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

Introduction. The number of revision hip arthroplasty procedures is rising annually with 7852 such operations performed in the UK in 2010. These are expensive procedures due to pre-operative investigation, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay, and pharmacological costs. There is a paucity of robust literature on the costs associated with the common indications for this surgery. Objective. We aim to quantify the cost of revision hip arthroplasty by indication and identify any short-fall in relation to the national tariff. Methods. Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1998 and 2008. These operations were categorised by indication into: aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical data included length of stay, operative time, estimated blood loss, prosthesis and instrumentation required. Financial data was collected on cost of implants, materials and augmentation utilised at time of surgery, operating room costs, recovery, inpatient stay, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy, radiographs and laboratory studies. Statistical analysis was undertaken using the SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, Il). Non-parametric bootstrap samples were used to obtain consistent 95% confidence intervals. Analysis of variance between groups was performed (p < 0.05). Results. The mean total cost of revision surgery in aseptic cases (n=194) was £11897 +/− 4629, septic revision (n=76) £21937 +/− 10965, peri-prosthetic fractures (n=24) £18185 +/− 9124, and in dislocations (n=11) £10893 +/− 5476. Conclusion. Revision procedures for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture were associated with significantly longer operative time, increased blood loss and a higher number of complications compared with revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly greater p< 0.001. Our study shows that financial costs vary significantly between revision subtypes which is not reflected by current National Health Service tariff rates

To compare the costs of treatment and income received for treating patients with tibial osteomyelitis, comparing limb salvage with amputation. We derived direct hospital costs of care for ten consecutive patients treated with limb salvage procedures and five consecutive patients who underwent amputation, for tibial osteomyelitis. We recorded all factors which affect the cost of treatment. Financial data from the Patient-Level Information and Costing System (PLICS) allowed calculation of hospital costs and income received from payment under the UK National Tariff. Hospital payment is based on primary diagnosis, operation code, length of stay, patient co-morbidities and supplements for custom implants or external fixators. Our primary outcome measure was net income/loss for each in-patient episode. The mean age of patients undergoing limb salvage was 55 years (range 34–83 years) whereas for amputation this was 61 years (range 51–83 years). Both groups were similar in Cierny and Mader Staging, requirement for soft-tissue reconstruction, anaesthetic technique, diagnostics, drug administration and antibiotic therapy. In the limb salvage group, there were two infected non-unions requiring Ilizarov method and five free flaps. Mean hospital stay was 15 days (10–27). Mean direct cost of care was €16,718 and mean income was €9,105, resulting in an average net loss of €7,613 per patient. Patients undergoing segmental resection with Ilizarov bifocal reconstruction and those with the longest length of stay generated the greatest net loss. In the amputation group, there were 3 above knee and 2 below knee amputations for failed previous treatment of osteomyelitis or infected non-union. Mean hospital stay was 13 days (8–17). Mean direct cost of care was €18,441 and mean income was €15,707, resulting in an average net loss of €2,734 per patient. Length of stay was directly proportional to net loss. The UK National Tariff structure does not provide sufficient funding for treatment of osteomyelitis of the tibia by either reconstruction or amputation. Average income for a patient admitted for limb salvage is €6,602 less than that for amputation even though the surgery is frequently more technically demanding (often requiring complex bone reconstruction and free tissue transfer) and the length of hospital stay is longer. Although both are significantly loss-making, the net loss for limb salvage is more than double that for amputation. This makes treatment of tibial osteomyelitis in the UK National Health Service unsustainable in the long term

Independent sector treatment centres (ISTCs) were introduced in October 2003 in the United Kingdom in order to reduce waiting times for elective operations and to improve patient choice and experience. Many concerns have been voiced from several authorities over a number of issues related to these centres. One of these concerns was regarding the practice of ‘cherry-picking’. Trusts are paid according to ‘payment by results’ at national tariffs. The national tariff is an average of costs occurring in an average mix of patients. The assumption is that the higher the co-morbidities of the patients the more likely they are to consume a higher amount of resource and to require a longer length of stay. Cherry-picking may also affect the quality of training available to trainees. This audit was aimed at identifying if, and how much this practice occurs. It also identifies what affect this has on the case-load of patients left for the NHS hospitals. We looked at the number of co-morbidities amongst 198 consecutive patients undergoing hip and knee primary total arthroplasty at an ISTC, a district general hospital whose PCTs provide patient to the ISTC (Doncaster Royal Infirmary - DRI), and a district general hospital in the same area whose PCT did not provide choice at that time and who therefore did not send patients to the ISTC (Bassetlaw District General Hospital - BDGH). We found a statistically significant difference in the number of co-morbidities per patient at the ISTC compared with the DRI (1.23 vs. 2.05) and the ISTC compared with the BDGH (1.23 vs. 1.76). We were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the DRI and the BDGH. We conclude that cherry-picking does take place, and further work should be done to assess the impact on training and finance

Aims

The primary aim is to estimate the current and potential number of patients on NHS England orthopaedic elective waiting lists by November 2020. The secondary aims are to model recovery strategies; review the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty from National Joint Registry (NJR) data; and assess the cost of returning to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers.