Previous Knee Surgery, Anteromedial Portal Drilling, Quadriceps Tendon Autograft, and Meniscal Involvement Associated With Delayed Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Amateur Athletes.

Purpose: To identify prognostic factors associated with a delayed return-to-sport (RTS) time in amateur athletes who return to full participation after a primary isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective review was performed among athletes who underwent ACL reconstruction between October 2014 and October 2021. Inclusion criteria were any amateur athletes with an ACL reconstruction who had a documented RTS and greater than 1-year follow-up. Nonathletes, those with multiligamentous knee injury, and those missing documented RTS timelines were excluded. RTS was defined as participation in athletics at a level equivalent to or greater than the preinjury level participation. Demographic and prognostic factors, including previous knee surgery, meniscal involvement, level of participation, surgical approach, and graft type, were recorded along with RTS time and analyzed via Poisson regression. Results: In total, 91 athletes, average age 18.8 (± 6.7) years, who underwent ACL reconstruction at a single institution from 2014 to 2021 were identified with an average follow-up time of 4.6 (± 2.5) years (range 1.1, 9.0). Meniscal involvement (1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.15, P < .001) and previous knee surgery (1.43; 95% CI 1.29-1.58; P < .001) were related to a delayed RTS. Quadriceps tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts, as well as allograft, showed a significant association with a longer RTS time when compared with hamstring autograft (1.16, 95% CI 1.13-1.20, P < .001; 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, P = .020; 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19, P = .004, respectively), as did anteromedial portal drilling, when compared with the outside in approach for femoral drilling (1.19, 95% CI 1.16-1.23, P < .001). Conclusions: Previous knee surgery, anteromedial femoral drilling, quadriceps tendon autograft, and meniscus tear were most associated with a delayed timeline for RTS among young athletes who were able to return. Level of Evidence: Level IV, prognostic case series.

Rising Costs and Diminishing Surgeon Reimbursement From Primary to Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Medicare Advantage and Commercial Insurance.

BACKGROUND: Revision total joint arthroplasty (rTJA) is a resource-intensive procedure addressing failed primary total joint hip (total hip arthroplasty [THA]) and knee arthroplasty (total knee arthroplasty [TKA]). Despite predictions of increased demand, reimbursement for rTJA has not kept pace with increasing costs and may be insufficient compared with primary procedures. The study aimed to highlight the diminishing surgeon reimbursement between primary and revision THA (rTHA) and TKA. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of billing data for primary and rTHA and TKA procedures from a single institution between 2019 and 2022. Insurance claims and charges data were provided by a local affiliate of a major national carrier which includes Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercial patients. Using insurance data, the study evaluates the total surgery costs for primary and rTHA and TKA and the individual charges that make up the total surgery cost. RESULTS: Nine hundred five patients insured by the same carrier, who underwent a primary or rTJA, were identified. Irrespective of MA or commercial insurance, the average surgery cost for a primary THA was $26,043, compared with $53,456 for rTHA. Surgeon reimbursement for primary THA was 20% ($5,323) of the total surgery cost. Despite the doubled surgery cost for rTHA, surgeon reimbursement was 10% ($5,257) of the total surgery cost. Primary TKA surgery costs were $24,489, while revision costs were $43,074. Surgeon reimbursement for primary TKA was 20% ($4,918) of the total surgery cost, while reimbursement for revision TKA was 13% ($5,560). MA reimbursement was markedly lower than commercial reimbursement for primary and revision cases. CONCLUSION: Despite the higher total costs for rTJA, surgeon reimbursement is disproportionately diminished. The findings highlight the lack of incentive for revision cases. Surgeon reimbursement from MA and commercially insured patients for rTJA remains inadequate. This may limit patient access-to-care, leading to suboptimal outcomes and increased healthcare utilization.

Identification of Surgeon Outliers to Improve Cost Efficiency: A Novel Use of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Quality Payment Program.

BACKGROUND: Bundled payment programs for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have become popular among both private and public payers. Because these programs provide surgeons with financial incentives to decrease costs through reconciliation payments, there is an advantage to identifying and emulating cost-efficient surgeons. The objective of this study was to utilize the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Program (QPP) in combination with institutional data to identify cost-efficient surgeons within our region and, subsequently, identify cost-saving practice patterns. METHODS: Data was obtained from the CMS QPP for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgeons within a large metropolitan area from January 2019 to December 2021. A simple linear regression determined the relationship between surgical volume and cost-efficiency. Internal practice financial data determined whether patients of identified surgeons differed with respect to x-ray visits, physical therapy visits, out-of-pocket payments to the practice, and whether surgery was done in hospital or surgical center settings. RESULTS: There were 4 TKA and 3 THA surgeons who were cost-efficiency outliers within our area. Outliers and nonoutlier surgeons had patients who had similar body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Score, and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index scores. Patients of these surgeons had fewer x-ray visits for both TKA and THA (1.06 versus 1.11, P < .001; 0.94 versus 1.15, P < .001) and lower out-of-pocket costs ($86.10 versus $135.46, P < .001; $116.10 versus $177.40, P < .001). If all surgeons performing > 30 CMS cases annually within our practice achieved similar cost-efficiency, the savings to CMS would be $17.2 million for TKA alone ($75,802,705 versus $93,028,477). CONCLUSIONS: The CMS QPP can be used to identify surgeons who perform cost-efficient surgeries. Practice patterns that result in cost savings can be emulated to decrease the cost curve, resulting in reconciliation payments to surgeons and institutions and cost savings to CMS.

Analysis of Costs Associated With Increased Length of Stay After Total Joint Arthroplasty at a Single Private Practice.

INTRODUCTION: As the demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) increases, so does the financial burden of these services. Despite efforts to optimize spending and bundled care payments, THA and TKA costs still need to be assessed. Our study explores the relationship between perioperative costs and length of stay (LOS) for THA and TKA. METHODS: A total of 614 patients undergoing THA or TKA at a single private practice with LOS from zero to 3 days were identified. All patients were insured by private or Medicare Advantage insurance from a single provider. Primary outcomes included total costs and their relationship with LOS, classified into surgeon reimbursement, facility costs, and anesthesia costs. Secondary outcomes included readmission rates and discharge disposition. Analyses involved Student t-test, analysis of variance, and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Longer LOS was associated with increased total, facility, and anesthesia costs. Costs for THA patients were stable except for reduced surgeon reimbursement with longer LOS. Patients undergoing TKA experienced an increase in facility costs with longer LOS. Total facility and anesthesia costs increased with LOS for Medicare Advantage patients, but surgeon reimbursement remained stable. Privately insured patients experienced higher total and facility costs but stable surgeon reimbursement and anesthesia costs regardless of LOS. CONCLUSION: Our study shows an increase in total cost with longer LOS, especially pronounced in privately insured patients. A notable reduction was observed in the surgeon reimbursement for Medicare Advantage patients with extended LOS. These findings underscore the need for efficient surgical practices and postoperative care strategies to optimize hospital stays and control costs.

The Effect of Cemented Implants Placed During Initial TKA on Surgical Time and Expenses in Revision TKA.

INTRODUCTION: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a complex procedure that often requires the removal of previous implants. There is little information evaluating the difference between removing cemented or noncemented knee prostheses in revision surgeries. The purpose of this study was to determine whether removing cemented or noncemented implants would affect surgical time and expenses incurred during revision procedures. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a single-institution database to identify 300 patients who underwent femoral and tibial implant rTKA from 2016 to 2022 because of mechanical complications (infection cases excluded). Radiographs and surgical reports were used to confirm whether the fixation technique was cemented (N = 243) or noncemented (N = 57). The primary outcomes were surgical time and surgery costs. Secondary outcomes included readmission rates, revision implants used, stem usage, and insurance type. RESULTS: The average surgical time was 121 minutes for noncemented and 128 minutes for cemented procedures (P = 0.118). The 90-day readmission rates for each group were similar at 7.00% for the cemented cohort and 8.77% for the noncemented cohort (P = 0.643). For patients with Medicare Advantage, the respective surgery costs were $1,966 for noncemented and $1,968 for cemented TKA (P = 0.988). For patients with commercial insurance, the respective surgery costs were $4,854 for noncemented and $5,660 for cemented TKA (P = 0.330). CONCLUSION: Primary knee fixation type, cemented or noncemented, did not appear to influence the surgical duration or surgical costs of both-implant revision knee surgery indicated for mechanical complications.

Early Anterior Cruciate Ligament Treatment Might Be Crucial for Acute Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review of the Various Treatment Strategies.

PURPOSE: To assess the outcomes of acute, combined, complete anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in the literature. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Reviews was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of complete ACL-MCL injuries at a minimum of 12 months' follow-up. Data were presented as ranges. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies with 821 patients were included (mean age, 29 years; 61% male patients; mean follow-up period, 27 months). There were 4 randomized trials, 10 Level III studies, and 13 Level IV studies. Nine different strategies were noted, of which nonoperative MCL treatment with acute ACL reconstruction and acute MCL repair with acute ACL reconstruction were most commonly performed. Nonoperative MCL-ACL treatment and acute MCL repair with nonoperative ACL treatment led to low rates of valgus stability at 30° of flexion (27%-68% and 36%-77%, respectively) compared with acute ACL reconstruction with either nonoperative MCL treatment (80%-100%), acute MCL repair (65%-100%), or acute MCL reconstruction (81%-100%). Lysholm scores were not different between the strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes in this systematic review suggest that ACL stabilization in the acute setting might result in the lowest rates of residual valgus laxity, whereas there is no clear difference between the different MCL treatments along with acute ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative MCL treatment with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, as well as acute MCL repair with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, leads to higher rates of valgus laxity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Low Recurrence of Instability and Satisfying Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Various Surgical Treatments of Reverse Hill-Sachs Lesions in the Setting of Posterior Instability: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature and report the outcomes of various surgical treatments for reverse Hill-Sachs lesions (RHSL) in the setting of posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. All studies assessing outcomes of surgical treatment of RHSL from inception to January 2023 were identified in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies reporting outcomes, minimum mean 1-year follow-up, and minimum Level IV evidence. Outcomes were assessed using Forest plots with random effects models using R software. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies consisting of 291 patients were included with a mean age of 42 years (range 16-88 years), 87% male gender, and mean follow-up of 4.5 years. The mean size of impacted or affected cartilage was 35%, and time from injury to surgery was mean 15 weeks. Nearly all studies were Level IV evidence, and quality of studies was low. Random effect models were performed, and data are presented as range. A low incidence of instability was noted for all surgical techniques with good patient-reported outcome measures. Most studies reported outcomes of the modified McLaughlin procedure (13 studies, 126 patients) with overall Constant-Murley Score of 65 to 92. Trends were seen towards better Constant-Murley Score and external rotation with a shorter delay between injury, and when arthroscopic and joint preserving treatments were performed. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed low rates of instability recurrence, reproducible range of motion, and favorable patient-reported outcome measures were reported following all treatments for RHSLs with posterior instability. There was a significant association between better outcomes and a shorter delay between injury and surgery. The level of evidence is limited, given the small and retrospective studies which can be explained by the rarity of these injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Closing Time: One Last Call for Patient Preference.

Background: Wound closure method in total hip and knee arthroplasty is a controversial topic with no differences in clinical outcomes between surgical staples (SS) and subcutaneous sutures with Dermabond (SCD). When clinically appropriate, providers should focus more on what the patient may prefer. This study aimed to collect data on patient preference between SS and SCD and analyze differences in preference based on gender and previous surgical histories. Methods: Patients were surveyed on their wound closure preferences prior to surgery. The handout given collected preference and patient demographics. Risk ratios and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated along with Firth-corrected logistic regressions. Results: A total of 163 participants were analyzed (53% female) (average age = 63.8 years), in which 12 participants selected SS as their preferred method. Males demonstrated no difference in relative risk (risk ratio: 2.3 [95% CI: 0.7, 7.3], P = .150) or absolute risk (risk difference: 5.9 [-2.2, 14.1], P = .156) in choosing SS over SCD. Patients that previously sustained SS for other surgeries demonstrated no difference in adjusted odds (adjusted: 0.9 [95% CI: 0.2, 3.2], P = .839) in choosing SS over SCD. Conclusion: More patients favored SCD over SS. There was no difference in preferences based on gender or previous surgical history. Current literature shows that successful wound closure is achieved with minimized risks for infection and other complications using both methods. Providers should adopt a patient-centric approach and perform the closure method that most patients prefer when medically warranted.