Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
66 Мб
Скачать
Economics ofSurgical Treatment ofKnee Arthritis– AUS 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 specic. Intravenous tranexamic acid is administered prior to incision. A standard medial parapatellar approach is used. Just prior to cementing, the tourniquet is inated to achieve a pressure appropriate to patient habitus (typically 250–300 mmHg). The trial components are removed. For most TKA, two 40g 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 etal., to minimize infection risk, which is both cost-efcient 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 prole.
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 andtheEconomic Future
ofTKA
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 benecial 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 specic patient risk factors, would jeopardize the accessibility and quality of TKA.
41.7.2 Antibiotics inBone 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 etal. 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 efcacious 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-specic, high-value payment models that will enable a continued improvement of outcomes important to patients while minimizing the use of low-efcacy 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 etal. 2019; O’Donnell etal. 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 etal. 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 benet 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-
efcacy 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 signicant 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 etal (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 benet 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 etal (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 ofSurgical Treatment ofKnee Arthritis– AUS 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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (2018) Machine learning
and primary total knee arthroplasty: patient forecasting for a patient-specic 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 etal (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 etal (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-stratied 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 dened 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 theProblem ofCost inCemented Total Knee Arthroplasty
KenomaAnighoro andKevinJ.Bozic
Contents
42.1 Introduction – 488
42.2 Methods forAssessing Cost inTKA – 488
42.3 Comparing Costs ofCemented andNon-cemented TKA – 489
42.4 Cost Considerations inSpecial Populations – 490
42
42.5 The Importance ofIncorporating 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 etal. 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 signicant 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 specied, there can be a conation of cost, revenue, and prot.
Any discussion of cost must start with identifying the stakeholder bearing that cost.
42.2 Methods forAssessing Cost inTKA
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 difcult
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 etal. 2016).
Conceptualizing theProblem ofCost inCemented 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 etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 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 40g 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 30g of cement were retained while about 90g were wasted, representing a signicant opportunity for waste and cost reduction (Yan et al.
2018). Modifying cement protocol can generally have a
signicant impact on reducing cost while obtaining the desired result (Kee etal. 2018).
Lawrie etal. demonstrated that even when consider­ing the upfront cost parity of the implants and materi­als, there was a benet 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 signicant aggre-
gate savings from personnel and equipment costs.
42.3 Comparing Costs ofCemented
andNon-cemented TKA
> In the case of cemented TKA vs. non-cemented TKA,
the most signicant 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 100–120min operative time (Pugely etal. 2015; Ravi etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 2019).
This aspect of cost depends in large part on negoti­ated prices between the vendor and the institution. The study by Robinson etal. 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 etal. 2012). This is made clear by the fact that there are signicant 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 etal. 2019).
> When considering the time horizon of TKA failure,
cemented knee arthroplasty has historically per­formed better, and there is much more available data (Fricka etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 2012; Hardeman etal.
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 etal.
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 etal. 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 benet from each type of implant.
42.4 Cost Considerations inSpecial
Populations
Antibiotic-loaded cement may benet some popula­tions at higher risk of infection (e.g., revisions) in terms of infection reduction, but results in routine primary TKA are mixed (Tayton etal. 2016; King et al. 2018). Moreover, unique complications such as renal fail­ure may be introduced by the use of antibiotic-loaded cement (Chan etal. 2019). Pre-mixed antibiotic-loaded cement currently is FDA approved only for treatment of infected total joint arthroplasty, specically 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 signicant difference in overall outcome, but there was a lower rate of supercial surgical site infec­tion with hydrogel use (Romanò etal. 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 theProblem ofCost inCemented Total Knee Arthroplasty
https://t.me/medicina_free
491
42
the negotiated price for the material, routine use could generate signicant 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 benet 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 etal. 2018).
Some TKA systems offer all-polyethylene tibial components as an alternative to standard metal-backed components.
> All-polyethylene tibial components are signicantly
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 etal., 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 etal. 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 benets 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 etal. 2017). The added cost may be warranted in certain patient sub­populations, however.
> Currently, there is no reliable method of identifying
patients who would most benet 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 etal. 2015; Yang etal. 2019). There have been case reports, however, of substantial benet 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 ofIncorporating
Value Measurement
Value is the essential counterpart to cost assessment.
> Value should be dened 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 etal.
2013). Interventions with apparently similar complica-
tion rates may in fact have signicantly 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 etal. 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 etal. 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 dene 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 benet 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 reects 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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (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
Prox: 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 etal (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 etal (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 etal (2018) The cost of joint replacement: comparing two
approaches to evaluating costs of total hip and knee arthro­plasty. JBJS 100(4):326–333
Conceptualizing theProblem ofCost inCemented 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 etal (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 etal (2012) Cementless xation in total knee arthro-
plasty: down the boulevard of broken dreams–afrms. 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 etal (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 etal (2019) Self-reported metal allergy and early out-
comes after total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 42(6):330–334 Sodhi N etal (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 etal (2017) Revision total knee arthroplasty due to
bone cement and metal hypersensitivity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(2):267–271
Tayton ER etal (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 etal (2018) Economic evaluation of antibacterial
coatings on healthcare costs in rst year following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33(6):1656–1662
Vertullo CJ etal (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 etal (2018) Revision surgery in total joint replacement is
cost-intensive. Biomed Res Int 2018:8987104
Yan JR etal (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