The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode.Aims
Methods
Revision surgery for total knee replacement is a complex procedure, carrying an increased risk for the patient and cost for hospitals. As well as increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and theatre time, there is a well documented increased length of stay (LOS), accounting for the majority of actual costs associated with surgery. We compared revision surgery for infection vs. other causes (aseptic loosening, dislocation, mal-alignment). Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 180 consecutive revision total knee replacements performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2003 and 2012. Actual costs and National Health Service tariffs were compared per patient and mean difference calculated. Mean age was 66 years (range 17–87) with 62 male and 117 female patients. Mean LOS for aseptic cases was 10 days (range 1–62) and 20 days (range 4–103) for infection. Mean cost difference in aseptic cases (n = 125) was £−933 (SD = £12,204), and £−3907 (SD = £7,256) for infection (n = 54). Surgery for infection was associated with increased operating times, blood loss and complications compared to revision for aseptic causes. LOS for infection was on average double that for aseptic cases (p < 0.05). Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs associated with providing a revision knee surgery service, with even greater cost incurred by the treating hospital for infected cases. These losses may negatively influence the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.
We present a case series of patients who underwent 3 or 4 part proximal humerus fracture fixation using an intra-osseous suture technique. 18 patients are included in the study with follow up data obtained ranging from 1 to 4 years. Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS) and range of movement measurements were taken for all patients. The mean OSS for the group was 50/60 with a mean forward flexion of 140°, abduction of 132°, external rotation of 48° and internal rotation to the level 10th thoracic vertebra. Three patients developed adhesive capsulitis, 2 requiring subsequent arthroscopic release. This data compares favourably to outcomes reported in the literature with hemiarthroplasty or locking plate fixation. An activity based costing analysis estimated that the treatment costs for proximal humerus fractures was approximately £2,055 when performing a soft tissue reconstruction, £3,114 when using a locking plate and £4,679 when performing a hemiarthroplasty. This demonstrates a significant financial saving when using intra-osseous fixation compared to other fixation techniques. We advocate the use of the intra-osseous suture fixation technique for certain 3 and 4 part fractures. It gives good functional outcomes, significant cost savings and potentially makes revision procedures easier when compared to other fixation techniques.
Knee arthroscopy with meniscectomy is the third most common Orthopaedic surgery performed after TKA and THA, comprising up to 16.6% of all procedures. The efficiency of Orthopaedic care delivery with respect to waiting times and systemic costs is extremely concerning. Canadian Orthopaedic patients experience the longest wait times of any G7 country, yet perioperative surgical care constitutes a significant portion of a hospital's budget. In-Office Needle Arthroscopy (IONA) is an emerging technology that has been primarily studied as a diagnostic tool. Recent evidence shows that it is a cost-effective alternative to hospital- and community-based MRI with comparable accuracy. Recent procedure guides detailing IONA medial meniscectomy suggest a potential node for OR diversion. Given the high case volume of knee arthroscopy as well as the potential amenability to be diverted away from the OR to the office setting, IONA has the potential to generate considerable improvements in healthcare system efficiency with respect to throughput and cost savings. As such, the purpose of this study is to investigate the cost savings and impact on waiting times on a mid-sized Canadian community hospital if IONA is offered as an alternative to traditional operating room (OR) arthroscopy for medial meniscal tears. In order to develop a comprehensive understanding and accurate representation of the quantifiable operations involved in the current state for medial meniscus tear care, process mapping was performed that describes the journey of a patient from when they present with knee pain to their general practitioner until case resolution. This technique was then repeated to create a second process map describing the hypothetical proposed state whereby OR diversion may be conducted utilizing IONA. Once the respective process maps for each state were determined, each process map was translated into a Dupont decision tree. In order to accurately determine the total number of patients which would be eligible for this care pathway at our institution, the OR booking scheduling for arthroscopy and meniscectomy/repair over a four year time period (2016-2020) were reviewed. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effect of the number of patients who select IONA over meniscectomy and the number of revision meniscectomies after IONA on 1) the profit and profit margin determined by the MCS-Dupont financial model and 2) the throughput (percentage and number) determined by the MCS-throughput model. Based on historic data at our institution, an average of 198 patients (SD 31) underwent either a meniscectomy or repair from years 2016-2020. Revenue for both states was similar (p = .22), with the current state revenue being $ 248,555.99 (standard deviation $ 39,005.43) and proposed state of $ 249,223.86 (SD $ 39,188.73). However, the reduction in expenses was significant (p < .0001) at 5.15%, with expenses in the current state being $ 281,415.23 (SD $ 44,157.80) and proposed state of $ 266,912.68 (SD $ 42,093.19), representing $14,502.95 in savings. Accordingly, profit improvement was also significant (p < .0001) at 46.2%, with current state profit being $ (32,859.24) (SD $ 5,153.49) and proposed state being $ (17,678.82) (SD $ 2,921.28). The addition of IONA into the care pathway of the proposed state produced an average improvement in throughput of 42 patients (SD 7), representing a 21.2% reduction in the number of patients that require an OR procedure.
