Aims. Our aim was to estimate the total costs of all hospitalizations for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by main management strategy within 24 months post-diagnosis using activity-based costing. Additionally, we investigated the influence of individual PJI treatment pathways on hospital costs within the first 24 months. Methods. Using admission and procedure data from a prospective observational cohort in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to each admitted patient episode of care for activity-based costing estimates of 273 hip PJI patients and 377 knee PJI patients. Costs were aggregated at 24 months post-diagnosis, and are presented in Australian dollars. Results. The mean cost per hip and knee PJI patient was $64,585 (SD $53,550). Single-stage revision mean costs were $67,029 (SD $47,116) and $80,063 (SD $42,438) for hip and knee, respectively. Two-stage revision costs were $113,226 (SD $66,724) and $122,425 (SD $60,874) for hip and knee, respectively. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hips and knees mean costs were $53,537 (SD$ 39,342) and $48,463 (SD $33,179), respectively. Suppressive antibiotic therapy without surgical management mean costs were $20,296 (SD $8,875) for hip patients and $16,481 (SD $6,712) for knee patients. Hip patients had 16 different treatment pathways and knee patients had 18 treatment pathways. Additional treatment, episodes of care, and length of stay contributed to substantially increased costs up to a maximum of $369,948. Conclusion. Treating PJI incurs a substantial cost burden, which is substantially influenced by management strategy. With an annual PJI incidence of 3,900, the cost burden would be in excess of $250 million to the Australian healthcare system. Treatment pathways with additional surgery, more episodes of care, and a longer length of stay substantially increase the associated hospital costs. Prospectively monitoring individual patient treatment pathways beyond initial management is important when quantifying PJI treatment cost. Our study highlights the importance of optimizing initial surgical treatment, and informs treating hospitals of the resources required to provide care for PJI patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1084–1092

Aim. The number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is increasing due to ageing population and increasing numbers of arthroplasty procedures and treatment is costly. Aim of the study was to analyze the direct healthcare costs of PJI in Europe for total hip arthroplasties (THA) and total knee arthroplasties (TKA). Method. A systematic review in PubMed with search of direct costs of PJI in European countries was performed. Thereby the term cost* AND (infection OR PJI) AND (prosthesis OR knee OR hip OR “TKA” OR “THA” OR arthroplast*) was combined with each European country to detect relevant publications. Publications with definition of performed procedure and joint localization were included into further analysis. The mean value of direct healthcare cost was calculated for the respective joint and the respective operation performed. Results. Screening revealed 1,274 eligible publications. After review of abstracts and full-texts n=11 manuscripts were included into final analysis (Figure 1). The mean combined direct hospital costs for revision for PJI after TKA and THA was 26,311€. Mean costs for revision procedures for PJI after TKA were 24,617€. Direct costs for TKA-PJI treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) were on average 10,121€. For two-stage revisions in knee arthroplasties total average costs were 30,829€. Referring to revision surgery for PJI in THA, the mean hospital costs in Europe were 28,005€. For a DAIR procedure direct healthcare costs of 5,528€ were identified. Two-stage revision cost on average 31,217€. Conclusions. PJIs are associated with significant direct healthcare costs. The financial burden of up to 30,000 € per case underlines the impact of the disease for European health care system. However, the number of detailed reports on PJI costs is limited and the quality of the literature is limited. There is a strong need for more detailed financial data on the costs of PJI treatment. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012.

Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (sd 4514) vs £9655 (sd 599.7), p < 0.0001).

Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been a shift toward outpatient and short-stay protocols for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We developed a peri-operative THA and TKA short stay protocol following the Enhance Recovery After Surgery principles (ERAS), aiming at both optimizing patients’ outcomes and reducing the hospital length of stay. The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of our ERAS short-stay protocol. We hypothesized that our ERAS THA and TKA short-stay protocol would result in a lower complication rate, shorter hospital length of stay and reduced direct health care costs compared to our standard procedure.

Aims. We hypothesized that the wide-awake local anaesthesia with no tourniquet (WALANT) technique is cost-effective, easy to use, safe, and reproducible, with a low learning curve towards mastery, having a high patient satisfaction rate. Furthermore, WALANT would be a suitable alternative for the austere and developing nation environments where lack of funds and resources are a common issue. Methods. This was a randomized control trial of 169 patients who required surgery for closed isolated distal radius fractures. The study was performed between March 2016 and April 2019 at a public sector level 1 trauma centre. General anaesthesia was used in 56 patients, Bier’s block in 58 patients, and WALANT in 55 patients. Data were collected on pre-, peri-, and postoperative parameters, clinical outcome, hospital costs, and patient satisfaction. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with a p-value of 0.05 being significant. Results. Operations with WALANT proceeded sooner, and patients recovered faster, resulting in mean fewer missed working days (7.8 (SD 1.67)) compared with general anaesthesia (20.1 (SD 7.37)) or Bier’s block (14.1 (SD 7.65)) (p < 0.001). The WALANT patients did not develop complications, while the other patients did (p < 0.04). Clinical outcomes did not differ, nor did surgeon qualification affect clinical outcomes. Mean hospital costs were lower for WALANT ($428.50 (SD 77.71)) than for general anaesthesia ($630.63 (SD 114.77)) or Bier’s block ($734.00 (SD 37.54)) (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was also higher (p < 0.001). Conclusion. WALANT for distal radius fractures results in a faster recovery, is more cost-effective, has similar clinical outcomes, and has fewer complications than general anaesthesia or Bier's block. This makes WALANT an attractive technique in any setting, but especially in middle- and low-income countries. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(7):429–439

Aims. The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Methods. The study involved a retrospective review of our prospectively collected database from which we identified all patients who underwent an intended two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. All patients had a diagnosis of PJI according to the major criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2013, a minimum five-year follow-up, and were assessed using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool. The outcomes were grouped into ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’. Results. A total of 299 two-stage revision THAs in 289 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 258 (86%) proceeded to second-stage surgery. Their mean age was 68.1 years (28 to 92). The median follow-up was 10.7 years (interquartile range (IQR) 6.3 to 15.0). A 91% success rate was seen in those patients who underwent reimplantation, decreasing to 86% when including those who did not proceed to reimplantation. The median duration of postoperative systemic antibiotics following the first stage was five days (IQR 5 to 9). There was no significant difference in outcome between those patients who were treated with antibiotics for ≤ 48 hours (p = 0.961) or ≤ five days (p = 0.376) compared with those who were treated with longer courses. Greater success rates were seen for Gram-positive PJIs (87%) than for Gram-negative (84%) and mixed-Gram PJIs (72%; p = 0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics at the time of first-stage revision surgery for PJI of the hip, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship, and reduced hospital costs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):511–517

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

Introduction. Alternative payment models for total hip arthroplasty (THA) were initiated by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to decrease overall healthcare cost by optimizing healthcare delivery. The associated shift of financial risk to participating institutions has been criticized to introduce patient selection in order to avoid potentially high cost of care. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model on patient selection, care delivery and hospital costs at a single care center. Methods. This is a retrospective review of THA patient from July 2015-December 2017 was performed. Patient were stratified by insurance type (Medicare and commercial insurance) and whether care was provided before or after implementation of the CJR bundle. Patient age, gender, and BMI, as well as Elixhauser comorbidities and ASA scores were analyzed. Delivery of care variables including surgery duration, discharge disposition, length of stay, and direct hospital costs were compared before and after CJR implementation. Results. 751 THA patients (273 Medicare and 478 Commercial Insurance) were evaluated before (29%) and after (71%) CJR bundle implementation. There was no difference in patient demographics (age, gender, or BMI); however, commercially insured patients had less Elxihauser comorbidies pre-bundle (p=0.033). After CJR implementation length of stay (p=0.010) for Medicare patients was reduced with a trend toward discharge to home (p=0.019). However, surgical time and OR service time as well as direct hospital costs were similar before and after the CJR bundle initiation. Conclusions. There was no differential patient selection after CJR bundle implementation, and value-based metrics (surgical time, OR service time) were not affected. Patients were discharged sooner and more often to home. However, overall direct hospital expenses remained unchanged revealing that any cost savings were for insurance providers, not participating hospitals. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Reduction of length of stay (LOS) without compromising quality of care is a trend observed in orthopaedic departments. To achieve this goal the pathway needs to be optimised. This requires team work than can be supported by e-health solutions. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of reduction in LOS on complications and readmissions in one hospital where accelerated discharge was introduced due to the pandemic. 317 patients with primary total hip and total knee replacements treated in the same hospital between October 2018 and February 2021 were included. The patients were divided in two groups: the pre-pandemic group and the pandemic group. The discharge criteria were: patient feels comfortable with going back home, patient has enough support at home, no wound leakage, and independence in activities of daily living. No face-to-face surgeon or nurse follow-up was planned. Patients’ progress was monitored via the mobile application. The patients received information, education materials, postoperative exercises and a coaching via secure chat. The length of stay (LOS) and complications were assessed through questions in the app and patients filled in standard PROMs preoperatively, at 6 weeks and 3 months. Before the pandemic, 64.8% of the patients spent 3 nights at hospital, whereas during the pandemic, 52.0% spent only 1 night. The median value changed from 3 days to 1 day. The complication rate before the pandemic of 15% dropped to 9 % during the pandemic. The readmission rate remained stable with 4% before the pandemic and 5 % during the pandemic. No difference were observed for PROMS between groups. The results of this study showed that after a hip and knee surgery, the shortening of the LOS from three to one night resulted in less complications and a stable rate of readmissions. These results are in line with literature data on enhanced recovery after hip and knee arthroplasty. The reduction of LOS for elective knee and hip arthroplasty during the pandemic period proved safe. The concept used in this study is transferable to other hospitals, and may have economic implications through reduced hospital costs

Aim. The duration of systemic antibiotic therapy following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, use high concentration targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Method. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospectively-collected database was performed to identify those patients who were planned to undergo a two-stage hip revision procedure for PJI. All patients had a confirmed diagnosis of PJI as per the major criteria of MSIS 2013, a minimum 5-years follow up and were assessed at the time of review using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool (2018). They were then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). Results. 299 intended two-stage hip revisions in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage) met our inclusion criteria. 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. Median follow up was 10.7 years. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation; dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage surgery. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics following first stage surgery was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference in outcome was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed for gram-positive PJI (87%); than for gram-negative PJI (84%) and mixed Gram infection (72%; p=0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage hip surgery, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

Aim. Implant-related infections, including peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and infected osteosynthesis, are biofilm-related. Intra-operative diagnosis and pathogen identification is currently considered the diagnostic benchmark; however the presence of bacterial biofilm(s) may have a detrimental effect on pathogen detection with traditional microbiological techniques. Sonication and chemical biofilm debonding have been proposed to overcome, at least partially, this issue, however little is known about their possible economical impact. Aim of this study was to examine direct and indirect hospital costs connected with the routine use of anti-biofilm microbiological techniques applied to hip and knee PJIs. Method. In a first part of the study, the “Turn Around Time (TAT)” and direct costs comparison between a system to find bacteria on removed prosthetic implants. *. , a closed system for intra-operative tissue and implant sampling, transport and anti-biofilm processing, versus sonication has been performed. An additional analysis of the estimated indirect hospital costs, resulting from the diagnostic accuracy of traditional and anti-biofilm microbiological processing has been conducted. Results. Considering an average 5 samples per patient, processed separately with the sonication or pooled together, using the device. *. , the direct costs comparison shows a similar overall average estimated cost per patient when using sonication (€ 400.00) or the system to find bacteria on removed prosthetic implants. *. (€ 391.70). Indirect hospital costs of false positive or negative intra-operative pathogen identification can be estimated as, respectively, € 65,000 and € 90,000, including possible inadequate treatments and/or surgeries and/or need for further hospital stay, risk of infection recurrence/persistence, possible medico-legal claims, etc. Considering 1 out of ten cases of false identification as generating indirect hospital costs (“mitigation factor”: 90%) and an accuracy of current intra-operative microbiological sampling and testing of approximately 80%, it is calculated that any anti-biofilm procedure able to increase the microbiological diagnostic accuracy by 10%, at an average cost per patient of € 500.00, would induce an average hospital cost saving of approximately € 100,000 per 100 treated cases. Conclusions. To our knowledge, this is the first study specifically focused on the potential economical impact of the routine clinical use of microbiological anti-biofilm processing techniques in orthopaedics. The several limitations of this study notwithstanding, including the variable Country-based value of the different direct costs and the assumptions made concerning indirect costs calculations, this analysis points out how more accurate pathogen identification procedures can lead to an improvement of the management of implant-related infections in orthopaedics, with a substantial economical balance

Introduction. Bundled reimbursement models for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have resulted in an effort to decrease the cost of care. However, these models may incentivize bias in patient selection to avoid excess cost of care. We sought to determine the impact of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model at a single center. Methods. This is a retrospective review of primary TKA patients from July 2015-December 2017. Patients were stratified by whether or not their surgery was performed before or after implementation of the CJR bundle. Patient demographic data including age, sex, and BMI were collected in addition to Elixhauser comorbidities and ASA score. In-hospital outcomes were then examined including surgery duration, length of stay, discharge disposition, and direct cost of care. Results. 1,248 TKA patients (546 Medicare and 702 Commercial Insurance) were evaluated, with 27.0% undergoing surgery prior to the start of the bundle. Compared to patients following implementation of the bundle, there was no significant difference in age, gender, or BMI. However, pre-CJR Medicare patients were more likely to have fewer Elixhauser comorbidities (p<0.001), prolonged length of stay (p<0.001), and greater discharges to inpatient facilities (p=0.019). There was no significant difference in direct hospital costs or operative service time comparing pre and post bundle patients. Conclusions. Implementation of the bundled reimbursement model did not result in biased patient selection at our institution; importantly, it also did not result in decreased hospital costs despite apparent improvement in value-based outcome metrics. This should be taken into consideration as future adaptations to reimbursement are made by CMS. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims. The current study aimed to compare robotic arm-assisted (RA-THA), computer-assisted (CA-THA), and manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty regarding in-hospital metrics including length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, in-hospital complications, and cost of RA-THA versus M-THA and CA-THA versus M-THA, as well as trends in use and uptake over a ten-year period, and future projections of uptake and use of RA-THA and CA-THA. Methods. The National Inpatient Sample was queried for primary THAs (2008 to 2017) which were categorized into RA-THA, CA-THA, and M-THA. Past and projected use, demographic characteristics distribution, income, type of insurance, location, and healthcare setting were compared among the three cohorts. In-hospital complications, LOS, discharge disposition, and in-hospital costs were compared between propensity score-matched cohorts of M-THA versus RA-THA and M-THA versus CA-THA to adjust for baseline characteristics and comorbidities. Results. RA-THA and CA-THA did not exhibit any clinically meaningful reduction in mean LOS (RA-THA 2.2 days (SD 1.4) vs 2.3 days (SD 1.8); p < 0.001, and CA-THA 2.5 days (SD 1.9) vs 2.7 days (SD 2.3); p < 0.001, respectively) compared to their respective propensity score-matched M-THA cohorts. RA-THA, but not CA-THA, had similar non-home discharge rates to M-THA (RA-THA 17.4% vs 18.5%; p = 0.205, and 18.7% vs 24.9%; p < 0.001, respectively). Implant-related mechanical complications were lower in RA-THA (RA-THA 0.5% vs M-THA 3.1%; p < 0.001, and CA-THA 1.2% vs M-THA 2.2%; p < 0.001), which was associated with a significantly lower in-hospital dislocation (RA-THA 0.1% vs M-THA 0.8%; p < 0.001). Both RA-THA and CA-THA demonstrated higher mean higher index in-hospital costs (RA-THA $18,416 (SD $8,048) vs M-THA $17,266 (SD $8,396); p < 0.001, and CA-THA $20,295 (SD $8,975) vs M-THA $18,624 (SD $9,226); p < 0.001, respectively). Projections indicate that 23.9% and 3.2% of all THAs conducted in 2025 will be robotic arm- and computer-assisted, respectively. Projections indicated that RA-THA use may overtake M-THA by 2028 (48.3%) and reach 65.8% of all THAs by 2030. Conclusion. Technology-assisted THA, particularly RA-THA, may provide value by lowering in-hospital early dislocation rates and and other in-hospital metrics compared to M-THA. Higher index-procedure and hospital costs warrant further comprehensive cost analyses to determine the true added value of RA-THA in the episode of care, particularly since we project that one in four THAs in 2025 and two in three THA by 2030 will use RA-THA technology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1488–1496

The duration of systemic antibiotics following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, high concentration of targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy for two-stage hip revision. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospective database was performed to identify all intended two-stage hip revision procedures for PJI. All patients had a confirmed PJI as per MSIS 2013 criteria, minimum 5-years follow up and outcomes according to the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool; then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). 383 intended two-stage hip revisions were identified; of which 299 met our inclusion criteria, in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage). Median follow up was 10.7 years (IQR 6.3 – 15.0). 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation, although dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed with two-stage exchange or gram-positive PJI (86%); than for gram-negative PJI (81%) and polymicrobial infection (74%) (p=0.36). Fungal PJI was observed to have a significantly reduced rate of success (n=3; 33%; p=0.03). Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage to manage PJI of the hip provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

Ruling out an infection in one-stage knee and hip revisions for presumed aseptic failure by conventional tissue cultures takes up to 14 days. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a quick test (4–5 hours) for detecting infections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the negative predictive value of an automated multiplex PCR for the detection of microorganisms in synovial fluid obtained intraoperatively in unsuspected knee and hip revisions. The NPV of the multiplex PCR U-ITI system of synovial fluid compared to tissue cultures of knee and hip revisions was 95.7% and 92.5%, respectively. Cultures required several days for growth whereas the automated mPCR U-ITI system provided results within five hours. The multiplex PCR U-ITI system is a quick and reliable test in ruling out infection in presumed aseptic knee and hip revisions. With this test the number of unsuspected infected revisions can be lowered and antibiotic overtreatment as well as undertreatment after one-stage revision arthroplasty can be avoided. This directly results in a reduction in length of hospital stay, hospital costs and possible antibiotic resistance development

Implant-related infection is one of the leading reasons for failure in orthopaedics and trauma, and results in high social and economic costs. Various antibacterial coating technologies have proven to be safe and effective both in preclinical and clinical studies, with post-surgical implant-related infections reduced by 90% in some cases, depending on the type of coating and experimental setup used. Economic assessment may enable the cost-to-benefit profile of any given antibacterial coating to be defined, based on the expected infection rate with and without the coating, the cost of the infection management, and the cost of the coating. After reviewing the latest evidence on the available antibacterial coatings, we quantified the impact caused by delaying their large-scale application. Considering only joint arthroplasties, our calculations indicated that for an antibacterial coating, with a final user’s cost price of €600 and able to reduce post-surgical infection by 80%, each year of delay to its large-scale application would cause an estimated 35 200 new cases of post-surgical infection in Europe, equating to additional hospital costs of approximately €440 million per year. An adequate reimbursement policy for antibacterial coatings may benefit patients, healthcare systems, and related research, as could faster and more affordable regulatory pathways for the technologies still in the pipeline. This could significantly reduce the social and economic burden of implant-related infections in orthopaedics and trauma. Cite this article: C. L. Romanò, H. Tsuchiya, I. Morelli, A. G. Battaglia, L. Drago. Antibacterial coating of implants: are we missing something? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:199–206. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.85.BJR-2018-0316

Provision of prehabilitation prior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) through a digital mobile application is a novel concept. Our research evaluates a resource effective and cost effective method of delivering prehabilitation. The primary aim of our research is to determine whether provision of prehabilitation through a mobile digital application impacts inpatient LOS after TKA. The secondary objective is to understand the effect of digital prehabilitation on hospital costs. An observational, retrospective analysis was performed on a consecutive case series of 64 patients who underwent TKA by a single surgeon over a 21 month period. Exercise provision varied from 3 months to 2 weeks prior to TKA. The outcomes of rehabilitation length of stay, total length of stay and total hospital costs were statistically significantly at p=0.5. The rehabilitation length of stay was 3.79 days in the experimental and 7.33 days in the control group (p = 0.045), the total length of stay was 12.00 days in the control and 8.04 days in the experimental group (p=0.03) and the total cost of the hospital stay was $6357.35AUD for the control and $4343.22AUD for the experimental group (p=0.029). Our research shows a cost saving with this intervention, as measured by a reduction in rehabilitation length of stay. To our knowledge, this is the first piece of research that analyses the impact of the use of a digital mobile application providing prehabilitation prior to TKA

Abstract. Introduction. Approximately 15–20% of patients report chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). The STAR care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective personalised intervention for patients with pain 3 months after TKR. The pathway comprises screening, assesment, onward referral for treatment and follow-up over one year. In a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the pathway with usual care, the pathway improved pain at 6 and 12 months. This study examined the longer-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway. Methodology. STAR trial participants were followed-up at a median of 4 years post-randomisation. Co-primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity and interference in the replaced knee, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Resource use from electronic hospital records was valued with UK reference costs. Results. Of the 337 participants active at trial completion, 326 had confirmed vital status, and 226 (69%) provided outcome data at a median of 4 years. The between-group difference in mean BPI severity score was −0.42 (95% CI −1.07, 0.23; p=0.20) and for BPI interference was −0.64 (95% CI −1.41, 0.12; p=0.10), favouring the intervention. Multiple imputation analyses led to attenuations of about 0.2 points. Mean hospital admission costs over four years were £2461.49 (95% CI £1354.42, £3568.57) in the intervention arm and £3791.68 (95% CI £2095.12, to £5488.24) in usual care. Conclusion. These data are consistent with sustained benefits from the STAR care pathway at 4 years, albeit attenuated and with wider confidence intervals, in part attributable to attrition after 1 year

Purpose:. Total knee and hip arthroplasty is a commonly performed surgical procedure. As the population ages the numbers of these procedures are predicted to increase. Maximizing patient outcomes and decreasing healthcare delivery costs will be essential to creating a higher value U.S. healthcare system. The purpose of our study was to analyze the effect of a multidisciplinary preoperative education program (Joint Academy) on various outcomes that effect overall cost of primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods:. A retrospective review of 904 patients' charts that underwent primary total hip and knee arthroplasty from October 1, 2010 to September 31, 2011 at a single institution was performed. We then compared 102 patients who did not have preoperative education to 802 patients who did have preoperative education through the Joint Academy (JA). We looked at patient length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and internal hospital cost. Linear regression was performed on all data to look for statistical significance. Results:. We found that those patients that participated in JA had a length of stay that was 2.12 days less than those that did not participate in the Joint Academy. We also found that in the JA group, patients were 62% more likely to be discharged to home versus patients in the non-JA group. We also found that the JA group had lower internal hospital costs; with the JA group on average costing $1,493 less than the non-JA group. All referenced findings were statistically significant. Conclusion:. When looking at future global or episodic payment plans in the future all costs of care delivery will be scrutinized. To our knowledge internal hospital costs have not been evaluated in any other studies in regards to preoperative patient education. The decrease in variable costs seen at our institution with JA patients may help justify the benefit of allocating resources to preoperative patient education programs and in turn decrease the overall cost of hip and knee arthroplasty. Significance: The Joint Academy decreased patient length of stay, improved their chances of discharge to home, and decreased internal hospital costs. Multidisciplinary preoperative patient education may provide a cost efficient means to reduce overall healthcare cost and improve a patient's ability to return home more quickly

Background. There are advantages and disadvantages of Unicompartmental (UKR) and Total Knee Replacement, with UKR having better functional outcomes with fewer complications but a higher revision rate. The relative merits depend on patient characteristics. The aim was to compare UKR and TKR risk-benefits and cost-effectiveness in patients with severe systemic morbidity. Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland was linked to hospital inpatient and patient-reported outcomes data. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥3 undergoing UKR or TKR were identified. Propensity score stratification was used to compare 90-day complications and 5-year revision and mortality of 2,256 UKR and 57,682 TKR, and in a subset of 145 UKR and 23,344 TKR Oxford Knee Scores (OKS). A health-economic analysis was based on EQ-5D and NHS hospital costs. Results. The OKS was significantly better following UKR than TKR with a difference of 1.83 (95%CI 0.10–3.56). UKR was associated with lower relative risks of venous thromboembolism (0.33, CI0.15–0.74), myocardial infarction (0.73, CI0.36–1.45) and early joint infection (0.85, CI0.33–2.19) but only the decrease in venous thromboembolism was significant. The revision risk following UKR was significantly higher than following TKR (hazard ratio 2.70, CI2.15–3.38) and the mortality was significantly lower (0.52, CI0.36–0.74). At five years the cumulative incidence of revision was 8% higher with UKR, and the cumulative incidence of death was 13% lower. The health economic analysis found that UKR dominated TKR having lower costs (£359, CI340-378) and higher quality-of-life gains (0.33, CI-0.31–0.970). Conclusions. For patients with ASA ≥3, UKR was safer and more cost-effective than TKR. In particular if UKR was used instead of TKR the number of lives saved was higher than the number of extra revisions. UKR should be considered the first option for suitable patients with severe co-morbidity