With an ageing population and an increasing number of primary arthroplasties performed, the revision burden is predicted to increase. The aims of this study were to 1. Determine the revision burden in an academic hospital over a 11-year period; 2. identify the direct hospital cost associated with the delivery of revision service and 3. ascertain factors associated with increased cost.

This is an IRB-approved, retrospective, single tertiary referral center, consecutive case series. Using the hospital data warehouse, all patients that underwent revision hip or knee arthroplasty surgery between 2008-2018 were identified. 1632 revisions were identified (1304 patients), consisting of 1061 hip and 571 knee revisions. The majority of revisions were performed for mechanical-related problems and aseptic loosening (n=903; 55.3%); followed by periprosthetic joint infection (n=553; 33.9%) and periprosthetic fractures (176; 10.8%). Cost and length of stay was determined for all patient. The direct in-hospital costs were converted to 2020 inflation-adjusted Canadian dollars. Several patients- (age; gender; HOMR- and ASA-scores; Hemoglobin level) and surgical- (indication for surgery; surgical site) factors were tested for possible associations.

The number of revisions increased by 210% in the study period (2008 vs. 2018: 83 vs. 174). Revision indications changed over study period; with prevalence of fracture increasing by 460% (5 in 2008 vs. 23 in 2018) with an accompanying reduction in mechanical-related reasons, whilst revisions for infection remained constant. The mean annual cost over the entire study period was 3.9 MMCAD (range:2.4–5.1 MMCAD). The cost raised 150% over the study period from 2.4 MMCAD in 2008 to 3.6 MMCAD. Revisions for fractured had the greatest length of stay, the highest mean age, HOMR-score, ASA and cost associated with treatment compared to other revision indications (p < 0 .001). Patient factors associated with cost and length of stay included ASA- and HOMR-scores, Charlson-Comorbidity score and age.

The revision burden increased 1.5-fold over the years and so has the direct cost of care delivery. The increased cost is primarily related to the prolonged hospital stay and increased surgical cost. For tertiary care units, these findings indicate a need to identify strategies on improving efficiencies whilst improving the quality of patient care (e.g. efficient ways of reducing acute hospital stay) and reducing the raise of the economic burden on a publicly funded health system.

The optimal approach to arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff is controversial, and both single row and double row fixation methods are commonly used. Which construct yields the highest efficacy is not clear. Given the current era of increasing costs in which health care delivery models are aiming for improved efficiencies and optimal outcomes, a cost-effectiveness study was performed to inform the decision making process of the utilisation of single versus double row repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single row versus double row constructs in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

A cost-utility analysis was performed. Health resource use and outcome data were obtained from a previous prospective randomised controlled trial in which 90 patients were randomised to two treatment arms, single row rotator cuff repair (n=48) and double row (n=42). The patients were followed over a two-year span from the time of initial surgery. Unit cost data were captured using case costs collected from the hospital database and the Ontario Schedule of Benefits. Utility values were derived from published literature. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in cost between the two types of rotator cuff fixation divided by the difference in quality adjusted life years (QALY), was determined.

Double row fixation was more costly ($2,279.94 versus $1,587.37) but was more effective than the single row method (QALY of 4.073 versus 4.055). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be $38,504.92 per QALY for double row fixation relative to single row. This is well below the commonly used willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm) had a lower ICER, suggesting that double-row fixation may be more cost-effective in more severe tears.

Double row rotator cuff fixation is a cost-effective option compared to single row rotator cuff repair with an ICER of $38,504.92/QALY, well within the accepted willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Furthermore, the ICER between single and double row fixation improved with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm), suggesting an additional benefit of a double row construct in those cases.