Introduction. Motorised intramedullary lengthening nails are considered more expensive than external fixators for limb lengthening. This research aims to compare the cost of femoral lengthening in children using the PRECICE magnetic lengthening nail with external fixation. Materials and Methods. Patients: Retrospective analysis of 50 children who underwent femoral lengthening. One group included patients who were treated with PRECICE lengthening nails, the other group included patients who had lengthening with external fixation. Each group included 25 patients aged between 11–17 years. The patients in both groups were matched for age. Cost analysis was performed following micro-costing and analysis of the used resources during the different phases of the treatments. Results. : Each group's mean patient age was 14.7 years. Lengthening nails were associated with longer operative times compared to external fixators, both for implantation and removal surgery (P-value 0.007 and <0.0001 respectively). Length of stay following the implantation surgery, frequency of radiographs, frequency of outpatient department appointments were all more favourable with lengthening nails. The overall cost of lengthening nails was £1393 more than external fixators, although this difference was not statistically significant (P-value 0.088). Conclusions. The cost of femoral lengthening with lengthening nails was not significantly higher than the external fixators’ cost. Further research to review the effectiveness of the devices and the quality of life during the lengthening process is crucial for robust health economic evaluation

Progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD) is a common condition with an estimated prevalence of 3.3% in women greater than 40 years. Progressive in nature, symptomatic flatfoot deformity can be a debilitating condition due to pain and limited physical function; it has been shown to have one of the poorest preoperative patient reported outcome scores in foot and ankle pathologies, second to ankle arthritis. Operative reconstruction of PCFD can be performed in a single-stage manner or through multiple stages. The purpose of this study is to compare costs for non-staged (NS) flatfoot reconstructions, which typically require longer hospital stays, with costs for staged (S) reconstructions, where patients usually do not require hospital admission. To our knowledge, the comparison between single-staged and multi-staged flatfoot reconstructions has not been previously done. This study will run in conjunction with one that compares rates of complications and reoperation, as well as patient reported outcomes on function and pain associated with S and NS flatfoot reconstruction. Overall, the goal is to optimize surgical management of PCFD, by addressing healthcare costs and patient outcomes. At our academic centre with foot and ankle specialists, we selected one surgeon who primarily performs NS flatfoot reconstruction and another who primarily performs S procedures. Retrospective chart reviews of patients who have undergone either S or NS flatfoot reconstruction were performed from November 2011 to August 2021. Length of operating time, number of primary surgeries, length of hospital admission, and number of reoperations were recorded. Cost analysis was performed using local health authority patient rates for non residents as a proxy for health system costs. Rates of operating room per hour and hospital ward stay per diem in Canadian dollars were used. The analysis is currently ongoing. 72 feet from 66 patients were analyzed in the S group while 78 feet from 70 patients were analyzed in the NS group. The average age in the S and NS group are 49.64 +/− 1.76 and 57.23 +/− 1.68 years, respectively. The percentage of female patients in the S and NS group are 63.89% and 57.69%, respectively. All NS patients stayed in hospital post-operatively and the average length of stay for NS patients is 3.65 +/− 0.37 days. Only 10 patients from S group required hospital admission. The average total operating room cost including all stages for S patients was $12,303.12 +/− $582.20. When including in-patient ward costs for patients who required admission from S group, the average cost for operating room and in-patient ward admission was $14,196.00 +/− $1,070.01 after flatfoot reconstruction. The average in-patient ward admission cost for NS patients was $14,518.83 +/− $1,476.94 after flatfoot reconstruction. The cost analysis for total operating room costs for NS patients are currently ongoing. Statistical analysis comparing S to NS flatfoot reconstruction costs are pending. Preliminary cost analysis suggests that multi-staged flatfoot reconstruction costs less than single-staged flatfoot reconstruction. Once full assessment is complete with statistical analysis, correlation with patient reported outcomes and complication rate can guide future PCFD surgical management

Distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) fusion using a k-wire has been the gold standard treatment for DIPJ arthritis. Recent studies have shown similar patient outcomes with the headless compression screws (HCS), however there has been no cost analysis to compare the two. Therefore, this study aims to 1) review the cost of DIPJ fusion between k-wire and HCS 2) compare functional outcome and patient satisfaction between the two groups. A retrospective review was performed over a nine-year period from 2012-2021 in Counties Manukau. Cost analysis was performed between patients who underwent DIPJ fusion with either HCS or k-wire. Costs included were surgical cost, repeat operations and follow-up clinic costs. The difference in pre-operative and post-operative functional and pain scores were also compared using the patient rate wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE). Of the 85 eligible patients, 49 underwent fusion with k-wires and 36 had HCS. The overall cost was significantly lower in the HCS group which was 6554 New Zealand Dollars (NZD), whereas this was 10408 NZD in the k-wire group (p<0.0001). The adjusted relative risk of 1.3 indicate that the cost of k-wires is 1.3 times more than HCS (P=0.0053). The patients’ post-operative PRWHE pain (−22 vs −18, p<0.0001) and functional scores (−38 vs −36, p<0.0001) improved significantly in HCS group compared to the k-wire group. Literatures have shown similar DIPJ fusion outcomes between k-wire and HCS. K-wires often need to be removed post-operatively due to the metalware irritation. This leads to more surgical procedures and clinic follow-ups, which overall increases the cost of DIPJ fusion with k-wires. DIPJ fusion with HCS is a more cost-effective with a lower surgical and follow-up costs compared to the k-wiring technique. Patients with HCS also tend to have a significant improvement in post-operative pain and functional scores

Background. Operative treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. The transition to value-based health care demands a better understanding of the costs associated with surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the 90-day costs of three common surgical treatments for proximal humerus fractures and non-operative treatment and compare the costs associated with the initial-day and subsequent 89-days of care. Methods. A query of the Humana insurance claims database was performed through the PearlDiver Supercomputer (Warsaw, IN) from 2010 to 2014 using the diagnosis codes for proximal humerus fractures together with current procedural terminology codes (CPT) for hemiarthroplasties (HA), open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and nonoperative treatment (NO). Reimbursement from the insurance claims database was used as a marker for costs. The same day, subsequent 89-day, and ninety day costs were analyzed trough the use of descriptive and comparative statistical analysis. Results. RSA was the most costly procedure for the same-day and 90-day costs (p<0.001) (Figure 1). Mean initial-day reimbursement costs were significantly different amongst treatment groups, with the highest costs seen with RSA ($16,151), followed by HA ($9,348), ORIF ($6,745) and lastly, NO ($1,932). Subsequent 89-day reimbursement costs were not significantly different for RSA, HA and ORIF (p=0.112) (Figure 1 and 2); however, NO treatment incurred significantly lower costs (p=0.008) (Figure 3). Conclusion. The 90-day costs for the surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures are driven by the initial-day costs. RSA was associated with the highest cost, followed by HA and ORIF. NO management incurred the lowest costs

Waiting time to access medical care in Canada is 20% more than the international average. Delay in instituting care in trauma patients has been shown to correlate with higher complication rates and an increase in mortality. About 11% of all fractures occur in the femur and are usually treated operatively. Delay to operative treatment is a source of distress to patients and a major factor for poor outcome. Knowledge gaps exist for statistics on operative delay to fixation of femur fractures and the influence on complications and cost of treatment. This study describes (1) the effect of delay to fixation of femur fractures on complications and on the overall cost of care in hospitals in Quebec Province of Canada; and (2) proposes a time frame within which femur fractures should be operated on to minimize the risk of complications and reduce treatment cost. 6,520 adult patients operated for closed femoral fractures between July 1993 and December 2002 were reviewed. Data was accessed from (a) the Quebec Trauma Registry, (b) the hospitalised patients’ database, Maintenance et exploitation des données pour l’étude de la clientèle hospitalière (MED-ECHO) and (c) the medical insurance claims databases, Régie de l’assurance maladie Québec (RAMQ). Excluded were poly-trauma, open fractures, pathological fractures and delayed diagnoses beyond a week. Data was analysed using the SPSS software version 17.0. Cost analysis was carried out using parametric techniques (Student’s t-test and the generalized longitudinal model). Mean operative delay for femoral fractures was 26.3 hours. Delay was associated with increased complications, ICU stay, length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs and out-patient follow-up treatment costs. There was a progressive increase in these adverse events which was quite significant after the first 48 hours. ISS >15 predisposed to prolonged ICU stay, LOS and increased cost of treatment. All femur fractures appeared to have a predilection for over-65-year-olds and women. The major cost drivers of operative femur fracture treatment were ISS>15, operative delay ≥48 hours, occurrence of complications, and re-operations. Minimizing operative delay in femur fractures will not only mitigate patient suffering, but also reduce treatment and follow-up costs

Guidelines for the use of preoperative blood tests for elective surgery were established. However, there is less evidence and no guidelines regarding using these tests when a young, healthy patient undergoes minor orthopaedic trauma surgery. Bloodwork is often ordered routinely, regardless of medical history or the nature of the injury. We hypothesized that unnecessary blood work is requested for younger pre-operative patients, and their results will not change peri-operative management. This practice is not a judicious use of healthcare resources. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency, type, cost, and impact on clinical decisions if standard preoperative bloodwork was completed in healthy patients requiring surgical management of a minor fracture or dislocation. After the approval of our institutional ethics board, a retrospective chart review was conducted. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18-60 years, who had an isolated minor orthopaedic trauma requiring outpatient surgery, who were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 1. ASA class 1 is defined as “a normal healthy patient, without any clinically important comorbidity and without a clinically significant past/present medical history.” Data records from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, were extracted from a provincial database (the Analytics Data Integration, Measurement and Reporting) for five hospitals. Data including demographics, surgical treatment, type and number of blood tests ordered, and ordering physician were collected. Any abnormal test results were checked to see whether they led to a change in patient management or related to a postoperative adverse event. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-square tests were used to compare the characteristics of patients who had preoperative bloodwork versus those who did not. The cost of preoperative blood work was estimated. During these two years, 627 patients met inclusion criteria, and 27% (n=168) of these patients had bloodwork completed pre-operatively, while only 34% (n=57) of these had one or more abnormal laboratory parameters. These abnormalities were minor and did not alter clinical management or result in repeated bloodwork peri-operatively. Patients who had bloodwork were significantly older (40.2 years) compared with patients without preoperative blood work (37.8 years; p=0.03), but there was no difference in sex between those who had bloodwork (53.4% male) and those who did not (51.4% male; p=0.63). The most common blood test ordered was a complete blood count, and the most commonly abnormal result was a mildly elevated white blood cell count (19%; n= 29). The most common patients to receive bloodwork were those with ankle (34%) and distal radius (34%) fractures. The bloodwork was primarily ordered by clinical associates (26%; n=46) and emergency department physicians (22%; n=38). Without considering lab personnel, consumables, and analysis time, the cost of this bloodwork was approximately $7685, an average of $45 per patient. Pre-operative bloodwork in young, healthy, asymptomatic patients requiring outpatient surgery for minor orthopaedic trauma had no clinical significance and did not change patient management. Rigorous prospective research is warranted to establish national guidelines for appropriate pre-operative bloodwork ordering to minimize unnecessary and costly investigations

Abstract. Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the indications for patients presenting with knee pain undergoing magnetic resonance imaging of the knee prior to referral to the orthopaedic department and to ascertain whether plain radiograph imagining would be more beneficial prior to an MRI scan. Method. A retrospective review of all referrals received by the hospital over a 6-month period was performed. Patients with knee pain that underwent an MRI scan were classified into two age groups, under 50 years and over 50 years old. Patients having undergone Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to referral were identified, and findings of the scan were recorded. These patients were reviewed further to see if a plain radiograph had been completed prior to or after the MRI. Results. A total of 414 patients were referred. In the over 50's 228 MRI scans were performed. Of these 103/228 patients the predominate finding was meniscal tears and 72/228 had a finding of osteoarthritis. A plain radiograph of the knee was completed 99/228 cases, 28/99 before the MRI. In the under 50's 186 scans were performed and of these 85/186 the predominate finding was meniscal tears. A plain radiograph of the knee was completed in only eighty-three (83/186) cases, (69/83) before the MRI. Conclusion. In over 50s, 57% of patients (129 of 228) did not have a knee X-ray before having an MRI. For a single hospitals referral over 6 months these unnecessary MRI of knee cost the National Health Services £7,500

Thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthritis is a common and disabling condition that can be treated with an operative procedure. Before operative measures, patients typically undergo conservative treatment utilizing methods such as physical therapy and injections. This study aims to determine what clinical modalities are being used for preoperative evaluation and nonoperative therapy and the associated cost prior to operative intervention. We queried Truven Market Scan, a large insurance provider database to identify patients undergoing CMC arthroplasty from 2010 to 2017. Patients were identified by common Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for CMC arthroplasty. All associated CPT codes listed for each patient during the 1 year period prior to operative intervention were collected and filtered to only include those codes associated with the ICD-9/10 diagnosis codes relating to CMC arthritis. The codes were then categorized as office visits, x-ray, injections, physical therapy, medical devices, and preoperative labs. The frequency and associated cost for each category was determined. There were 44,676 patients who underwent CMC arthroplasty during the study period. A total of $26,319,848.36 was charged during the preoperative period, for an average of $589.13 per patient. The highest contributing category to overall cost was office visits (42.1%), followed by injections (13.5%), and then physical therapy (11.1%). The most common diagnostic modality was x-ray, which was performed in 74.7% of patients and made up 11.0% of total charges. Only 49% of patients received at least one injection during the preoperative period and the average number of injections per patient was 1.72. Patients who were employed full time were more likely to receive two or more injections prior to surgery compared to patients who had retired (47% of full-time workers; 34% of retirees). The modalities used for the preoperative evaluation and conservative treatment of CMC arthritis and the associated cost are important to understand in order to determine the most successful and cost-effective treatment plan for patients. Surprisingly, despite the established evidence supporting clinical benefits, many patients do not undergo corticosteroid injections. With office visits being the largest contributor to overall costs, further inquiry into the necessity of multiple visits and efforts to combine visits, can help to reduce cost. Also, with the advent of telemedicine it may be possible to reduce visit cost by utilizing virtual medicine. Determining the best use of telemedicine and its effectiveness are areas for future investigation

Background. We identified several opportunities to significantly reduce cost for hip and knee arthroplasty procedures:. Customized instruments: by identifying the essential instruments for arthroplasty cases, we managed to have one universal tray for each case, and 3 specific trays from the implant manufacturing company. Customized wrap-free, color-coded, stackable trays: by using a wrap-free trays, preparation time in central sterile, opening tray time in OR and turn-over time were reduced. Also, stackable trays were organized based on side and size, therefore only 2 trays needed to be used in each case. Discounted implants: negotiated through optional case coverage with revision system and reps available as backup. Optional rep coverage protocols: designed through process management of the operating room surgical staff and central sterile. Aim of the study was to measure the cost savings, efficacy, and outcomes associated with primary total hip and knee arthroplasty by implementing these protocol. Methods. This is a prospective study from January to October 2016 for selected primary total hip and knee arthroplasties were performed with the above protocols by 2 experienced arthroplasty trained surgeons, were followed for minimum 3 months. Initiating the cost saving protocols were achieved by re-engineering customized trays, discounted implants through optional case coverage (Sourced Based Selection of a Cooperating Manufacturer, MTD), and focused on process management of the staff training. Staff responsibilities were divided into 2 categories:. Familiarity of the instruments, implant, and techniques; trays set up and assurance of availability of the implants. These responsibilities were covered by a trained OR technician and the surgeon. Final verification of the accurate implants prior to opening the packaging. This was achieved by a trained OR nurse and the surgeon. Results. We did not have any intra-operative complications. We also did not encounter any issued with the trays or errors in opening of the implants. There were no re-admissions, fracture, dislocation, or infection. The mean length of stay was 2.2 ± 0.5 days (range 1–3 days) with 68% home discharges. The cost of the implant was reduced from $4,800 to $1,895 with $2,905 cost saving per case and total savings of $58,100. The projected savings only for uncomplicated primary total hip arthroplasty (minimum 120 cases/year between 2 surgeons) is $384,600. Further cost saving from the process management changes were seen in central sterile processing time. Prior to the one tray system, the hospital had 3 in-house trays and there were 4 device company trays. We also noticed an approximate 27% improvement in turnover time. Conclusion. Repless model has significant cost saving potential. Preparation for the transition, proper patient selection, standardization of the trays and implants, and distribution of the responsibilities between OR nurses, technicians and the surgeon are essential

In patients with hand sepsis does bedside debridement compared to operating theatre debridement have similar clinical outcomes, hospital cost and time to discharge in a District Hospital setting in South Africa?. A case series of 130 adult patients presenting to a district level orthopaedic unit over 1 year with hand sepsis requiring debridement. All included patients were debrided at the bedside (i.e. the emergency room, ward, OPD) under wrist or digital block. Patients excluded from the study included patients with necrotising soft tissue infections that required debridement in theatre. A cost analysis was done based on operating theatre (OT) costs saved as defined by Samuel1 et al. If an average theatre time of 45 min is taken then the cost saved per patient is approximately R1500 and approximately R300000 for the patients included in the case series. This excludes ward and other hospital costs related to a longer hospital admission. The mean time to discharge for the included patients was 24 hours. This study suggests that bedside debridement can be a viable and cost effective option for selected cases of hand sepsis that can avoid the high cost and time associated with operating theatre debridement with similar outcomes. This has implications for the future treatment of hand sepsis in resource constrained settings were operating theatre time is not only very expensive but also very scarce

The Superior Hip Approach allows for safe reconstruction of the hip while maximizing preservation of the surrounding soft tissues. The procedure involves an incision in the hip joint capsule posterior to the gluteus medius and minimus and anterior to the short external rotators. The technique involves preparation of the femur in-situ through the superior femoral neck and then excision of the femoral head, which avoids the attendant soft tissue dissection or injury associated with dislocation of the native hip. After component implantation, the capsule is closed anatomically. Two separate studies have demonstrated that over a 90-day period, patients whose hips were replaced using this technique consumed the least amount of cost of any patients treated by hip arthroplasty in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. One study assessed all hips replaced in patients insured by Medicare over a four-year period. In this study, patients treated by the Superior Hip Approach were less costly by an average of more than $7,000 over 90 days. A second study assessed all hips replaced in patients insured by a large private insurer. This study showed again that patients treated by the Superior Hip Approach were the lowest cost patients. Notable, the cost on average was $23,500 less per procedure compared to the most well-known medical care organization in the state or roughly half the cost. Lower cost was due to both lower inpatient cost and reduced utilization of post-acute care resources. Since reduced resource utilization is a direct measure of accelerated recovery, these economic data combine with clinical outcomes and anatomical studies that document that the Superior Hip Approach is a reliable technique for achieving optimal results following THA

We recently performed a clinical trial comparing motor sparing blocks (MSB) to periarticular infiltration (PAI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We found that MSBs provided longer analgesia (8.8 hours) than PAI with retention of quadriceps strength, and with similar function, satisfaction, and length of hospital stay. However, its potential increased cost could serve as a barrier to its adoption. Therefore, our aim was to compare the costs of MSBs to PAI following TKA. We conducted a retrospective review of data from our previous RCT. There were 82 patients included in the RCT (n=41 MSB group, n=41 PAI group). We compared the mean total costs associated with each group until hospital discharge including intervention costs, healthcare professional service fees, intraoperative medications, length of stay, and postoperative opioid use. Seventy patients were included (n=35 MSB group, n=35 PAI group). The mean total costs for the MSB group was significantly higher ($1959.46 ± 755.4) compared to the PAI group ($1616.25 ± 488.33), with a mean difference of $343.21 (95% CI = $73.28 to $664.11, p = 0.03). The total perioperative intervention costs for performing the MSB was also significantly higher however postoperative inpatient costs including length of stay and total opioid use did not differ significatnly. Motor sparing blocks had significantly higher mean total and perioperative costs compared to PAI with no significant difference in postoperative inpatient costs. However, its quadricep sparing nature and previously demonstrated prolonged postoperative analgesia can be used to facilitate an outpatient TKA pathway thereby offsetting its increased costs

Introduction. While total hip arthroplasty is considered to be one of the most cost-effective medical interventions, the total cost of care for a population patients treated by THR can present a significant burden on the payer, whether it be an employer, private insurer or government. Data on the true cost of care has rarely been made available to the treating physician. Such lack of information makes comprehensive management difficult. Bundled payment models of care require knowledge of all costs associated with the care of our patients and opens new opportunity for analysis to improve management and outcomes. The current study assess the influence of surgical technique on total cost of care for total hip arthroplasty. Methods. Payment data for 341 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty at a single institution from June 1. st. , 2011 to October 31. st. , 2014 were analyzed. Each procedure was performed using either the superior, anterior, or posterior exposure. The superior exposure was performed with femoral head excision and without dislocation of the hip. The data were analyzed for total cost, inpatient cost, inpatient physician cost, readmission cost, skilled nursing facility cost, and home healthcare agency cost among the different approaches. Results. The superior hip approach for total hip arthroplasty results in a significant total cost savings over a 90-day episode of care when compared to both the anterior and posterior exposure techniques. It reduced overall costs by approximately $2,000 and $7,000 per case versus the other groups respectively. The superior approach also demonstrated savings in inpatient and skilled nursing facility cost when compared to the other groups. Conclusions. Surgical technique can have a profound influence on the total cost of care for hip arthroplasty patients. The current study demonstrates that the posterior exposure resulted in the largest consumption of resources post-operatively as measured by total cost of care and that the superior exposure resulted in the least consumption of resources among the three surgical exposures assessed. The study suggests that while we focus on many aspects of improvement in the overall episode of care for our patients, that focus on surgical technique may be worthwhile

BACKGROUND. High-volume surgeons and hospital systems have been shown to deliver higher value care in several studies. However, no evidence-based volume thresholds for cost currently exist in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of this study was to establish clinically meaningful volume thresholds based on cost for surgeons and hospitals performing THA. A secondary objective was to analyze the relative market share of THAs among the newly defined surgeon and hospital volume strata. METHODS. Using 136,501 patients from the New York State Department of Health's SPARCS database undergoing total hip arthroplasty, we used stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analysis of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to generate volume thresholds predictive of increased costs for both surgeons and hospitals. Additionally, we examined the relative proportion of annual THA cases performed by each of these surgeon and hospital volume strata we had established. RESULTS. SSLR analysis of cost by annual surgeon THA volume produced stratifications at: 0–73 (low), 74–123 (medium), and 124 or more (high) (Figure 1). Analysis by annual hospital THA volume produced stratifications at: 0–121 (low), 122–309 (medium), and 310 or more (high) (Figure 2). Hospital costs decreased significantly (P < .05) in progressively higher volume stratifications. The largest proportion of THA cases are performed at high-volume hospitals (48.6%); however, low-volume surgeons perform the greatest share of these cases (44.6%) (Figure 3). CONCLUSIONS. Our study establishes economies of scale in total hip arthroplasty by demonstrating a direct relationship between volume and cost reduction. High volume hospitals are performing the greatest proportion of total hip arthroplasties; however, low volume, surgeons perform the largest share of these cases, which highlights a potential area for enhanced value in the care of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Closed ankle fractures have been reported to account for 10% off all fractures presenting to the Emergency Department. Many of these injuries require acute surgical management either via direct admission or through defined outpatient surgical pathways. While both methods have been shown to be safe, few studies have examined the cost effectiveness of each clinical scenario. The purpose of this study is to compare cost and resource utilization associated with inpatient and outpatient ankle fracture surgery at a Canadian academic institution. This is a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent acute ankle fracture surgery at London Health Sciences Centre between 2016 and 2018. Thirty patients who underwent inpatient ankle surgery for closed, isolated ankle fractures at University Hospital were compared to 30 consecutive patients who underwent outpatient ankle surgery for similar fractures at Victoria hospital. Data pertaining to age at time of surgery, sex, BMI, fracture type, operating/recovery room time, and length of hospital stay were collected. All emergency room visits, readmissions and complications within 30 days of surgery were also recorded. Inpatient and outpatient cohorts were similar with respect to average age (48 vs. 44, P=0.326) and body mass index (29.8 vs. 29.1, P=0.741). There was a greater proportion of patients with an American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) Classification of 3 or greater in the inpatient surgery group (48% vs. 23%). The inpatient group spent an average of 1.2 days in hospital while waiting for surgery and a average of 72 hours in hospital for their entire surgical encounter. The outpatient group spent an average of eight days (at home) waiting for surgery while spending an average of 7.4 hours in hospital during their entire surgical encounter. Outpatient ankle fracture surgery was associated with a cost savings of 35.9% in comparison to inpatient ankle fracture surgery (P < 0 .001). There were no significant differences in the rates of emergency room visits, readmissions, or complications between cohorts. Preliminary findings suggest that outpatient ankle fracture surgery is appropriate for most patients, requires less hospital resources and is associated with similar rates of readmission and complications as inpatient surgery. An established outpatient surgical pathway may offer significant cost savings in the treatment of the common closed ankle fracture that requires surgical intervention

With the ever increasing rate of total hip replacement and life span of these patients, there has been an upward trend towards the incidence of peri-prosthetic fractures. Previous studies does suggest the implant cost to as high as 30% of the total reimbursement in primary hip arthroplasty but this figure is much higher in periprosthetic fractures where long stem revisions are commonly used. A prospective comparative study analyzing the total cost of hospital stay for a cohort of 52 consecutive patients with peri-prosthetic fractures of long bones treated in two hospitals from October 2007 to march 2009 was conducted. Demographic data, fracture classification and method of surgical treatment along with the length of hospital stay were recorded in detail. The total cost calculated was then compared to the range of reimbursement price based on HRG (human Resource Group) coding. The implant cost was determined from the buying cost by each institution. 52 patients were available for review. Average age of the patients operated was 78.5 years. 69 percent of the peri-prosthetic fractures in our series were around the proximal femur. The average cost of stay was £ 16453 (£ 1425- 26345). The reimbursement to the hospital ranged from £ 1983 to £ 8735. Hospital source utilization for peri prosthetic fractures is quite high compared to the reimbursement being given to hospitals for treating such patients. This can be as low as £ 1500 as acute phase tariff to £ 9100 for elective revisions and the implant cost can vary from 50% to 200% of the total reimbursement cost. Current recording system for peri-prosthetic fracture is unclear resulting in discrepancy between resource utilization and reimbursement thus resulting in substantial financial losses for hospitals that perform these procedures

INTRODUCTION. Physical therapy(PT) is an integral component in the management of musculoskeletal conditions. On the other hand, there have been few reports exclusively dedicated to studying PT interventions on the same day of total hip arthroplasty(THA). In this study, we investigate the role of rehabilitation in the early postoperative period on length of stay (LOS), total medical cost, and physical recovery following total hip arthroplasty. METHODS. A prospective cohort study was carried out 104 consecutive patients who underwent 107 primary THA performed by two surgeons. Data were gathered on all patients who underwent operative management from June2016 to June 2017. Institutional review board approval was obtained before performing this study. Patient demographic, physical, and clinical dates were collected for all patients, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, Japan Orthopedic Association (JOA) hip score, Japanese Orthopedic Association Hip-Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ) score, 3min walk test, and Timed up and go (TUG) test. The patient population consisted of 5men and 99women, with an average age of 66.0 years (range, 50–84 years). There were no statistically significant differences between patients who did and did not receive PT with regard to demographic, medical, and surgical data, including gender, age, BMI, JOA hip score, JHEQ score, preoperative 3min walk test, preoperative TUG test(Table 1). All patients underwent direct anterior approach THA through navigation system. Postoperative day (POD) 0 was defined as the same day of surgery. There were no standardized criteria by which patients were selected for participation in rehabilitation with physical therapists. Patient selection for POD 0 rehabilitation was based on the end of surgery time. For instance, when the end of surgery time was in the forenoon, the patients were received POD 0 PT. In contrast, patients who ended operation in the afternoon were classified POD 1 PT. Rehabilitation protocol was adjusted based on surgical approach, and all patients were weight bearing as tolerated. TUG test and 3min walk test was done by a physiotherapist on the seventh day postoperatively. RESULTS. Patients who received PT on POD 0 were compared with patients who received PT on POD 1. (Table2) Using the operative start time to determine LOS, patients who received therapy on POD 0 stayed an average of 14.1±4.8 days, and those who received therapy on POD 1 stayed an average of 19.2±9.1 days. The LOS was statistically significantly different between groups (P = .01). In terms of physical recovery, the TUG test received therapy on POD 0 was taken an average of 14.0±6.0 seconds, and the TUG test received therapy on POD 1 was an average of 17.6±9.4 seconds. (P=.04) Furthermore, Total cost on POD0. Day 0 patients had a mean cost of ¥1,970,000±21,000 and Day 1 had a mean cost of 2,190,000±49,600, which remained significance difference(P=.01). CONCLUSION. This study suggests that early rehabilitation and patient mobilization on the date of surgery is important to shorten length of hospital stay, decrease total medical cost and to achieve faster physical recovery

Open tibial fractures have a high infection risk making treatment difficult and expensive. Delayed skin closure (beyond 7 days) has been shown to increase the infection rate in several studies (1). We aim to calculate the cost of infection as a complication of open tibial fractures and to determine the effect of delayed skin closure on this cost. We retrospectively reviewed all records of patients treated with a free flap in our institution for an open tibial fracture from 2002 to 2013. We calculated direct costs of treatment by the DRG-values (2014 figures), based on length of stay (LOS), diagnosis, orthopaedic and plastic surgical procedures and the corresponding reimbursement. The primary goal was to establish the extra cost incurred by an infection, compared to treating an uninfected open tibial fracture. The cost efficiency saving of early soft tissue cover was also investigated. We analysed 45 injuries in 44 patients. All patients were treated with debridement, stabilization, prophylactic antibiotics and free flap cover. Infection increased the mean total LOS in hospital from 28.0 to 63.8 days. The presence of an infection increased the cost of treatment from a mean of €49.301 for uninfected fractures compared to a mean of €67.958 for infected fractures. Achieving skin cover within 7 days of injury decreased the infection rate from 60% to 27% (total series rate 48%). The provision of early soft tissue cover (before 7 days) for all patients would have saved an average of €18.658 per patient. The development of an infection after a severe open tibial fracture greatly increases the cost of treatment. Early soft tissue cover is one aspect of care which has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. This study confirms that it will also reduce the cost of treating these complex fractures – underscoring the need for rapid referral and an ortho-plastic setup to handle them. We have only calculated the direct costs of treatment. Infected fractures will also consume extra costs in rehabilitation and absenteeism from later infection recurrence and non-union. Therefore, our estimate of the potential saving is likely to be conservative

The study was designed to look at canine related injuries presenting to the orthopaedic department at a small rural district general hospital and to assess their cost to the NHS. A retrospective review of case notes and x-rays of all dog related injuries presenting to the orthopaedic services at our hospital over a one year period starting January 2011 was undertaken. The injuries involved and the treatment provided along with the direct financial cost of these services were calculated from trust tariffs. Dog related injuries accounted for 84 out of a total of 48,405 patients presenting to the accident and emergency services over the index period. Of these, 29 required orthopaedic input with 57% of injuries resulting from trying to restrain a dog and the rest from being attacked by a dog. 14 patients were admitted to the wards with 11 among them requiring orthopaedic interventions ranging from wound wash outs and debridement to open reduction and internal fixation of fractures. These procedures cost £38,951 to the NHS. There were a total of 38 inpatient days involved costing another £9,196. A further 28 clinic visits were billed at £4,032. The total cost for the orthopaedic services provided was £52,179. There were no mortalities associated with these injuries over the time period. Canine related injuries are costly and avoidable. General public awareness of the problem coupled with appropriate legislation and its strict enforcement may be necessary to protect people from our canine companions

Aims. To establish the cost of primary hip (THR) and knee (TKR) arthroplasty in an elective orthopaedic centre in the UK and to compare it with current government reimbursement to NHS hospitals and the costs in North America. Methods. In 2004 an elective orthopaedic centre was set up in South West London which performs mainly primary lower limb arthroplasty. We used a retrospective analysis of financial statements from September 2004-June 2005 inclusive to establish operative costs (including implant), perioperative costs and post-operative costs until discharge. Results. A total of 691 THRs and 897 TKRs were performed during this period accounting for 76% of the workload. Average post-operative stay was 6.5 days for TKRs and 5.7 for THRs. Average cost for a TKR was £6651 and for a THR £5990. Costs are favourable compared with our American colleagues and similar to our Canadian colleagues. Reimbursement in the NHS was set up in 2003-4 by the DH in the form of national tariffs. Our costs are similar to these reimbursements. We question the ability of general NHS hospitals in the UK to perform at these levels and prices for three reasons. Firstly, our high volume of joint replacement activity has enabled us to negotiate the most favourable implant prices in the UK. Secondly, length of stay in our unit is approximately 60% of national average. Thirdly, our unit is run without many of the infrastructure costs of a general hospital as well as the cost incurred by training junior staff and research and development. Conclusion. Our elective-only orthopaedic centre provides a cost effective way of performing primary arthroplasty surgery while maintaining high standards of care and twenty-four hour intensive care cover. We believe this cost effectiveness may be unachievable in general NHS hospitals in the UK