Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the actual cost of a cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedure. Materials and Methods. The cost of operative time, implants, cement, and cementing accessories were included in the overall cost of the TKA procedure. Operative time was determined from a previously published study comparing cemented and cementless implants of the same design. The cost of operative time, implants, cement, and cementing accessories was determined from market and institutional data. Results. Mean operative time for cemented TKA was 11.6 minutes longer for cemented TKA than cementless TKA (93.7 minutes (. sd. 16.7) vs 82.1 minutes (. sd. 16.6); p = 0.001). Using a conservative published standard of $36 per minute for operating theatre time cost, the total time cost was $418 higher for cementing TKA. The cost of cement and accessories ranged from $170 to $625. Overall, the calculated cost of cemented TKA is $588 to $1043, depending on technique. The general increased charge for cementless TKA implants over cemented TKA implants was $366. Conclusion. The overall procedural cost of implanting a cementless TKA is less than implanting a cemented TKA. Cost alone should not be a barrier to using cementless TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):61–63

Introduction. Cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains the gold standard with survivorship above 90% at greater than 10 years postoperatively. However, with younger, heavier, more active patients undergoing TKA at an increasing rate, cementless implants have the appeal of potential for improved implant fixation longevity and decreased rates of aseptic loosening. The cementless implants are more expensive than their cemented counterparts such that implant costs may create a barrier to utilization. However, such comparisons fail to consider the unavoidable additional costs of cementing, including the cost of operating room time, cement and cementing accessories. The purpose of this study is to compare the actual cost of cemented and cementless TKA. Methods. The TKA cost calculation included the cost of operative time, implants, cement and cementing accessories. The difference in operative time between cemented and cementless TKA was determined from a previously published study of 100 TKAs performed using a cemented (55) or press fit (45) implant of the same design performed at a single institution by four fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons. The decision to use cemented or cementless design in these patients was made based on patient bone quality intraoperatively. Operative time was compared between groups using a Student's two-tailed T-test. The cost of operating room time was based on estimates in the recent literature. The cost of cement and cementing accessories was estimated based on publically available market data. The cost of implants was estimated from institutional data for multiple companies. Results. The cost comparison between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty is summarized in Table 1. Mean operative time for cemented TKA was 14.3 minutes longer than for cementless TKA (94.7 + 15.2 vs. 80.4 + 15.7, p<0.01). The estimated cost of one minute of operating room time in the literature ranges from $30 to $60. For our analysis, we used an estimate of $36 per minute obtained from a recently published multi-center study. This resulted in an average operating room time cost $3406 for cemented and $2894 for cementless TKA. Antibiotic cement costs an average of $250 per bag and antibiotic-free cement costs an average of $75 per bag. Cement mixing techniques vary across surgeons. Approximately 95% use a vacuum system and 5% use a mixing bowl. The cost of vacuum systems ranges from $80 for an enclosed bowl to $125 for a vacuum system that can be directly connected to a cement gun. The cost of a plastic mixing bowl and spatula is $20. The cost of the disposables from a cement injection kit is $25. The average cost of a primary TKA implant, including femoral, tibial and polyethylene liner components, is $3530 for cemented and $4659 for cementless designs. Patellar resurfacing is not routinely used at our institution and therefore was not included in implant cost. Based on our calculations, the average cost of a cementless TKA is $7553. Using the cheapest cementing technique with 2 bags of plain cement and a manual mixing bowl with spatula, the cost of a cemented TKA $7114. Using the most expensive cementing technique with 2 bags of antibiotic cement and a cement gun compatible vacuum mixer, the cost of a cemented TKA is $7564. Conclusion. Cemented TKA remains the gold standard and still accounts for most procedures. Cementless TKA is increasing in utilization and may decrease the rate of aseptic loosening, especially in the rapidly growing young, active population undergoing TKA. Although cementless implants remain more expensive than cemented implants at most institutions, the actual overall cost of the two procedures is similar if operative time, cement and cementing accessories are considered. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Aims. Access to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is sometimes restricted for patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. ). This study compares the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with TKA in patients with a BMI above and below 40 kg/m. 2. to examine whether this is supported. Methods. This single-centre study compared 169 consecutive patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. ) (mean age 65.2 years (40 to 87); mean BMI 44.2 kg/m. 2. (40 to 66); 129/169 female) undergoing unilateral TKA to a propensity score matched (age, sex, preoperative Oxford Knee Score (OKS)) cohort with a BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. in a 1:1 ratio. Demographic data, comorbidities, and complications to one year were recorded. Preoperative and one-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were completed: EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), OKS, pain, and satisfaction. Using national life expectancy data with obesity correction and the 2020 NHS National Tariff, QALYs (discounted at 3.5%), and direct medical costs accrued over a patient’s lifetime, were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to model variation in cost/QALY for each cohort across 1,000 simulations. Results. All PROMs improved significantly (p < 0.05) in both groups without differences between groups. Early complications were higher in BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. : 34/169 versus 52/169 (p = 0.050). A total of 16 (9.5%) patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. were readmitted within one year with six reoperations (3.6%) including three (1.2%) revisions for infection. Assuming reduced life expectancy in severe obesity and revision costs, TKA in patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. costs a mean of £1,013/QALY (95% confidence interval £678 to 1,409) more over a lifetime than TKA in patients with BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. In PSA replicates, the maximum cost/QALY was £3,921 in patients with a BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. and £5,275 in patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. . Conclusion. Higher complication rates following TKA in severely obese patients result in a lifetime cost/QALY that is £1,013 greater than that for patients with BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. , suggesting that TKA remains a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in severely obese patients where the surgeon considers it appropriate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):452–463

Introduction. Robotic assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty (rTKA), provides surgeons with preoperative planning and real-time data allowing for continuous assessment of ligamentous tension and range-of-motion. Using this technology, soft tissue protection, reduced early post-operative pain and improved patient satisfaction have been shown. These advances have the potential to enhance surgical outcomes and may also reduce episode-of-care (EOC) costs for patients, payers, and hospitals. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic assisted vs. manual total knee arthroplasty: 1) 90-day episode-of-care (EOC) costs; 2) index costs; 3) lengths-of-stay (LOS); 4) discharge disposition; and 5) readmission rates. Methods. TKA procedures were identified using the Medicare 100% Standard Analytic Files including; Inpatient, Outpatient, Skilled Nursing (SNF) and Home Health. Members included patients with rTKA or manual TKA (mTKA) between 1/1/2016-3/31/2017. To account for potential baseline differences, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed in a 1-to-5 ratio, robotic to manual based on age, sex, race, geographic division, and comorbidities. After PSM, 519 rTKA and 2,595 mTKA were identified and included for analysis. Ninety-day episode-of-care cost, index cost, LOS, discharge disposition and readmission rates were assessed. Results. Overall 90-day EOC costs were $2,391 less for rTKA patients ($18,568 vs. $20,960; p<.0001). Index facility cost and LOS were also less for rTKA patients by $640 ($12,384 vs. $13,024; p=.0001) and 0.7 days (p<.0001). Additionally, rTKA patients were discharged to SNF less frequently (12.52% vs. 21.70%; p<.0001) and home with health aid (56.65% vs. 46.67%; p<.0001) or self-care (27.55% vs. 23.62%; p=.0566) more frequently and had a 90-day readmission reduction of 33% (p=.0423). Conclusion. Robotic assisted TKA resulted in an overall lower 90-day episode-of-care cost when compared to manual TKA. The 90-day EOC cost savings of rTKA were driven by reduced facility costs, LOS and readmissions, and an economically beneficial discharge destination

Introduction. Pressure to control health care costs may limit the ability of new implants to enter the market. Customized individually made (CIM) knee implants are produced from CT scans of each patient and may result in improved clinical outcomes based on early data showing less blood loss, reduced bone resection, and better implant function and alignment. Limited economic evidence suggests that the use of CIM technology may result in cost savings, particularly when post-discharge expenses are included. The purpose of this study was to evaluate real-world cost data to determine episode spending in a Medicare population receiving either CIM or off-the-shelf (OTS) implants. Methods. The Yale Center for Musculoskeletal Care and Baker Tilly Healthcare Management reviewed episode expenditures among Medicare beneficiaries who received CIM and OTS implants for TKA between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2015. Episode costs included the pre-operative CT scan, index TKA procedure, and 12-month post-index spending for inpatient (IP), outpatient (OP), emergency room (ER), skilled nursing facility (SNF), and home health (HH) services. CIM patients were identified through a matching process utilizing de-identified patient demographic and procedural information and the presence of a CT scan 28–365 days before index. OTS patients included those without a CT scan within one year of index. CIM and OTS cohorts were propensity matched to produce comparable cohorts at a one-to-five ratio based on age range, gender, race, geographical location, and comorbidities. Average expenditure was used to calculate one-year costs of care differences between the CIM and the OTS technologies. A Generalized Linear Model (GLM) and two-part model (logistics and GLM) were used to test statistical significance. Results. The study included 4,434 patients (CIM: 739, OTS: 3,695). CIM index hospital expenses were 6.5% less than OTS (CIM: $11,579; OTS: $12,386, p<0.0001). CIM patients were 37.5% less likely to incur SNF costs than OTS patients (CIM: 3.0% vs. OTS: 4.8%; p=0.0241) and had 45.1% lower average SNF expenditures (CIM: $8,882 vs. OTS: $16,183; p=0.0236). There was no difference in the probability of incurring post-index IP costs (CIM: 15.7% vs. OTS: 15.4%; p=0.9437) but average post-index IP expenditures were 27.2% lower among the CIM cohort than OTS (CIM: $12,817 vs. OTS: $17,605; p=0.0008). However, CIM patients were 10.5% more likely to incur OP costs (CIM: 90.9% vs. OTS: 85.7%; p=0.0005) and had 6.1% higher average OP expenditures (CIM: $2,328 vs. OTS: $2,106; p=0.0377). Average 12-month episode spending for the CIM cohort was 8.4% less than the OTS cohort ($1,697 Difference; CIM: $18,585 vs. OTS: $20,280; p<0.0001). Conclusion. Study findings demonstrate that the use of CIM technology can result in significant 12-month episode savings among a Medicare population. The average expenditure differences noted for post-index IP, SNF, and OP cost categories suggest there are differences in required post-operative treatment across the two cohorts. Savings calculated in the analysis is a meaningful reduction for payers. Providers may also benefit from index and episode cost savings through shared savings arrangements. CIM technology should be considered as a method to reduce TKA episode spending

Introduction. Our purpose is to analyze the true costs associated with preoperative CT scans performed for robotic assisted TKA planning and also to determine the value of a formal radiologist reading of these studies. Methods. We reviewed 194 CT scans of 176 sequential patients who underwent primary RTKA by a single surgeon at a suburban teaching hospital. CT radiology reports were reviewed for the presence of incidental findings that might result in change of care to the patient. Actual payments for technical and professional components of the CT scans were retrieved for 170 of the 176 patients. Any patient payments for the CT scan were also recorded. Results. In no CT scan report was there any findings other than arthritis in the knee and nothing was identified that lead to a recommendation for any additional testing. The mean total payment for a preoperative CT scan was $253 (range 0 – 912). The mean technical payment was $206 (range 0 – 856). The mean professional component paid was $48 (range 0 – 66). On average patients personally paid $56 (range 0 – 618). In 99/170 cases (58 %), the patients made no payment. For the remaining 71 patients the mean payment made was $134 (range 10 – 618). Discussion and Conclusion. No CT scan identified any clinical problem other than arthritis – this suggests that the professional component cost of this specific CT scan could be eliminated without harm to patients. The cost of the CT scan – mean <$300 – is low and a minimal part of the total overall cost of a primary TKA. Patients understand the value of the CT scan - preoperative advanced imaging helps ensure a precise and accurate intraoperative experience – and they are willing to pay for any of their costs related to this preoperative test. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

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. Methods. We reviewed 194 CT reports of 176 sequential patients who underwent primary RATKA by a single surgeon at a suburban teaching hospital. CT radiology reports were reviewed for the presence of incidental findings that might change the management of the patient. Payments for the scans, including the technical and professional components, for 330 patients at two hospitals were also recorded and compared. Results. There were 82 incidental findings in 61 CT studies, one of which led to a recommendation for additional testing. Across both institutions, the mean total payment for a preoperative scan was $446 ($8 to $3,870). The mean patient payment was $71 ($0 to $2,690). There was wide variation in payments between the institutions. In Institution A, the mean total payment was $258 ($168 to $264), with a mean patient payment of $57 ($0 to $100). The mean technical payment in this institution was $211 ($8 to $856), while the mean professional payment was $48 ($0 to $66). In Institution B, the mean total payment was $636 ($37 to $3,870), with a mean patient payment of $85 ($0 to $2,690). Conclusion. The total cost of a CT scan is low and a minimal part of the overall cost of the RATKA. No incidental findings identified on imaging led to a change in management, suggesting that the professional component could be eliminated to reduce costs. Further studies need to take into account the patient perspective and the wide variation in total costs and patient payments across institutions and insurances. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):79–84

Introduction. Social determinants of health (SDOH) may contribute markedly to the total cost of care (COC) for patients undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study investigated the association between demographics, health status, and SDOH on lengths of stay (LOS) and 30-day COC. Methods. Patients who underwent TKA between January 2018 and December 2019 were identified. Those who had complete SDOH data were utilized, leaving 234 patients. Data elements were drawn from the Chesapeake Regional Information System, the Center for Disease Control social vulnerability index (SVI), the Food Access Research Atlas (FARA). The SVI identifies areas vulnerable to catastrophic events, with 4 themed scores including: (1) socioeconomic status; (2) household composition and disability; (3) minority status and language; and (4) housing and transportation. Food deserts were defined as neighborhoods located 1 or 10 miles from a grocery store in urban and rural areas, respectively. Multiple regression analyses were performed to determine an association with LOS and cost, after controlling for demographics. Results. Increased 30-day COC associated with SVI theme 3, (3.074 days; p=0.001) and patients who lived in a food desert ($53,205; p=0.001), as well as those who had anemia ($16,112; P = 0.038), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ($32,570, P = 0.001), congestive heart failure ($30,927, P = 0.003), and dementia ($33,456, P = 0.008). Longer hospital lengths of stay were associated with SVI theme 3. In addition, patients who had anemia and congestive heart failure were at risk for longer hospital lengths of stay (P < 0.001, P = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion. Higher SVI theme 3 scores and living in food deserts were risk factors for increased LOS and costs, respectively. Identifying social factors including a patient's transportation options, living situation and access to healthy foods may prove to be both prognostic of outcomes and an opportunity for intervention

Purpose. To calculate the cost of investigation of a painful Total Knee Replacement (TKR) to the hospital trust and Primary Care Trust (PCT). Method. 28 patients, over a year period, with painful Total Knee replacements were collected. Costs were calculated only of those patients who had an improvement in their symptoms such that they no longer had a painful TKR. The numbers of appointments, number of serological and radiological investigations were calculated along with any further investigations such as aspirations and arthroscopies. Costs were calculated from hospital records and charges to the PCT. An average cost per patient of investigations was calculated. Results. The patients (average age = 67.64) were investigated over an average of 22.93 months. During this time each patient had on average 4.07 orthopaedic appointments (total 114). The average number of blood tests performed per patient was 7.96 (total 223) along with 6.46 (total 181) X-rays performed. The total spent on investigations for 28 patients, with a painful TKR, was £79809.56. The average cost of investigations per patient was £2850.34. Conclusion. Costs for investigations for a patient with a painful TKR were high because of exceedingly high numbers of repeated investigations. A standardised protocol for the investigation of a painful TKR by a clinician would be beneficial to keep costs down. Early referral to a specialist in the field of painful TKR's is appropriate to allow timely and logical assessment and to avoid repeated investigations. This also allows earlier interventions with regards to revision surgery and also reduces the number of different appointments so reducing the financial workload implications

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare ten-year longitudinal healthcare costs and revision rates for patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. The Humana database was used to compare 2,383 patients undergoing UKA between 2007 and 2009, who were matched 1:1 from a cohort of 63,036 patients undergoing primary TKA based on age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Medical and surgical complications were tracked longitudinally for one year following surgery. Rates of revision surgery and cumulative mean healthcare costs were recorded for this period of time and compared between the cohorts. Results. Patients undergoing TKA had significantly higher rates of manipulation under anaesthesia (3.9% vs 0.9%; p < 0.001), deep vein thrombosis (5.0% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001), pulmonary embolism (1.5% vs 0.8%; p = 0.001), and renal failure (4.2% vs 2.2%; p < 0.001). Revision rates, however, were significantly higher for UKA at five years (6.0% vs 4.2%; p = 0.007) and ten years postoperatively (6.5% vs 4.4%; p = 0.002). Longitudinal-related healthcare costs for patients undergoing TKA were greater than for those undergoing UKA at one year ($24,771 vs $22,071; p < 0.001) and five years following surgery ($26,549 vs $25,730; p < 0.001); however, the mean costs of TKA were comparable to UKA at ten years ($26,877 vs $26,891; p = 0.425). Conclusion. Despite higher revision rates, patients undergoing UKA had lower mean healthcare costs than those undergoing TKA up to ten years following the procedure, at which time costs were comparable. In the era of value-based care, surgeons and policymakers should be aware of the costs involved with these procedures. UKA was associated with fewer complications at one year postoperatively but higher revision rates at five and ten years. While UKA was significantly less costly than TKA at one and five years, costs at ten years were comparable with a mean difference of only $14. Lowering the risk of revision surgery should be targeted as a source of cost savings for both UKA and TKA as the mean related healthcare costs were 2.5-fold higher in patients requiring revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):23–31

Aims. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has experienced significant improvements in implant survivorship with second generation designs. This has renewed interest in PFA as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for younger active patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PF OA). We analysed the cost-effectiveness of PFA versus TKA for the management of isolated PF OA in the United States-based population. Patients and Methods. We used a Markov transition state model to compare cost-effectiveness between PFA and TKA. Simulated patients were aged 60 (base case) and 50 years. Lifetime costs (2015 United States dollars), quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated from a healthcare payer perspective. Annual rates of revision were derived from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed for all parameters against a $50 000/QALY willingness to pay. . Results. PFA was more expensive ($49 811 versus $46 632) but more effective (14.3 QALYs versus 13.3 QALYs) over a lifetime horizon. The ICER associated with the additional effectiveness of PFA was $3097. The model was mainly sensitive to utility values, with PFA remaining cost-effective when its utility exceeded that of TKA by at least 1.0%. PFA provided incremental benefits at no increased cost when annual rates of revision decreased by 24.5%. . Conclusions. Recent improvements in rates of implant of survival have made PFA an economically beneficial joint-preserving procedure in younger patients, delaying TKA until implant failure or tibiofemoral OA progression. The present study quantified the minimum required marginal benefit for PFA to be cost-effective compared with TKA and identified survivorship targets for PFA to become both less expensive and more effective. These benchmarks might be used to assess clinical outcomes of PFA from an economic standpoint within the United States healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1028–36

Introduction. Bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be performed under a single-anesthetic (SA) or staged under a two-anesthetic (TA) technique. Recently, our institution began piloting a two-surgeon team SA method for bilateral TKA. The purpose of this study was to compare the inpatient costs and clinical outcomes in the first 90 days after surgery between the team SA, single-surgeon SA, and single-surgeon TA approaches for bilateral TKA. Methods. All primary TKA performed from 2007–2017 by the two participating surgeons for each of the 3 groups of interest were identified: team SA (N=42 patients; 84 knees), single-surgeon SA (N=146 patients; 292 knees), single-surgeon TA (N=242 patients; 484 knees). No patients were lost to follow-up. Results. Median hospital cost (per TKA) for the episode(s) of care was as follows: team SA $20,962, single-surgeon SA $22,057, single-surgeon TA $31,145 (p<0.001 overall; p=0.0905 team SA vs single-surgeon SA). Rate of 90-day complications was 2.4% for team SA, 11.0% for single-surgeon SA, and 8.3% for single-surgeon TA (p=0.2090). Discharge to skilled nursing facilities or rehab was as follows: team SA 31%, single-surgeon SA 53% and single-surgeon TA after the second operation 34% (p<0.001). Conclusions. This pilot project suggests that team SA bilateral TKA is a potentially cost-effective option with fewer complications compared to single-surgeon SA bilateral TKA. The less frequent disposition to skilled nursing facilities in the team SA group in conjunction with more efficient OR utilization may further enhance the financial benefits

Introduction. While knee arthrodesis is a salvage option for recalcitrant total knee arthroplasty (TKA) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) it is used relatively uncommonly and contemporary data are limited. We sought to determine the reliability, durability and safety of knee arthrodesis as the definitive treatment for complex, persistently infected TKA in a modern series of patients. Methods. We retrospectively identified 41 knees treated from 2002–2016 with a deliberate, two-stage knee arthrodesis protocol (TKA resection, high-dose antibiotic spacer, targeted IV antibiotics and followed by subsequent knee arthrodesis) in patients with complex TKA PJI. Mean age was 64 years & mean BMI was 39 kg/m. 2. Mean follow-up was 4 years. The extensor mechanism was deficient in 66% of knees, and flap coverage was required in 34% of knees. The majority of patients were host grade B (56%) or C (29%), and extremity grade of 3 (71%). Twenty-nine percent had poly-microbial infections, and 49% had multi-drug resistant organisms. Fixation included intramedullary nail (61%), external fixator (24%), and dual plating (15%). Results. Two patients (5%) required amputation for persistently infected non-unions; therefore, limb salvage was accomplished in 95% of patients. After initial treatment, there were non-unions in 24% and persistent infection in 17%. Non-union was significantly correlated with persistent infection, with 50% of non-unions having persistent infection compared with just 6% of united knees (p=0.006). External fixation was a significant risk factor for non-union (70%) compared to intramedullary fixation (8%; p=0.005). Overall, twenty-seven complications occurred in 20 patients and 31% required reoperation other than external fixator removal. Intramedullary fixation led to a 90% rate of both infection control and radiographic union. Conclusion. Two-stage knee arthrodesis using a deliberate protocol (resection, high-dose abx spacer, targeted IV abx, and subsequent arthrodesis) ultimately achieved successful limb salvage in 95% of patients with complex infected TKA. One or more complications occurred in nearly half the patients and reoperation was required for 1-in-3. That substantial risk of complications is not surprising as this large contemporary series included complex, worst-case infected TKA in which: 2/3 had disrupted extensor mechanism, 1/3 required flap coverage, and the majority had poly-microbial or multi-drug resistant organisms. Summary. For contemporary patients with very complex, infected TKA a two-stage knee arthrodesis was reliable in achieving limb salvage (95%) at the cost of a high initial complication and reoperation rate. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

Debate remains whether the patella should be resurfaced during total knee replacement (TKR). For non-resurfaced TKRs, we estimated what the revision rate would have been if the patella had been resurfaced, and examined the risk of re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing.

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’.

Aims

The practice of alternating operating theatres has long been used to reduce surgeon idle time between cases. However, concerns have been raised as to the safety of this practice. We assessed the payments and outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed during overlapping and nonoverlapping days, also comparing the total number of the surgeon’s cases and the total time spent in the operating theatre per day.

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

Aims. To assess the cost-effectiveness of a two-layer compression bandage versus a standard wool and crepe bandage following total knee arthroplasty, using patient-level data from the Knee Replacement Bandage Study (KReBS). Methods. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside KReBS, a pragmatic, two-arm, open label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, in terms of the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Overall, 2,330 participants scheduled for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were randomized to either a two-layer compression bandage or a standard wool and crepe bandage. Costs were estimated over a 12-month period from the UK NHS perspective, and health outcomes were reported as QALYs based on participants’ EuroQol five-dimesion five-level questionnaire responses. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data and sensitivity analyses included a complete case analysis and testing of costing assumptions, with a secondary analysis exploring the inclusion of productivity losses. Results. The base case analysis found participants in the compression bandage group accrued marginally fewer QALYs, on average, compared with those in the standard bandage group (reduction of 0.0050 QALYs (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0051 to -0.0049)), and accumulated additional mean costs (incremental cost of £52.68 per participant (95% CI 50.56 to 54.80)). Findings remained robust to assumptions tested in sensitivity analyses, although considerable uncertainty surrounded the outcome estimates. Conclusion. Use of a two-layer compression bandage is marginally less effective in terms of health-related quality of life, and more expensive when compared with a standard bandage following TKA, so therefore is unlikely to provide a cost-effective option. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):550–559

Aims. The tibial component of total knee arthroplasty can either be an all-polyethylene (AP) implant or a metal-backed (MB) implant. This study aims to compare the five-year functional outcomes of AP tibial components to MB components in patients aged over 70 years. Secondary aims are to compare quality of life, implant survivorship, and cost-effectiveness. Methods. A group of 130 patients who had received an AP tibial component were matched for demographic factors of age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, sex, and preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) to create a comparison group of 130 patients who received a MB tibial component. Functional outcome was assessed prospectively by KSS, quality of life by 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12), and range of motion (ROM), and implant survivorships were compared. The SF six-dimension (6D) was used to calculate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for AP compared to MB tibial components using quality-adjusted life year methodology. Results. The AP group had a mean KSS-Knee of 83.4 (standard deviation (SD) 19.2) and the MB group a mean of 84.9 (SD 18.2; p = 0.631), while mean KSS-Function was 75.4 (SD 15.3) and 73.2 (SD 16.2 p = 0.472), respectively. The mental (44.3 vs 45.1; p = 0.464) and physical (44.8 vs 44.9; p = 0.893) dimensions of the SF-12 and ROM (97.9° vs 99.7°; p = 0.444) were not different between the groups. Implant survivorship at five years were 99.2% and 97.7% (p = 0.321). The AP group had a greater SF-6D gain of 0.145 compared to the MB group, with an associated cost saving of £406, which resulted in a negative ICER of -£406/0.145 = -£2,800. Therefore, the AP tibial component was dominant, being a more effective and less expensive intervention. Conclusion. There were no differences in functional outcomes or survivorship at five years between AP and MB tibial components in patients aged 70 years and older, however the AP component was shown to be more cost-effective. In the UK, only 1.4% of all total knee arthroplasties use an AP component; even a modest increase in usage nationally could lead to significant financial savings. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):969–976

Abstract. Introduction. This multi-centre randomised controlled trial evaluated the clinical and cost effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine for pain and recovery following knee replacement. Methodology. 533patients undergoing primary knee replacement were randomised to receive either liposomal bupivacaine (266mg) plus bupivacaine hydrochloride (100mg) or control (bupivacaine hydrochloride 100mg), administered at the surgical site. The co-primary outcomes were pain visual analogue score (VAS) area under the curve (AUC) 6 to 72hours and the Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72hours. Results. Primary analysis found no difference in pain VAS AUC 6 to 72hours between liposomal bupivacaine and control (MD -21.5 (97.5% CI -46.8 to 3.8; p=0.057)), nor the QoR-40 at 72hours (MD 0.54, 97.5% CI -2.05 to 3.13, p=0.643). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores on days 0, 1, 2 and 3 demonstrated only one significant difference, with the liposomal bupivacaine arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (day0; MD -0.54, 97.5% CI -1.07 to -0.02; p=0.021). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption or functional outcome at 6weeks, 6months or 1year was detected. Heath economic analysis found liposomal bupivacaine to be less effective in terms of QALYs as well as more costly. No difference in adverse events between arms was identified. Conclusion. This is the largest RCT evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine It found that compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine at the surgical site does not provide any clinical or cost benefit for knee replacement and therefore should not be routinely used