplasty. JBJS 100(4):326–333

Conceptualizing theProblem ofCost inCemented Total Knee Arthroplasty
https://t.me/medicina_free
493
42
Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK (2018) Health care spending
in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA
319(10):1024–1039
Pugely AJ etal (2015) The incidence of and risk factors for 30-day
surgical site infections following primary and revision total joint
arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 30(9):47–50
Ranawat CS etal (2012) Cementless xation in total knee arthro-
plasty: down the boulevard of broken dreams–afrms. J Bone
Joint Surg 94(11_Supple_A):82–84
Ravi B et al (2019) Surgical duration is associated with an
increased risk of periprosthetic infection following total knee
arthroplasty: a population-based retrospective cohort study.
EClinicalMedicine 16:74–80
Robinson JC etal (2012) Variability in costs associated with total hip
and knee replacement implants. JBJS 94(18):1693–1698
Romanò CL et al (2016) Does an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel coat-
ing reduce early post-surgical infection after joint arthroplasty?
J Bone Joint Infect 1:34
Schmidt KJ etal (2019) Self-reported metal allergy and early out-
comes after total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 42(6):330–334
Sodhi N etal (2019) Operative times can predict and are correlated
with lengths-of-stay in primary total knee arthroplasty: a nation-
wide database study. J Arthroplast 34(7):1328–1332
Stargardt T (2008) Health service costs in Europe: cost and reim-
bursement of primary hip replacement in nine countries. Health
Econ 17(S1):S9–S20
Stathopoulos IP etal (2017) Revision total knee arthroplasty due to
bone cement and metal hypersensitivity. Arch Orthop Trauma
Surg 137(2):267–271
Tayton ER etal (2016) The impact of patient and surgical factors
on the rate of infection after primary total knee arthroplasty: an
analysis of 64 566 joints from the New Zealand Joint Registry.
Bone Joint J 98(3):334–340
Trentinaglia MT etal (2018) Economic evaluation of antibacterial
coatings on healthcare costs in rst year following total joint
arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33(6):1656–1662
Vertullo CJ etal (2017) Twelve-year outcomes of an oxinium total
knee replacement compared with the same cobalt-chromium
design: an analysis of 17,577 prostheses from the Australian
Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.
JBJS 99(4):275–283
Weber M etal (2018) Revision surgery in total joint replacement is
cost-intensive. Biomed Res Int 2018:8987104
Yan JR etal (2018) Cement waste during primary total knee arthro-
plasty and its effect on cost savings: an institutional analysis.
Cureus 10(11):e3637
Yang S et al (2019) Lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) in
cases of pain following total knee arthroplasty: little relationship to histopathologic ndings and revision outcomes. JBJS
101(3):257–264
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
