Chronic osteomyelitis is a challenging problem and a growing burden for the National Health Service. Conventional method of treatment is 2 stage surgery, with debridement and prolonged courses of antibiotics. Recently single stage treatment of chronic osteomyelitis is gaining popularity due decreased patient morbidity and cost effectiveness. Dead space management in single stage treatment is accomplished by either a muscle / myocutaneous or antibiotic loaded calcium sulphate beads. We analysed the cost effectiveness of two dead space management strategies in single stage treatment of osteomyelitis. Study is designed to analyse the health economics at 2 time points; 45 days post surgery and 2 years post surgery. We report preliminary results at 45 days post surgery. Setting – Level 1 trauma centre and university hospital. Approval – Ethics committee approved study. 10 patients in each group were retrospectively analysed through patient records. Each group was identified for standard demographics, duration of procedure, hospital stay, type and duration of postoperative antibiotics, number of out patient visits in first 45 days and recurrence of infection. Table attached details the results of both groups. In health technology assessment four quadrant model, CSB appears in quadrant II suggesting that it is more cost effective. Based on small data set and on assessment only evaluating cost, at 45 days assessment, antibiotic calcium sulphate beads from a Health Economic Cost Effectiveness Analysis offers a better economic outcome. This is holding constant the morbidity of the patients and effectiveness, assuming both treatments are standards of care, which is best evaluated at 24 months. Acknowledgements. Biocomposites for funding the cost of health economist

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.

Introduction. Retention and removal of children's orthopaedic metalwork is a contentious issue that has implications for current resource allocation, health economics, complication risks and can impact on future treatments. Understanding how to guide families make informed choices requires an overview of all the relevant evidence to date, and knowledge of where the evidence is lacking. Our aim was to systematically review the literature and provide a meta-analysis where possible, recommending either retention or removal. Materials and Methods. A search of the literature yielded 2420 articles, of which 22 papers were selected for the study analysis. Inclusion criteria: Any paper (evidence level I-IV) assessing the risks or benefits of retaining or removing orthopaedic metalwork in children. Exclusion criteria: Spinal implants; implant number < 40; < 75% recorded follow up; papers including implants in their analysis that always require removal; patients aged >18 years. Results. In total, 4988 patients (6412 implants) were included across all 22 studies. There was a significant amount of heterogenicity between studies. Overall the short term risks of metalwork retention and removal are low, with a few exceptions. In forearm plating re-fracture rates following removal were lower than those seen in studies looking at retained metalwork, provided removal occurred later than 12 months from the initial operation. Forearm re-fracture rates after removal of flexible nails significantly increased if removal was performed before 6 months. Major complications following routine metalwork removal from the proximal femur are relatively rare, with re-fracture rates of 1–5%. The majority of these re-fractures are seen in neuromuscular patients or in patients where removal occurs earlier than 6 months. Routine metalwork removal following SUFE had a complication rate of 30–60%. Conclusions. We found that there are certain subgroups of children that benefit from retention of metalwork and some that benefit from removal. There are several subgroups that we have identified which do not yet have sufficient long term evidence to make a balanced recommendation. We advise that families are made aware of what is known and what is unknown in order to allow for shared decision making

Increasing pressure to use rapid recovery care pathways when treating patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) is evident in current health care systems for numerous reasons. Patient autonomy and health care economics has challenged the ability of THA implants to maintain functional integrity before achieving bony union. Although collared stems have been shown to provide improved axial stability, it is unclear if this stability correlates with activity levels or results in improved early function to patients compared to collarless stems. This study aims to examine the role of implant design on patient activity and implant fixation. The early follow-up period was examined as the majority of variation between implants is expected during this time-frame. Patients (n=100) with unilateral hip OA who were undergoing primary THA surgery were recruited pre-operatively to participate in this prospective randomized controlled trial. All patients were randomized to receive either a collared (n=50) or collarless (n=50) cementless femoral stem. Patients will be seen at nine appointments (pre-operative, < 2 4 hours post-operation, two-, four-, six-weeks, three-, six-months, one-, and two-years). Patients completed an instrumented timed up-and-go (TUG) test using wearable sensors at each visit, excluding the day of their surgery. Participants logged their steps using Fitbit activity trackers and a seven-day average prior to each visit was recorded. Patients also underwent supine radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging < 2 4 hours post-operation prior to leaving the hospital, and at all follow-up appointments. Nineteen collared stem patients and 20 collarless stem patients have been assessed. There were no demographic differences between groups. From < 2 4 hours to two weeks the collared implant subsided 0.90 ± 1.20 mm and the collarless implant subsided 3.32 ± 3.10 mm (p=0.014). From two weeks to three months the collared implant subsided 0.65 ± 1.54 mm and the collarless implant subsided 0.45 ± 0.52 mm (p=0.673). Subsidence following two weeks was lower than prior to two weeks in the collarless group (p=0.02) but not different in the collared group. Step count was reduced at two weeks compared to pre-operatively by 4078 ± 2959 steps for collared patients and 4282 ± 3187 steps for collarless patients (p=0.872). Step count increased from two weeks to three months by 6652 ± 4822 steps for collared patients and 4557 ± 2636 steps for collarless patients (p=0.289). TUG test time was increased at two weeks compared to pre-operatively by 4.71 ± 5.13 s for collared patients and 6.54 ± 10.18 s for collarless patients (p=0.551). TUG test time decreased from two weeks to three months by 7.21 ± 5.56 s for collared patients and 8.38 ± 7.20 s for collarless patients (p=0.685). There was no correlation between subsidence and step count or TUG test time. Collared implants subsided less in the first two weeks compared to collarless implants but subsequent subsidence after two weeks was not significantly different. The presence of a collar on the stem did not affect patient activity and function and these factors were not correlated to subsidence, suggesting that initial fixation is instead primarily related to implant design

The high and ever increasing cost of medical care worldwide has driven a trend toward new payment models. Event based models (such as bundled payment for surgical events) have shown a greater potential for care and cost improvement than population-based models (such as accountable care organizations). Since joint replacement is among the most frequent and costly surgical events in medicine, bundled payments for joint replacement episodes have been at the forefront of evolution from fee-for-service to value-based care models and episode-based healthcare reform in general. Our education as surgeons in medical school, residency, fellowship, and in continuing education has been almost entirely non-economic in focus. Yet, we surgeons are now evolving from being primarily responsive for our patients' medical care to being also responsible for all expenditures associated with our patients' care. Similarly, while the cost of our patients' care was not even available to us, every dollar of expenditure for a patient's episode of care is now available to us in some circumstances. For example, a typical primary joint replacement episode may cost $30,000 for a patient insured by Medicare in the US. A surgeon performing 400 joint replacements per year is therefore authorizing upwards of $12M a year in health care spending by making the decisions to perform reconstructive procedures on those patients. The risk for value-based surgical episodes of care can be born by various entities including hospital systems or the surgeons themselves. Recent evidence demonstrates that quality improves and cost decreases more rapidly when surgeons take primary responsibility and risk for episodes of care as compared to when a hospital system or third party takes primary responsibility and risk. Yet, as surgeons, our education in the field of medical economics, value-based episodes of care, and payment reform is only just beginning. The more we understand about the cost and value of the services that we order for our patients, the more leadership can provide as healthcare evolves. The current presentation will describe the specific cost of care for the primary joint replacement patient preliminary experience with accepting risk and responsibility for these patients. It is likely that our patients will be best served if we surgeons provide as much leadership as possible in their care, both medically and economically

The NDI is a simple 10-item questionnaire used to assess patients with neck pain. The original validation was performed on 52 patients with neck pain and the test-retest on 17 whiplash patients with a 2-day interval. The SF36 measures functional ability, wellbeing and the overall health of patients. It is used in health economics to assess the health utility, gain and economic impact of medical interventions. Objectives were to independently validate the NDI in patients with neck pain and to draw comparison between the NDI and SF36. 160 patients with neck pain attending the spinal clinic completed self-assessment questionnaires. A second questionnaire was completed in 34 patients after a period of 1-2 weeks. The internal consistency of the NDI and SF36 was calculated using Cronbach alpha. The test-retest reliability was assessed using the Bland and Altman method and the concurrent validity between the two questionnaires was assessed using Pearson correlation. Both questionnaires showed robust internal consistency: SF36 alpha = 0.878 (se=0.014, 95%CI=0.843 to 0.906) and NDI = 0.864 (se=0.017, 95%CI=0.825 to 0.894). The NDI had significant correlation to all eight domains of the SF36 (p<0.001). The individual scores for each of the ten items had significant correlation with the total disability score (p<0.001). The test-retest reliability of the NDI was acceptable. We have shown irrefutably that the NDI has good reliability and validity and that it stands up well to the SF36

Current health economics forces the clinician to consider the cost of treatment. Currently in Fife Hospitals, all lower limb injuries likely to require operative treatment are admitted from the Accident and Emergency department on the day of injury. The aim of this investigation was to see if non-emergency trauma cases could be managed pre-operatively as outpatients to reduce costs. We prospectively recorded all patients admitted with lower limb trauma excluding neck of femur fractures, requiring operative treatment over an eleven-week period. The senior author reviewed all patients and a clinical judgment was made as to whether the patient could have been safely managed as an outpatient pre-operatively. 61 patients met the inclusion criteria. Average age 41.8 (Range 8-66). The three most common fractures were 23(38%) ankle fractures, 15(25%) tibial fractures and 8(13%) femoral shaft fractures. 28(46%) fractures were deemed safe to have been managed preoperatively on an outpatient basis. 14/23(61%) ankle fractures were deemed safe to be discharged home. The average pre-operative stay was 1.38 nights (Range 1-4 nights). By initiating a simple policy of allowing uncomplicated ankle fracture patients to wait at home and return on the morning of surgery it is possible to reduce inpatient occupancy by 64 nights per year in our department. At a cost of £518 per patient per night, this could result in a saving of around £33,000 in unnecessary overnight inpatient stays. In order to achieve this, clear clinical guidance for admitting doctors is necessary and further prospective research should be conducted into the risk/benefit of implementing this policy

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of human recombinant osteogenic protein 1 (rhBMP-7) for the treatment of fracture non-unions and to estimate the health economics aspect of its administration. Twenty-four patients (18 males, mean age 39.1 (range 18-79)) with 25 fracture non-unions were treated with rhBMP-7 in our institution (mean follow-up 15.4 months (range 6-29)). Successful completion of treatment was defined as the achievement of both clinical and radiological union. The cost of each treatment episode was estimated including hospital stay, theatre time, orthopaedic implants, drug administration, investigations, clinic attendances, and physiotherapy treatments. The total cost of all episodes up to the point of receiving BMP-7 and similarly following treatment with BMP-7 were estimated and analysed. Of the 25 cases, 21 were atrophic (3 associated with bone loss) and 4 were infected non-unions. The mean number of operations performed prior to rhBMP-7 application was 3.4, including autologous bone graft in 9 cases and bone marrow injection in one case. In 21 out of the 25 cases (84%), both clinical and radiological union occurred. Mean hospital stay before and after receiving rhBMP-7 was 26.84 days per fracture and 7.8 days per fracture respectively. Total cost of treatments prior to BMP-7 was £346,117 [£13,844.68 per fracture]. Costs incurred following BMP-7 administration were estimated as £183,460 [£7,338.4 per fracture]. rhBMP-7 was used as a bone stimulating agent with or without conventional bone grafting with a success rate of 84% in this series of patients with persistent fracture non-unions. The average cost of its application was £7,338 [53.0% of the total costs of previous unsuccessful treatment of non –unions, p<0.05). Treating non-union is costly, but the financial burden could be reduced by early rhBMP-7 administration when a complicated or persistent non-union is present or anticipated. Therefore, this study supports the view that rhBMP-7 is a safe and power adjunct to be considered in the surgeon's armamentarium for the management of such difficult cases

New technology in joint replacement design and materials adds cost which must be documented by improved outcomes. This is not always the case as the recent metal/metal data has shown. The current economics of arthroplasty surgery have put increasing financial pressure on hospitals and will progress under new health care legislation. New technology must be cost effective and this will be increasingly difficult in an era of outstanding long term results with current designs. Cost may necessitate less expensive alternatives, e.g. generic implants, in arthroplasty patients. Joint replacement surgery has evolved over the past four decades into a highly successful surgical procedure. Earlier designs and materials which demonstrated inferior functional and long term results have disappeared in a Darwinian fashion. Through this evolutionary process many of the current designs have proven efficacy and durability. Current outcome data indicates that hip and knee designs demonstrate 90–95% success rates at 15 year follow-up. Technologic advances are necessary to improve implant design and materials, however, in an environment of reduced reimbursement to hospitals can the increase cost be justified. The rationale that technology in medicine would be expensive at the outset yet be cost effective eventually has in many areas not been the case. Currently about one half of the rapid increase in health care costs in relation to GNP may be attributed to technology. Uwe Reinhardt, an economist at Princeton University, in referring to new technology has stated that the health care system provides misaligned incentives that create over-utilisation or misutilisation of everything that is new. It is now common knowledge among health care economists that if the cost of health care is to be controlled the growth of technology must be constrained. Increasingly as new technology emerges the question will be: what is the cost-benefit analysis. A new era of comparative effectiveness research is being launched and will become predominant in medicine and arthroplasty surgery in the future. What is the newest may not always be the best. According to Reinhardt there is a need for comparative effectiveness studies of emerging and existing technology so that the new can be priced in a way that reflects its incremental value. New technology must demonstrate its benefit to justify its cost, often in arthroplasty there is little data available to document these better outcomes. In a recent study by Bozic the cost effectiveness of new technologies were evaluated. Based on the authors' findings for an alternative bearing with an incremental cost of $2000 to be cost saving for a 50 year old there would have to be a 19% reduction in 20 year failure rates. The likelihood of cost savings for these alternate bearings in patients 63 or older is highly unlikely at current costs. Newer biomaterials (metal/metal, ceramic/ceramic, highly cross linked polyethylene) also have limited outcome analysis in patients beyond short to mid-term follow-up evaluation and all of these technologies add significant cost to the implant. With diminishing reimbursement careful analysis of utilisation of these newer technologies must be weighed if hospitals are to maintain economic viability. The pharmaceutical, airline, and food industries have all moved toward generic products which are less costly and this will be the trend in the future in prosthetic implants as well. Newer technologies must demonstrate their efficacy in long term follow-up and be clearly superior to conventional implants. This is not always the case as new data on metal-metal implants is demonstrating. Change is not always progress