Aims. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the removal of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from the Medicare Inpatient Only (IPO) list on our Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative in 2018. Methods. We examined our institutional database to identify all Medicare patients who underwent primary TKA from 2017 to 2018. Hospital inpatient or outpatient status was cross-referenced with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data. Demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes were compared between patients classified as ‘outpatient’ and ‘inpatient’ TKA. Episode-of-care BPCI costs were then compared from 2017 to 2018. Results. Of the 2,135 primary TKA patients in 2018, 908 (43%) were classified as an outpatient and were excluded from BPCI. Inpatient classified patients had longer mean length of stay (1.9 (SD 1.4) vs 1.4 (SD 1.7) days, p < 0.001) and higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation (17% vs 3%, p < 0.001). Post-acute care costs increased when comparing the BPCI patients from 2017 to 2018, ($5,037 (SD $7,792) vs $5793 (SD $8,311), p = 0.010). The removal of TKA from the IPO list turned a net savings of $53,805 in 2017 into a loss of $219,747 in 2018 for our BPCI programme. Conclusions. Following the removal of TKA from the IPO list, nearly half of the patients at our institution were inappropriately classified as an outpatient. Our target price was increased and our institution realized a substantial loss in 2018 BPCI despite strong quality metrics. CMS should address its negative implications on bundled payment programmes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):19–23

Aims. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative has identified pathways for improving the value of care. However, patient-specific modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors may increase costs beyond the target payment. We sought to identify risk factors for exceeding our institution’s target payment, the so-called ‘bundle busters’. Patients and Methods. Using our data warehouse and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data we identified all 412 patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty and qualified for our institution’s BPCI model, between July 2015 and May 2017. Episodes where CMS payments exceeded the target payment were considered ‘busters’ (n = 123). Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using a modified Poisson regression analysis. Results. An increased risk of exceeding the target payment was significantly associated with increasing age (adjusted RR 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.06) and body mass index (adjusted RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.003 to 1.06). Eight comorbid risk factors were also identified (all p < 0.05), only two of which were considered to be potentially modifiable (diabetes with complications and preoperative anaemia). An American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classification system (ASA) score ≥ 3 (adjusted RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.18) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 3 (adjusted RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.60) were risk factors for bundle busting. Conclusion. Non-modifiable preoperative risk factors can increase costs and exceed the target payment. Future bundled payment models should incorporate the stratification of risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):64–69

Aims. There is concern that aggressive target pricing in the new Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) penalizes high-performing groups that had achieved low costs through prior experience in bundled payments. We hypothesize that this methodology incorporates unsustainable downward trends on Target Prices and will lead to groups opting out of BPCI Advanced in favour of a traditional fee for service. Methods. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, we compared the Target Price factors for hospitals and physician groups that participated in both BPCI Classic and BPCI Advanced (legacy groups), with groups that only participated in BPCI Advanced (non-legacy). With rebasing of Target Prices in 2020 and opportunity for participants to drop out, we compared retention rates of hospitals and physician groups enrolled at the onset of BPCI Advanced with current enrolment in 2020. Results. At its peak in July 2015, 342 acute care hospitals and physician groups participated in Lower Extremity Joint Replacement (LEJR) in BPCI Classic. At its peak in March 2019, 534 acute care hospitals and physician groups participated in LEJR in BPCI Advanced. In January 2020, only 14.5% of legacy hospitals and physician groups opted to stay in BPCI Advanced for LEJR. Analysis of Target Price factors by legacy hospitals during both programmes demonstrates that participants in BPCI Classic received larger negative adjustments on the Target Price than non-legacy hospitals. Conclusion. BPCI Advanced provides little opportunity for a reduction in cost to offset a reduced Target Price for efficient providers, as made evident by the 85.5% withdrawal rate for BPCI Advanced. Efficient providers in BPCI Advanced are challenged by the programme’s application of trend and efficiency factors that presumes their cost reduction can continue to decline at the same rate as non-efficient providers. It remains to be seen if reverting back to Medicare fee for service will support the same level of care and quality achieved in historical bundled payment programmes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):119–125

Introduction. The purpose of bundled payment programs is to reduce cost via risk sharing, while still maintaining quality. If savings are achieved under a historic target price, the orthopedic surgeon will receive a monetary bonus. If costs are higher, a portion is deducted from payment to the orthopedic surgeon. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our experience with the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Program (BPCI) when run by an orthopedic surgeon group to determine patient safety and who benefited the most financially. Methods. This program ran from January 2015 through September 2018. 3,186 Medicare total hip and knee replacements, elective (DRG 470) and for fracture (DRG 469), performed by our group were included. 90 day hospital and all postoperative expenditures were reconciled against our historic cost. All patients were medically optimized with discharge plans established preoperatively. We developed preferred skilled nursing facilities and home health care agencies with synergistic medical providers so that discharges were recommended as soon as appropriate. We hired two full-time case managers to have direct contact with patients pre-and post-operatively. Waiver assistance such as house and pet sitters were used if necessary at our expense. 35% of savings went to the convener, who acted as a liaison between our group and CMS. Expenditures for the 90-day period for all patients were calculated to determine where savings occurred and which entity benefitted financially. Results. There was an average 9.2% reduction in hospital readmissions. An estimated total savings of $5,100,000 occurred. There was a 17% reduction in hospital costs, a 12.1% reduction in admissions to skilled nursing facilities with a 34% reduction in length of stay, and a 5% reduction in admissions to inpatient rehabilitation facilities. There was a 35% reduction in home health visits, but no change in outpatient physical therapy visits. After group expenses, final bonus to the orthopedic provider was on average $262 per patient. Conclusion. The physician managed program was very successful from Medicare's standpoint, achieving significant monetary savings without reducing quality of care. However, the bonus to the providing and managing physicians was nominal. It also does not take into consideration the 50 plus hours spent in meetings to develop this program. Participation could be considered a defensive posture so as not to lose more reimbursement. However, experience was gained which will be valuable for future gain sharing programs. Physicians and physician organizations need to sit at the head of the table to manage future payment bundles and perhaps also act as the convener. We deserve this, as a result of demonstrating high safety and cost savings. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Bundled Payments (BP) were a revolutionary new experiment for CMS that tested whether risk sharing for an episode of care would improve quality and reduce costs. The initial success of BP accelerated their growth as evidence by the launch of both mandatory and commercial bundles. Success in BP is dependent on the target price and the opportunity to reduce avoidable costs during the episode of care. There is concern that the aggressive target pricing methodology in the new model (BPCI-Advanced) penalizes high performing groups that already achieved low episode costs through prior experience and investment in BP. We hypothesize that this methodology incorporates unsustainable downward trends on target prices to a point beyond reasonableness for efficient groups to reduce additional costs and will lead to a large percentage of groups opting out of BPCI-A in favor of a return to fee for service (FFS) reimbursement. Methods. Using CMS data, we compared the target price factors for hospitals that participated in both BPCI classic (2013 –2018) and BPCI Advanced (beginning 10/2018), referred to as “legacy hospitals”, with hospitals that only participated in BPCI Advanced (beginning 10/2018). With the rebasing of BPCI-A target prices in Jan 2020 and the opportunity for participants to drop out of individual episode types or the program all together, we compared the retention of episode types that hospitals initially enrolled at the onset of BPCI-A with the current enrollment in 2020. Locally, we analyzed the BPCI-A target price factors across hospitals for a large orthopaedic practice that participated in BPCI Classic and the impact it had on the financial incentive/disincentive to remain in the lower extremity joint replacement episode type in 2020. Results. At its peak in July 2015, 423 acute care hospitals participated in one or more episode type in BPCI Classic. At its peak in March 2019, 715 acute care hospitals participated in one or more episode types in BPCI-Advanced. 130 (18%) of the hospitals in BPCI Advanced were also legacy participants in BPCI Classic, enrolling in 414 of the same episode types during both programs. In 2020, 251 (61%) of the episode types that hospitals were in enrolled in for both BPCI Classic and BPCI Advanced were dropped, suggesting prior experience in BPCI influences a participant's opportunity for success in BPCI Advanced. Furthermore, an analysis of the target price factors for episode types enrolled in by legacy hospitals during both programs suggests that prior participation in BPCI Classic is correlated with more aggressive target prices. A comparison of target price factors of similar hospitals reveals that legacy BPCI Classic hospitals that participated in lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) BPCI Advanced received a larger negative adjustment on the target price (0.11 lower on average as a product of the Peer Adjusted Trend factor and ACH Efficiency factor) than non-legacy hospitals that participated in BPCI Advanced. Furthermore, analysis of the hospital targets for a large, high-performing legacy Physician Group Practice in BPCI Classic for LEJR revealed even greater negative adjustment on the target price than non-legacy participants. Comparing participants of similar peer groups on the Peer Adjusted Trend and ACH Efficiency factors suggests that CMS expects costs to decline more for legacy hospitals that have achieved efficiency than hospitals with no prior BP experience and higher baseline spend. Conclusions. BPCI Advanced provides little to no opportunity for a reduction in cost for already efficient TJA providers, as evident by the 55% dropout rate for BPCI-A participants in LEJR between model years 1 and 3. Efficient TJA providers in BPCI Advanced are challenged by the program's utilization of a peer adjusted trend factor and efficiency factor that presumes their costs will decline at the same aggressive rate or more than nonefficient TJA providers. It remains to be seen if reverting to Medicare fee for service will support the same level of care coordination, cost and quality achieved in historical TJA bundled payment programs

Introduction. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are variably collected before and after total hip/knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). We assessed the generalizability of incentivized, prospectively collected PRO data for THA/TKA patient-reported outcome performance measure (PRO-PM) development. Methods. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) received PRO data voluntarily submitted by hospitals in a bundled payment model for THA/TKA procedures. Participating hospitals who collected and successfully submitted these data received an increase in their overall quality score, possibly resulting in a positive impact on model reconciliation payments. PRO data were collected from Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries >= 65 years undergoing elective primary THA/TKA procedures from July 1 to August 31, 2016 at hospitals participating in the model. Pre-operative PRO and risk variable data were collected 0 – 90 days prior to surgery, while post-operative PRO data were collected 270 – 365 days following elective THA/TKA. PRO pre-op and post-op data were matched to Medicare claims data for determination of clinically eligible procedures and clinical comorbidities. We compared the characteristics of patients submitting PRO data to other elective primary THA/TKA recipients in the US. Results. Four patient characteristics were associated with HOOS Jr. mean change scores (sex, narcotic use in past 90 days, other joint pain, and back pain) and four with KOOS Jr. mean change scores (sex, Hispanic ethnicity, other joint pain, and back pain). The frequency of simultaneous bilateral procedures, dementia, trauma, and dialysis were statistically significantly lower in patients submitting PRO data compared to other US Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective primary THA/TKA, but no difference was greater than 1.5% absolute percentage points between groups. Conclusions. Offering financial incentives in alternative payment models to encourage PRO data collection and submission can produce generalizable data for PRO measure development. The possibility of non-respondent biases will need to be specifically considered in measure development

Introduction. Recent studies of novel healthcare episode payment models, such as the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, have demonstrated pathways for improving value. However, these models may not provide appropriate payments for patients with significant medical comorbidities or complications. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for exceeding our institution's target payment, the so-called “bundle busters.”. Methods. After receiving an exemption from the Institutional Review Board, we queried our institutional data warehouse for all patients (n=412) that underwent total joint arthroplasty (TJA) of the hip (n=192), knee (n=207), or ankle (n=13), and qualified for our institution's bundled payments model during the study time period (July 2015 – May 2017). Patients with medical conditions that were not well controlled or were potentially optimizable were all sent for preoperative medical optimization prior to surgery. For each 90-day episode, patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, perioperative data, and payments from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were obtained. Episodes where Medicare payments exceeded the target payment were considered “busters”. The busters were older, and had higher comorbidity scores (all, p<0.01). Variables were summarized using descriptive statistics and risk ratios were calculated using a modified Poisson regression analysis. Results. Of the 412 patients, 123 were bundle busters (30%). There was a median institutional loss of $11,797 (IQR, $4,312 – $26,771) for the bundle busters and a median gain of $7,402 ($5,657 – $9,206) for the non-busters. Of the 32 risk factors evaluated, 11 were identified as Independent risk factors for busting the bundle (all, p<0.05). Nine of the 11 (82%) are non-modifiable risk factors and include age, disease specific diagnoses (fracture and avascular necrosis), and medical comorbidities (congestive heart failure, pulmonary circulation disorders, renal disease, cardiac arrhythmia, chronic pulmonary disease, and neurological disorder). The remaining two medical comorbidities are potentially modifiable and include diabetes with complications, and preoperative anemia. Conclusion. Though modifiable risk factors should continue to be optimized prior to TJA, as they were in this population, there are still many non-modifiable preoperative risk factors that can lead to costs exceeding the BPCI established institutional payment goal. As such, further work with payors may be needed to help fairly and appropriately consider these non-modifiable factors which result in increased costs

Introduction. In November 2017, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the 2018 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule that removed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures from the Medicare inpatient-only (IPO) list of procedures. This action had significant and unexpected consequences. For several years, CMS has utilized a rule called the “Two-Midnight Rule” to define outpatient status for all procedures not on the IPO list. CMS made TKA subject to the “Two-Midnight Rule” in conjunction with the decision to move TKA off the IPO list. According to the “Two-Midnight Rule,” a hospital admission should be expected to span at least two midnights in order to be covered as an inpatient procedure. If it can be reliably expected that the patient will not require at least two midnights in the hospital, the “Two-Midnight Rule” suggests that the patient is considered an outpatient and is therefore subject to outpatient payment policies. Under prior guidance related to the “Two-Midnight Rule;” however, CMS also states that Medicare may treat some admissions spanning less than two midnights as inpatient procedures if the patient record contains documentation of medical need. The final rule was clear in stating CMS's expectation was that the great majority of TKAs would continue to be provided in an inpatient setting. Methods. We looked at 3 different levels of the IPO rule impact on TKA for Medicare beneficiaries: a national comparison of fee for service (FFS) inpatient and outpatient classification for 2017 vs 2018; a survey of AAHKS surgeons completed in April of 2019; and an in-depth analysis of a large academic medical center experience. An analysis of change in inpatient classification of TKA patients over time, number of Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) audits, compliance solutions of organizations for the new rule and cost implications of those compliance solutions were evaluated. Results. Hospital reimbursement averages $10,122 in an outpatient facility (includes implant, other supplies, ancillary staff, etc.) but does NOT include the physician payment. Average hospital reimbursement in the inpatient setting is $11,760. The difference in reimbursement to hospitals varies widely however due to nuances in the CMS reimbursement formula (90. th. percentile decrease, $6,725 vs 10th percentile $2,048). Physician payments are the same in both settings (avg $1,403). TKA patients not designated for in-patient admissions are not eligible for bundle payment programs thus removing the healthiest, most predictable patients from the program. Patients designated as outpatients are subject to higher out of pocket expenses. Patients may have an annual Medicare Part B Deductible ($185) and a 20% copay as well as prescription and durable medical equipment costs. A survey of AAHKS surgeons demonstrated that 44.74% were doing inpatient designation only, 17.89% were doing outpatient designation only, 25.53 % designated patients as necessary, and 10% were designated by the hospital. This survey showed that 66/374 (17.65%) of AAHKS responders had undergone a QIO audit as a result of issues with the IPO rule. An evaluation of a large academic medical center demonstrated that since January 1, 2018, 470/690 (68.1%) of CMS TKA patients left the institution in less than 2 midnights. During this time period the institution was subjected to 2 QIO audits. All CMS patients had been designated as inpatients prior to May 2019. Conclusions. There are many unintended consequences to the IPO rule application to TKA. Clearly, more study is needed to provide better guidelines to knee replacement surgeons. A well-defined outpatient TKA bundle would allow CMS and TKA surgeons to better serve their patients. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented times worldwide. From lockdowns to masks now being part of our everyday routine, to the halting of elective surgeries, the virus has touched everyone and every part of our personal and professional lives. Perhaps, now more than ever, our ability to adapt, change and persevere is critical to our survival. This year's closed meeting of The Knee Society demonstrated exactly those characteristics. When it became evident that an in-person meeting would not be feasible, The Knee Society leadership, under the direction of President John Callaghan, MD and Program Chair Craig Della Valle, MD created a unique and engaging meeting held on September 10–12, 2020. Special recognition should be given to Olga Foley and Cynthia Garcia at The Knee Society for their flexibility and creativeness in putting together a world-class flawless virtual program. The Bone & Joint Journal is very pleased to partner with The Knee Society to once again publish the proceedings of the closed meeting of the Knee Society. The Knee Society is a United States based society of highly selected members who have shown leadership in education and research in knee surgery. It invites up to 15% international members; this includes some of the key opinion leaders in knee surgery from outside the USA. Each year, the top research papers from The Knee Society meeting will be published and made available to the wider orthopaedic community in The Bone & Joint Journal. The first such proceedings were published in BJJ in 2019. International dissemination should help to fulfil the mission and vision of the Knee Society of advancing the care of patients with knee disorders through leadership, education and research. The quality of dissemination that The Bone & Joint Journal provides should enhance the profile of this work and allow a larger body of surgeons, associated healthcare professionals and patients to benefit from the expertise of the members of The Knee Society. The meeting is one of the highlights of the annual academic calendar for knee surgeons. With nearly every member in attendance virtually throughout the 3 days, the top research papers from the membership were presented and discussed in a virtual format that allowed for lively interaction and discussion. There are 75 abstracts presented. More selective proceedings with full papers will be available after a robust peer review process in 2021, both online and in The Bone & Joint Journal. The meeting commenced with the first group of scientific papers focused on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Dr Berry and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic further help to clarify the issue of serology and aspirate results to diagnose TKA PJI in the acute postoperative setting. 177 TKA's had an aspiration within 12 weeks and 22 were proven to have PJI. Their results demonstrated that acute PJI after TKA should be suspected within 6 weeks if CRP is ≥81 mg/L, synovial WBCs are ≥8500 cells/μL, and/or synovial neutrophils≥86%. Between 6– 12 weeks, concerning thresholds include a CRP ≥ 32 mg/L, synovial WBC ≥7450, and synovial neutrophils ≥ 84%. While historically the results of a DAIR procedure for PJI have been variable, Tom Fehring's study showed promise with the local delivery of vancomycin through the Intraosseous route improved early results. New member Simon Young contrasted the efficacy of the DAIR procedure when comparing early infections to late acute hematogenous PJI. DAIR failed in 63% of late hematogenous PJIs (implant age>1 year) compared to 36% of early (<1year) PJIs. Dr Masri demonstrated in a small group of patients that those with well-functioning articulating spacers can retain their spacers for over 12 months with no difference in infection from those that had a formal two stage exchange. The mental toll of PJI was demonstrated in a longitudinal study by Doug Dennis, where patient being treated with 2 stage exchange had 4x higher rates of depression compared to patient undergoing aseptic revision. The second session focused on both postoperative issues with regards to anticoagulation and manipulation. Steven Haas demonstrated high complication rates with utilization of anticoagulation for treatment of postoperative pulmonary embolism with modern therapeutic anticoagulation (warfarin, enoxaparin, Xa inhibitors) with the Xa inhibitors demonstrating lower complication rates. Two papers focused on the topic of manipulation. Mark Pagnano presented data on timing of manipulation under anesthesia up to even past 12 months. While gains were modest, a subset of patients did achieve substantial gains in ROM > 20degrees even after 3 months post op. Dr Westrich's study demonstrated no difference in MUA outcomes with either IV sedation or neuraxial anesthesia although the length of stay was shorter in the IV sedation group. Several studies in Session II focused on kinematics and femoral component position. Dr Li's in vivo kinematic study during weightbearing flexion and gait demonstrated that several knees rotated with a lateral pivot motion and not all knees can be described with a single motion character. Dr Mayman and his group utilized a computational knee model to demonstrate that additional distal femoral resection results in increasing levels of mid -flexion instability and cautioned against the use of additional bony resection as the first line for flexion contractures. Using computer navigation, Dr Huddleston's study nicely outlined the variability in femoral component rotation to achieve a rectangular flexion gap utilizing a gap balanced method. The third session opened the meeting on Friday morning. The focus was on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and the increasing utilization of robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty. David Murray showed using registry data that for patient with higher comorbidities (ASA >3), UKA was safer and more cost effective than TKA while Dr Della Valle's group demonstrated overall lower average healthcare costs in UKA patients compared to TKA in the first 10 years after surgery. Dr Geller assessed UKA survivorship among 3 international registries. While survivorship varied by nation and designs, certain designs consistently had better overall performance. Dr Nunley and his group showed robotic navigation UKA significantly reduced outliers in alignment and overhang compared to manual UKA. Dr Catani's data demonstrated that full thickness cartilage loss should still be considered a requirement for UKA success even with robotic assistance. Despite a high dislocation rate of 4%, Mr Dodd demonstrated high survivorship for lateral UKA despite historical contraindications. The growing evidence for robotics TKA was demonstrated in two studies. Professor Haddad showed less soft tissue injury, reduced bone trauma and improved accuracy or rTKA compared to manual TKA while Dr Gustke single surgeon study showed his rTKA had improved forgotten joint scores and less ligament releasing required for balancing. Despite these finding, Dr Lee's study demonstrated that a robotic TKA could not guarantee excellent pain relief and other factors such a patient expectations and psychological factors play a role. Our fourth session was devoted to machine learning and smart tools and modeling. Dr Meneghini used machine learning algorithms to identify optimal alignment outcomes that correlated with patient outcomes. Several parameters such as native tibial slope, femoral sagittal position and coronal limb alignment correlated with outcomes. Along the same lines, Bozic and coauthors demonstrated that using AI algorithms incorporated with PROM's improved levels of shared decision making and patient satisfaction. Dr Lombardi demonstrated that a mobile patient engagement platform that provided smart phone-based exercise and education was comparable to traditional methods. Dr Mahfouz demonstrated the accuracy of using ultrasound to produce 3D models of the bone compared to conventional CT based strategies and Dr Mahoney showed the valued of a preop 3D model in reproducing more normal knee kinematics. The last two talks of the session focused on some of the positives of the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the embracing of telemedicine by patients and surgeons as demonstrated by Dr Slover and the increasing and far reaching educational opportunities made available to residents and fellows during the pandemic. Session five focused on risk stratification and optimization prior to TKA. Dr O'Connor demonstrated that that the implementation of an optimization program preoperatively reduced length of stay and ED visits, and Charles Nelson's study showed that risk stratification tool can lower complication rates in obese patients undergoing TKA comparable to those that are nonobese. Dr Markel's study demonstrated that those who have preoperative depression and anxiety are at higher risk of complications and readmissions after surgery and these issues should be addressed preoperatively. Interestingly, a study by Dr Callaghan demonstrated that care improvement pathways have not lowered the gap in complications for morbidly obese patients undergoing TKA, Dr Barsoum argued that the overall complication rates were low and this patient cohort had significant gains in PROMS after TKA that would not be experienced if arbitrary cutoff for limited surgery were established. The final session on Friday, Session six, had several well done and interesting studies. There continues to be mounting evidence that liposomal bupivacaine has little effect on managing post-operative pain to warrant its increased use. Bill Macaulay and colleagues showed no change in pain scores, opioid consumption and functional scores when liposomal bupivacaine was discontinued at a large academic medical center. Dr Bugbee importantly demonstrated that a supervised ambulation program reduced falls in the early postoperative period. Several paper on healthcare economics were presented. Rich Iorio showed that stratifying complexity of total joint cases between hospitals with a system can be efficient and cost savings while Dr Jiranek demonstrated in his study that complex TKAs can be identified preoperatively and are associated with prolonged operative time and cost of care and consideration should be given in future reimbursement models to a complexity modifier. Dr Springer, in their evaluation of Medicare bundled payment models, demonstrated that providers and hospitals in historical bundled models that became efficient were penalized in the new model, forcing many groups to drop out and return to a fee for service model. Ron Delanois important work showed that social determinants can have a major negative impact on outcomes following TKA. Our final day on Saturday opened with Session seven, and several interesting paper on metal ions/debris in TKA. Dr Whitesides simulator study showed the absence of scratches and material loss in a ceramic TKA compared with Co-Cr TKA and suggested an advantage to this material in patients with metal sensitivity. Conversely, in a histological study of failed TKA, perivascular lymphocytic infiltration was not associated with worse clinical outcomes or differences in revision in a series of 617 aseptic revisions, 19% of which had PVLI found on histology. The Mayo group and Dr Trousdale however, noted that serum metal ion levels can be helpful in identifying implant failure in a group of revision TKAs, especially those with metallic junctions. Dr Dalury demonstrated nicely that use of maximally conforming inserts did not have a negative effect on implant loosening in a series of 76 revision TKA's at an average follow up of 7 years, while Kevin Garvin and his group showed no difference in end of stem pain between cemented and cementless stems in revision TKA. The final two studies in the session by Bolognesi and Peters respectively showed that metaphyseal cones continue to demonstrate excelled survivorship in rTKA setting despite extensive bone loss. Session eight was highlighted by a large series of revision reported by new member Dr Schwarzkopf, who showed that revision TKA done by high volume surgeons demonstrated better outcomes and lower revision rates compared to surgeon who did less than 18 rTKA's per year. Dr Maniar importantly showed that preoperatively, patients with high activity level and low pain and indicated by a high preop forgotten joint score did poorly following TKA while David Ayers nicely demonstrated that KOOS scores that assess specific postoperative outcomes can predict patient dissatisfaction after TKA. The final paper in this session by Max Courtney showed that the majority of surgical cancellations are due to medical issues, yet a minority of these undergo any intervention specifically for that condition, but they resulted in a delay of 5 months. The first two studies of Session nine focused on polyethylene thickness. Dr Backstein demonstrated no difference in KSS scores, change in ROM and aseptic revision rates based on polyethylene thickness in a series of 195 TKA's. An interesting lab study by Dr Tim Wright showed a surprising consistency in liner thickness choice among varying levels of surgeon experience that did not correlate with applied forces or gap stability estimates. Two studies looked specifically at the issue of tibial loosening and implant design. Nam and colleagues were not able to demonstrate concerning findings for increasing tibial loosening in a tibial baseplate with a shortened tibial keel at short term follow up, while Lachiewicz demonstrated a 19% revision or revision pending rate in 223 cemented fixed bearing ATTUNE TKA at a mean of 30 months. Our final session of the meeting, began with encouraging news, that despite only currently capturing about 40% of TJA's done in the US, the American Joint Replacement Registry data is representative of data in other representative US databases. An interesting study presented by Robert Barrack looked at bone remodeling in the proximal tibia after cemented and cementless TKA of two different designs. No significant difference was noted among the groups with the exception of the cemented thicker cobalt chrome tray which demonstrated significantly more bone mineral density loss. Along the same lines, a study out of Dr Bostrom's lab demonstrated treatment of a murine tibial model with iPTH prevents fibrous tissue formation and enhances bone formation in cementless implants. New Member Jamie Howard showed no difference in implant migration and kinematics of a single radius cementless design using either a measured resection or gap balancing technique and Dr Cushner show no difference in blood loss with cemented or cementless TKA with the use of TKA. The final two studies looked at staging and bilateral TKA's. Peter Sharkey showed that simultaneous TKA's were associated with higher complication compared to staged TKA and that staged TKA with less than a 90-day interval was not associated with higher risk. However, Mark Figgie showed that patients undergoing simultaneous TKA compared to staged TKA, missed 17 fewer days of work. In spite of the virtual nature of the meeting, there were some outstanding scientific interactions and the material presented will continue to generate debate and to guide the direction of knee arthroplasty as we move forwards

Aims

The optimal bearing surface design for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) UKAs from a single high-volume institution.

Aims

The purpose is to determine the non-inferiority of a smartphone-based exercise educational care management system after primary knee arthroplasty compared with a traditional in-person physiotherapy rehabilitation model.

Aims

Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include an isolated tibial revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons unfamiliar with the existing implant or who simply wish to “start again”. This option adds morbidity compared with an isolated tibial revision. While isolated tibial revision has a lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging due to difficulties with exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options.

Aims

It has been shown that the preoperative modification of risk factors associated with obesity may reduce complications after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the optimal method of doing so remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a preoperative Risk Stratification Tool (RST) devised in our institution could reduce unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) transfers and 90-day emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and reoperations after TKA in obese patients.

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the true costs associated with preoperative CT scans performed for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) planning and to determine the value of a formal radiologist’s report of these studies.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the actual cost of a cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedure.

Aims

The aim of this study was to observe the implications of withholding total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in morbidly obese patients

Aims

To date, no study has demonstrated an improvement in postoperative outcomes following elective joint arthroplasty with a focus on nutritional intervention for patients with preoperative hypoalbuminaemia. In this prospective study, we evaluated differences in the hospital length of stay (LOS), rate of re-admission, and total patient charges for a malnourished patient study population who received a specific nutrition protocol before surgery.

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) uses advanced imaging of the knee (CT or MRI) to generate individualised cutting blocks aimed to make the procedure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) more accurate and efficient. However, in this era of healthcare cost consciousness, the value of new technologies needs to be critically evaluated. There have been several comparative studies looking at PSI versus standard instrumentation. Most compare PSI with conventional instrumentation in terms of alignment in the coronal plane, operative time and surgical efficiency, cost effectiveness and short-term outcomes. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also been published. PSI has not been shown to be superior compared with conventional instrumentation in its ability to restore traditional mechanical alignment in primary TKA. Most studies show comparative efficacy and no decrease in the number of outliers in either group. In terms of operative time and efficiency, PSI tended towards decreasing operative time, saving a mean of five minutes per patient (0 to 20). Furthermore, while some cost savings could be realised with less operative time and reduced instrumentation per patient, these savings were overcome by the cost of the CT/MRI and the cutting blocks. Finally, there was no evidence that PSI positively affected clinical outcomes at two days, two months, or two years. Consequently, current evidence does not support routine use of PSI in routine primary TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):78–80.