Aims. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of hospital case volume on the survival of revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of Scottish Arthroplasty Project data, a nationwide audit which prospectively collects data on all arthroplasty procedures performed in Scotland. The primary outcome was RTKA survival at ten years. The primary explanatory variable was the effect of hospital case volume per year on RTKA survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the lifespan of RTKA. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards were used to estimate relative revision risks over time. Hazard ratios (HRs) were reported with 95% CI, and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. From 1998 to 2019, 8,301 patients (8,894 knees) underwent RTKA surgery in Scotland (median age at RTKA 70 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 76); median follow-up 6.2 years (IQR 3.0 to 10.2). In all, 4,764 (53.6%) were female, and 781 (8.8%) were treated for infection. Of these 8,894 knees, 957 (10.8%) underwent a second revision procedure. Male sex, younger age at index revision, and positive infection status were associated with need for re-revision. The ten-year survival estimate for RTKA was 87.3% (95% CI 86.5 to 88.1). Adjusting for sex, age, surgeon volume, and indication for revision, high hospital case volume was significantly associated with lower risk of re-revision (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, p < 0.001)). The risk of re-revision steadily declined in centres performing > 20 cases per year; risk reduction was 16% with > 20 cases; 22% with > 30 cases; and 28% with > 40 cases. The lowest level of risk was associated with the highest volume centres. Conclusion. The majority of RTKA in Scotland survive up to ten years. Increasing yearly hospital case volume above 20 cases is independently associated with a significant risk reduction of re-revision. Development of high-volume tertiary centres may lead to an improvement in the overall survival of RTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):602–609

Aims. The primary aim of the study was to perform an analysis to identify the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) relative to manual total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Secondary aims were to assess how case volume and length of hospital stay influenced the relative cost per QALY. Patients and Methods. A Markov decision analysis was performed, using known parameters for costs, outcomes, implant survival, and mortality, to assess the cost-effectiveness of rUKA relative to manual TKA and UKA for patients with isolated medial compartment OA of the knee with a mean age of 65 years. The influence of case volume and shorter hospital stay were assessed. Results. Using a model with an annual case volume of 100 patients, the cost per QALY of rUKA was £1395 and £1170 relative to TKA and UKA, respectively. The cost per QALY was influenced by case volume: a low-volume centre performing ten cases per year would achieve a cost per QALY of £7170 and £8604 relative to TKA and UKA. For a high-volume centre performing 200 rUKAs per year with a mean two-day length of stay, the cost per QALY would be £648; if performed as day-cases, the cost would be reduced to £364 relative to TKA. For a high-volume centre performing 200 rUKAs per year with a shorter length of stay of one day relative to manual UKA, the cost per QALY would be £574. Conclusion . rUKA is a cost-effective alternative to manual TKA and UKA for patients with isolated medial compartment OA of the knee. The cost per QALY of rUKA decreased with reducing length of hospital stay and with increasing case volume, compared with TKA and UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1063–1070

Aims. To perform an incremental cost-utility analysis and assess the impact of differential costs and case volume on the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) compared to manual (mUKA). Methods. This was a five-year follow-up study of patients who were randomized to rUKA (n = 64) or mUKA (n = 65). Patients completed the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) preoperatively, and at three months and one, two, and five years postoperatively, which was used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Costs for the primary and additional surgery and healthcare costs were calculated. Results. rUKA was associated with a relative 0.012 QALY gain at five years, which was associated with an incremental cost per QALY of £13,078 for a unit undertaking 400 cases per year. A cost per QALY of less than £20,000 was achieved when ≥ 300 cases were performed per year. However, on removal of the cost for a revision for presumed infection (mUKA group, n = 1) the cost per QALY was greater than £38,000, which was in part due to the increased intraoperative consumable costs associated with rUKA (£626 per patient). When the absolute cost difference (operative and revision costs) was less than £240, a cost per QALY of less than £20,000 was achieved. On removing the cost of the revision for infection, rUKA was cost-neutral when more than 900 cases per year were undertaken and when the consumable costs were zero. Conclusion. rUKA was a cost-effective intervention with an incremental cost per QALY of £13,078 at five years, however when removing the revision for presumed infection, which was arguably a random event, this was no longer the case. The absolute cost difference had to be less than £240 to be cost-effective, which could be achieved by reducing the perioperative costs of rUKA or if there were increased revision costs associated with mUKA with longer follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):889–898

At our tertiary, large, academic healthcare system, we have access to an academic medical center (AMC), a community based, orthopedic friendly, efficient hospital (CBH) and several ambulatory care centers (ASC) which are being prepared to provide same day discharge (SDD) TJA and UKA. We had a near-capacity AMC with an excellent ability to care for medically and technically complicated TJA patients. However, efficiency was less than desired regardless of case complexity with an average effective case time of 4 hours. Concurrently, the orthopaedically, under-utilized community-based hospital (CBH) wanted to increase volume, improve margins, and become a TJA Center of Excellence with the ability to provide an efficient Hospital Outpatient Department (HOPD) and SDD TJA surgery experience. Methods. The CBH had a main operating floor and a separate floor of four OR suites which were repurposed with the goal of utilizing these rooms for TJA four days per week with an average of 3.5 cases per room per day. We preferentially performed primary, uncomplicated TJA, UKA, and minimally invasive TJA at the CBH. Revision surgeries, patients with extensive medical comorbidities, and complex primary surgeries would be performed at the AMC. Our goals were to decrease costs, readmissions, length of stay, and increase margins at the CBH while increasing efficiency, revenue and volume. Protocols were developed to facilitate SDD UKA and THA at both hospitals as well as rapid recovery protocols for TKA at both hospitals with the understanding that the CBH would perform more of these cases but the efficiency could also be implemented at the AMC when possible. We also needed a strategy to deal with TKA and eventually THA being removed from the Inpatient Only (IPO) list. CMS has utilized the “Two-Midnight Rule” to define outpatient status for both THA and TKA. This has distinct financial implications for the facility's reimbursement with outpatient being $10,123 on average versus $12,380 for inpatient status. A protocol-based system was put in place to make both hospitals compliant with the removal of TKA from the IPO List in order to avoid Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) and Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) after implementation. Results. Comparing FY 2018 to FY 2019, volume increased 26.4% at the CBH. Outpatient case volume rose substantially from 14 cases to 243. Volumes were slightly decreased at the AMC (−4.57%) resulting in a substantial increase in margin contribution for the parent enterprise. Quality metrics at the CBH (surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), readmissions, and mortality) were improved. LOS improved from 52% to 71% discharge before 48 hours. The LOS decreased 12% for THA and 8.1% for TKA. CBH readmission rates decreased from 1.38% to 0.9% with no deaths. Surgeon satisfaction is greatly improved as their volume, efficiency, quality metrics, and finances were enhanced. Financial performance was improved in aggregate and per case for the CBH. Although the CBH per-case revenue was 80.3% and 74.4% of the AMC for THA and TKA: the net margins were 3.6% and 18.8% higher for THA and TKA, respectively. The increased efficiency, lower hospital cost and higher volume at the CBH allowed for an increase in revenue despite lower reimbursement per case. Conclusions. A shifting reimbursement landscape, value-based payment initiatives, and increasing volume have challenged traditional TJA delivery systems. This demonstrates one strategy to help hospital systems improve net margins while improving patient care despite lower net revenue per TJA episode. These strategies will become increasingly important going forward with the transition of higher numbers of TJA patients to outpatient settings including ambulatory surgery centers which will be subjected to even further decreases in net revenue per patient

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) removed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from inpatient-only status in 2018. Our goal was to measure the adoption of outpatient TKAs, the impact on re-treatment rates, and the economic implications for hospitals. Methods. We utilized 100% national Medicare Part A fee-for-service (FFS) patient-level claims data for 2017–2018. We excluded DRG 469 TKAs since they are unlikely to be outpatient candidates, which left 257,107 primary TKAs in 2017 and 264,393 in 2018. We examined the time trend in monthly case volume and 30-day retreatment rate (defined as percent of patients having a second TKA within 30 days of the first. We calculated the loss in revenue for a hospital by multiplying the decrease in payment rate between inpatient and outpatient by the outpatient and total 2018 TKA volume. Results. In 2017 0.2% of primary TKAs were performed outpatient. Following the rule change, 25% of cases were performed outpatient in Q1 2018. This stayed at 25% in Q2, increased to 27% in Q3, and then increased to 30% in Q4 2018. The 30-day re-treatment rate was 0.16% in 2017 and 0.15% in 2018. Across hospitals there was the following distribution in the decrease in payment rate from inpatient to outpatient TKAs in 2018: 10. th. percentile: $1,994, 25. th. : $2,612, 50. th. : $3,487, 75. th. : $4,918, 90. th. : $7,231. In 2018 outpatient TKA coding cost hospitals (saved CMS) $243M in Medicare FFS payments (an average of $89,000 per hospital). If all TKAs were performed outpatient hospital Medicare FFS payments would have been $965M lower ($353,000 per hospital) in 2018. Conclusion. Outpatient TKA volumes grew through 2018. This did not impact 30-day retreatment rates. Medicare FFS payment rates declined by a median of $3,487 per outpatient case. As more TKAs are performed outpatient, total Medicare payments will further decline. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over total knee arthroplasty but national joint registries report a significantly higher revision rate for UKA. As a result, most surgeons are highly selective, offering UKA only to a small proportion (up to 5%) of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee, and consequently performing few each year. However, surgeons with large UKA practices have the lowest rates of revision. The overall size of the practice is often beyond the surgeon’s control, therefore case volume may only be increased by broadening the indications for surgery, and offering UKA to a greater proportion of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee. . The aim of this study was to determine the optimal UKA usage (defined as the percentage of knee arthroplasty practice comprised by UKA) to minimise the rate of revision in a sample of 41 986 records from the for National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). UKA usage has a complex, non-linear relationship with the rate of revision. Acceptable results are achieved with the use of 20% or more. Optimal results are achieved with usage between 40% and 60%. Surgeons with the lowest usage (up to 5%) have the highest rates of revision. With optimal usage, using the most commonly used implant, five-year survival is 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.9 to 96.0), compared with 90% (95% CI 88.4 to 91.6) with low usage (5%) previously considered ideal. . The rate of revision of UKA is highest with low usage, implying the use of narrow, and perhaps inappropriate, indications. The widespread use of broad indications, using appropriate implants, would give patients the advantages of UKA, without the high rate of revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1506–11

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) accounts for approximately 5% to 10% of all TKAs. Although the complexity of these procedures is well recognized, few investigators have evaluated the cost and value-added with the implementation of a dedicated revision arthroplasty service. The aim of the present study is to compare and contrast surgeon productivity in several differing models of activity.

We evaluated the impact of pre-coating the tibial component with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) on implant survival in a cohort of 16 548 primary NexGen total knee replacements (TKRs) in 14 113 patients. In 13 835 TKRs a pre-coated tray was used while in 2713 TKRs the non-pre-coated version of the same tray was used. All the TKRs were performed between 2001 and 2009 and were cemented. TKRs implanted with a pre-coated tibial component had a lower cumulative survival than those with a non-pre-coated tibial component (p = 0.01). After adjusting for diagnosis, age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, femoral coupling design, surgeon volume and hospital volume, pre-coating was an independent risk factor for all-cause aseptic revision (hazard ratio 2.75, p = 0.006). Revision for aseptic loosening was uncommon for both pre-coated and non-pre-coated trays (rates of 0.12% and 0%, respectively). Pre-coating with PMMA does not appear to be protective of revision for this tibial tray design at short-term follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:367–70.