Arthroplasty implants and materials: Cost awareness and value perception.

Arthroplasty procedures are commonly performed and contribute to healthcare expenditures seen in the United States. Surgical team members may make selections among implants and materials without always knowing their relative cost. The current study reports on a survey aimed to investigate the perceptions of an academic group about the relative cost and value of commonly used operating room implants and materials related to joint arthroplasty cases using 10 matched pairs of items. Of the 124 persons eligible to take the survey, 102 responded (response rate of 82.3%) including attendings, fellows, residents, physician assistants (PAs), advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and registered nurses (RNs). On average for the ten pairs of items, the more expensive items were correctly selected by 90.2+/-13.9% (mean+/- standard deviation) of respondents with a range from 54.9% to 100%. Of note, the cost differences were significantly overestimated for 8/10 item pairs. The majority of respondents perceived the more expensive item as the item with the higher clinical value for 9/10 item pairs. Most arthroplasty attendings (91.3%) indicated willingness to use the less expensive item of two similar items. Nonetheless, 17.9% of fellows, residents, PAs, APRNs and RNs indicated that they would not feel comfortable suggesting using the less expensive item. Although attending arthroplasty surgeons stated a desire to consider costs, a knowledge deficit with regards to identifying the extent of cost differences was identified, and a significant portion of the surgical support team reported being hesitant to suggest less expensive options.

Reduced incidence and economic cost of hardware removal after ankle fracture surgery: a 20-year nationwide registry study.

Background and purpose - Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a treatment method for unstable ankle fractures. During recent years, scientific evidence has shed light on surgical indications as well as on hardware removal. We assessed the incidence and trends of hardware removal procedures following ORIF of ankle fractures.Patients and methods - The study covered all patients 18 years of age and older who had an ankle fracture treated with ORIF in Finland between the years 1997 and 2016. Patient data were obtained from the Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register.Results - 68,865 patients had an ankle fracture treated with ORIF in Finland during the 20-year study period between 1997 and 2016. A hardware removal procedure was performed on 27% of patients (n = 18,648). The incidence of hardware removal procedures after ankle fracture decreased from 31 (95% CI 29-32) per 100,000 person-years in the highest year 2001 (n = 1,247) to 13 (CI 12-14) per 100,000 person-years in 2016 (n = 593). Moreover, the proportion and number of removal operations performed within the first 3 months also decreased. The costs of removal procedures decreased from approximately €994,000 in 2001 to €472,600 in 2016.Interpretation - Removal of hardware after ankle surgery (ORIF) is a common operation with substantial costs. However, the incidence and cost of removals decreased during the study period, with a particular decrease in hardware removal operations within 3 months.

Periprosthetic infection in elderly patients treated with hemiarthroplasty of the hip following intracapsular fracture. Should we use antibiotic-loaded bone cement? / Infección periprótesica en pacientes ancianos tratados mediante hemiartroplastia de cadera tras fractura intracapsular. ¿Debemos usar cementación con antibiótico?

INTRODUCTION: Prosthetic infections are a potentially devastating complication, especially in elderly patients. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement has been used both as a treatment and prophylaxis in prosthetic infection, and its use is not well documented in the prophylaxis of infection in patients who have suffered a hip fracture. MATERIAL: A retrospective descriptive was performed. The data were obtained from all the patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty due to a subcapital fracture between 2011 and 2017 (N=241). An epidemiological study of the patients studied was carried out. We analysed the incidence of periprosthetic infection in the groups treated with cement without antibiotic and antibiotic-loaded bone cement, as well as the protective effect of the antibiotic-loaded bone cement. At the same time, a pilot cost analysis study was carried out. RESULTS: In the group that received antibiotic-loaded bone cement (n=94) there were 8 infections (8%), while in the group with cement without antibiotic (n=147) there were 28 infections (19%). The odds ratio (OR) was calculated, showing a 55.3% reduction in the risk of developing late infection in the group that received cement with antibiotic (95% CI: 6.2-78.7%, P=.0025). The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement led to significant cost savings per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement is a protective factor in the development of late infection after hip hemiarthroplasty surgery in elderly patients with hip fracture.

Percutaneous Vertebroplasty: A History of Procedure, Technology, Culture, Specialty, and Economics.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) progressed from a virtually unknown procedure to one performed on hundreds of thousands of patients annually. The development of VP provides a historically exciting case study into a rapidly adopted procedure. VP was the synthesis of information gained from spinal biopsy developments, the inception of biomaterials used in medicine, and the unique health care climate in France during the 1980s. It was designed as a revolutionary technique to treat vertebral body fractures with minimal side effects and was rapidly adopted and marketed in the United States. The impact of percutaneous vertebroplasty on spine surgery was profound.

The Economics of Antibiotic Cement in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Added Cost with No Reduction in Infection Rates.

BACKGROUND: To reduce the substantial clinical and financial burden of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), some surgeons advocate for the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), although its effectiveness continues to be debated in the literature. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the routine use of ALBC is cost-effective in reducing PJI after primary TKA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing cemented primary TKA at two hospitals within our institution from 2015 to 2017. We compared demographics, comorbidities, costs, and PJI rates between patients receiving ALBC and plain cement. We performed a multivariate regression analysis to determine the independent effect of ALBC on PJI rate. We calculated readmission costs for PJI and reduction in PJI needed to justify the added cost of ALBC. RESULTS: Of 2511 patients, 1077 underwent TKA with ALBC (43%), with no difference in PJI rates (0.56% vs 0.14%, P = .0662) or complications (1.2% vs 1.6%, P = .3968) but higher cement costs ($416 vs $117, P < .0001) and overall procedure costs ($6445 vs $5.968, P < .0001). ALBC had no effect on infection rate (P = .0894). Patients readmitted with PJI had higher overall 90-day episode-of-care claims costs ($49,341 vs $19,032, P < .001). To justify additional costs, ALBC would need to prevent infection in one of every 101 patients. CONCLUSION: Routine use of ALBC in primary TKA is not cost-effective, adding $299 to the cost of episode of care without a reduction in PJI rate. Further study is needed to determine whether select use of ALBC would be justified in high-risk patients.

Cost-Effective Technique of Fabrication of Polymethyl Methacrylate Based Cranial Implant Using Three-Dimensional Printed Moulds and Wax Elimination Technique.

OBJECTIVE: Cranioplasty is one of the oldest known neurosurgical procedure performed. Many materials have been used for cranioplasty since ages. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) has become the workhorse for fabrication of cranial implants since World War II in cases where autologous bone is not available or cannot be harvested. The aim of the present study is to present author's experience in the management of cranioplasty using acrylic implants fabricated using 2 different techniques. METHODS: The author conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with extensive skull defects undergoing acrylic cranioplasties between October 2016 and January 2018. The surgical results were classified based on surgical time, blood loss, and the 3 scales of patient satisfaction, improvement of facial symmetry, and need for additional surgery along with the rate of wound complications. RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent cranioplasty with PMMA-based implants, whether fabricated using alginate impression technique (56.67%) or fabricated using 3-dimensional (3D) printed patient-specific moulds (43.33%). Complications included infection (13.3%). The authors considered the craniofacial aesthetics based on patient satisfaction excellent (69%) with the degree of improvement of craniofacial symmetry satisfactory (92.3%), and 1 patient requiring resurgery in alginate impression technique fabricated implants. CONCLUSION: The author recommends a unique technique for fabrication of PMMA-based implants using 3D printed moulds to achieve a better fitting implant and highly cosmetic outcome for cranioplasty at affordable cost.

Polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty using low-cost customised 3D printed moulds for cranial defects - a single Centre experience: technical note.

We report our experience with 3D customised cranioplasties for large cranial defects. They were made by casting bone cement in custom made moulds at the time of surgery. Between October 2015 and January 2018, 29 patients underwent the procedure; 25 underwent elective cranioplasties for large cranial defects and four were bone tumour resection and reconstruction cases. The majority of patients (96.5%) reported a satisfactory aesthetic outcome. No infections related to the surgical procedure were observed in the follow-up period. The method proved to be effective and affordable.

The Hidden Cost of Commercial Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement: A Systematic Review of Clinical Results and Cost Implications Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review is to compare deep prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) between total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients treated with either antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) or plain bone cement, and to explore the potential cost implications of commonly used bone cement regimens. We hypothesized that ALBC would not substantially reduce PJIs and would thereby present an unnecessary cost to the healthcare system. METHODS: Using the PRISMA guidelines, we reviewed articles through May 2017 involving primary TKA patients with both ALBC cohort and plain bone cement cohort. A meta-analysis was performed comparing the prevalence of deep infections between cohorts. A cost comparison for a hypothetical setting with an annual volume of 1000 TKAs was performed to compare 3 commonly used cement regimens: 2 bags of ALBC used during each case, 1 bag of ALBC with 1 bag of plain cement, and 2 bags of plain cement. Pricing at our institution is $215/bag for commercial ALBC and $60/bag for plain cement. RESULTS: Eight articles were included with a total of 34,664 patients. ALBC did not reduce the PJI (ALBC = 93/8189, 1.1% vs plain = 251/26,475, 0.9%; P = .09). The estimated costs for the 3 bone cement regimens per 1000 primary TKAs were as follows: 2 bags of ALBC = $430,000/y, 1 bag of ALBC +1 bag of plain cement = $275,000/y, and 2 bags of plain cement = $120,000/y. CONCLUSION: ALBC did not reduce the prevalence of PJI suggesting that ALBC may be an unnecessary cost to the healthcare system. Hospital systems that perform 1000 TKAs/y could save between $155,000 and $310,000/y by switching to plain cement.

Antibiotic-laden Bone Cement in Primary and Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

Antibiotic-laden bone cement (ALBC) has a number of different uses in primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. However, considerable controversy remains regarding how and when it is best used. The prophylactic use of low-dose ALBC in primary cemented total hip arthroplasty is well supported by the literature, conferring both clinical and economic benefits. In contrast, conclusive evidence on the clinical efficacy or economic benefit of the routine use of ALBC in primary total knee arthroplasty remains elusive. Given the currently available evidence, we cannot determine definitively whether the routine use of ALBC in primary total knee arthroplasty is justified, although selective use in patients with a high risk of infection seems warranted. The routine use of ALBC in revision total joint arthroplasty is well accepted, with good supporting evidence in studies of both aseptic and first-stage revision procedures. Although limited clinical evidence exists on the use of ALBC at the time of definitive component reimplantation after septic revision, the rationale for its use is strong.

Standardization of Acrylic Bone Cement Mixing Protocols for Total Knee Arthroplasty Results in Cost Savings.

Cost reduction is important in total joint replacement surgery. Bone cement is used to fixate implants in most knee replacement procedures. The authors instituted a 4-pronged approach to reduce the cost of cement. Their approach included reducing the cost of the cement powder, changing the type of mixing method, using less antibiotic cement, and decreasing the amount of cement required for smaller implants. The authors evaluated the implementation of this program and measured the overall costs of cementation during knee replacement. A retrospective review of total knee replacement cementation technique and cost was performed before and after the cost-reduction program was implemented. The type of cement and cement mixing equipment used, the amount of cement used, and the cost of cement and cement mixing equipment were examined. The authors also reported the short-term complication rate including 90-day readmission rate and 30-day revision rate. The program resulted in an overall decrease in cement-related costs from approximately $310 to $105 per case. Reductions in the amount of cement used and the use of antibiotic cement were shown. Among the 3 surgeons, adoption of the program varied. Bone cement is an expense of modern total knee replacement. Implementing a cost-reduction program can reduce cement costs without changing quality of cementation. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(5):e671-e675.].

Value of External Data in the Extrapolation of Survival Data: A Study Using the NJR Data Set.

BACKGROUND: Extrapolation of time-to-event data can be a critical component of cost-effectiveness analysis. OBJECTIVES: To contrast the value of external data on treatment effects as a selection aid in model fitting to the clinical data or for the direct extrapolation of survival. METHODS: We assume the existence of external summary data on both treatment and control and consider two scenarios: availability of external individual patient data (IPD) on the control only and an absence of external IPD. We describe how the summary data can be used to extrapolate survival or to assess the plausibility of extrapolations of the clinical data. We assess the merit of either approach using a comparison of cemented and cementless total hip replacement as a case study. Merit is judged by comparing incremental net benefit (INB) obtained in scenarios with incomplete IPD with that derived from modeling external IPD on both treatment and control. RESULTS: Measures of fit with the external summary data did not identify survival model specifications that best estimated INB. Addition of external IPD for the control only did not improve estimates of INB. Extrapolation of survival using the external summary data comparing treatment and control improved estimates of INB. CONCLUSIONS: Our case study indicates that summary data comparing treatment and control are more valuable than IPD limited to the control when extrapolating event rates for cost-effectiveness analysis. These data are best exploited in direct extrapolation of event rates rather than as an aid to select extrapolations on the basis of the clinical data.

Reconstruction Plate-Based Antibiotic Cement Spacers: Clinical Outcomes and Description of Technique.

The standard of care for chronic deep peri-prosthetic hip infection is a two-stage exchange with placement of a temporary antibiotic cement spacer and treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Several commercially available cement spacer options exist. We report on a novel antibiotic spacer that may be an efficient, cost-effective alternative. Medical records of all patients treated for deep peri-prosthetic hip infection after total hip arthroplasty between 2004 and 2012 were reviewed. Each antibiotic spacer was constructed from a 12- to 16-hole recon plate bent to provide adequate soft tissue tension and a cement ball that matched the acetabulum. Premature failure of the plate and duration of implantation were measured. Failure was defined as fracture of the plate or dissociation of the cement head from the plate. Costs were compared with commercially available cement spacers. A total of 24 spacers were identified in 21 patients (mean age 68.9 years, mean body-mass index 26.4). The mean time between spacer placement and re-implantation was 6.4 months (range: 1.8-18 months). One patient had an indolent infection that was unresponsive to antibiotic therapy and required a hip disarticulation. At the time of reimplantation, 17 of 17 handmade spacers had no failures. Of the premade spacers, six of the seven had no failures. One premade spacer fractured at the femoral component trunion. The cost of the plate and antibiotic cement was $909-1000, approximately $5000 less than premade spacers. Antibiotic spacers can be readily constructed intraoperatively and offer good clinical outcomes with a low incidence of failure. This type of spacer saved $5000 per patient.

A cost-effectiveness modelling study of strategies to reduce risk of infection following primary hip replacement based on a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A deep infection of the surgical site is reported in 0.7% of all cases of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This often leads to revision surgery that is invasive, painful and costly. A range of strategies is employed in NHS hospitals to reduce risk, yet no economic analysis has been undertaken to compare the value for money of competing prevention strategies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs and health benefits of strategies that reduce the risk of deep infection following THA in NHS hospitals. To make recommendations to decision-makers about the cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. DESIGN: The study comprised a systematic review and cost-effectiveness decision analysis. SETTING: 77,321 patients who had a primary hip arthroplasty in NHS hospitals in 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Nine different treatment strategies including antibiotic prophylaxis, antibiotic-impregnated cement and ventilation systems used in the operating theatre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in the number of deep infections, change in the total costs and change in the total health benefits in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). DATA SOURCES: Literature searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were undertaken to cover the period 1966-2012 to identify infection prevention strategies. Relevant journals, conference proceedings and bibliographies of retrieved papers were hand-searched. Orthopaedic surgeons and infection prevention experts were also consulted. REVIEW METHODS: English-language papers only. The selection of evidence was by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if they were interventions that reported THA-related deep surgical site infection (SSI) as an outcome. Mixed-treatment comparisons were made to produce estimates of the relative effects of competing infection control strategies. RESULTS: Twelve studies, six randomised controlled trials and six observational studies, involving 123,788 total hip replacements (THRs) and nine infection control strategies, were identified. The quality of the evidence was judged against four categories developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Methods for Development of NICE Public Health Guidance ( http://publications.nice.org.uk/methods-for-the-development-of-nice-public-health-guidance-third-edition-pmg4 ), accessed March 2012. All evidence was found to fit the two highest categories of 1 and 2. Nine competing infection control interventions [treatments (Ts) 1-9] were used in a cohort simulation model of 77,321 patients who had a primary THR in 2012. Predictions were made for cases of deep infection and total costs, and QALY outcomes. Compared with a baseline of T1 (no systemic antibiotics, plain cement and conventional ventilation) all other treatment strategies reduced risk. T6 was the most effective (systemic antibiotics, antibiotic-impregnated cement and conventional ventilation) and prevented a further 1481 cases of deep infection, and led to the largest annual cost savings and the greatest gains to QALYs. The additional uses of laminar airflow and body exhaust suits indicate higher costs and worse health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: T6 is an optimal strategy for reducing the risk of SSI following THA. The other strategies that are commonly used among NHS hospitals lead to higher cost and worse QALY outcomes. Policy-makers, therefore, have an opportunity to save resources and improve health outcomes. The effects of laminar air flow and body exhaust suits might be further studied if policy-makers are to consider disinvesting in these technologies. LIMITATIONS: A wide range of evidence sources was synthesised and there is large uncertainty in the conclusions. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Queensland Health Quality Improvement and Enhancement Programme (grant number 2008001769).

Can cementing technique reduce the cost of a primary total knee arthroplasty?

Studies on cost containment of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have generated substantial interest over the past decade. Although multiple studies have evaluated the various intraoperative methods to control cost, no prior study has evaluated the economic impact and the clinical outcome based on amount of bone cement needed for a primary TKA. At a minimum of 3 years follow-up, we observed no difference in implant survivorship or Knee Society scores, but did observe substantial cost savings when one versus two packets of bone cement were used in combination with a hand mixing technique. By eliminating several extra cement mixing products, we achieved an approximately $1,000 cost saving per case with no difference in clinical outcomes at midterm follow-up.

The economics of using prophylactic antibiotic-loaded bone cement in total knee replacement.

The rate of peri-prosthetic infection following total joint replacement continues to rise, and attempts to curb this trend have included the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement at the time of primary surgery. We have investigated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the use of antibiotic-loaded cement for primary total knee replacement (TKR) by comparing the rate of infection in 3048 TKRs performed without loaded cement over a three-year period versus the incidence of infection after 4830 TKRs performed with tobramycin-loaded cement over a later period of time of a similar duration. In order to adjust for confounding factors, the rate of infection in 3347 and 4702 uncemented total hip replacements (THR) performed during the same time periods, respectively, was also examined. There were no significant differences in the characteristics of the patients in the different cohorts. The absolute rate of infection increased when antibiotic-loaded cement was used in TKR. However, this rate of increase was less than the rate of increase in infection following uncemented THR during the same period. If the rise in the rate of infection observed in THR were extrapolated to the TKR cohort, 18 additional cases of infection would have been expected to occur in the cohort receiving antibiotic-loaded cement, compared with the number observed. Depending on the type of antibiotic-loaded cement that is used, its cost in all primary TKRs ranges between USD $2112.72 and USD $112 606.67 per case of infection that is prevented.

Vertebral augmentation: update on safety, efficacy, cost effectiveness and increased survival?

Although over 300 articles have been published annually on vertebral augmentation in the last 5 years, there remains much debate about a fundamental question - is vertebral augmentation a safe and effective treatment to achieve analgesia, reduce disability, and improve quality of life in patients with a vertebral fracture? In this modern era of evidence-based clinical practice and public health care policy and funding, an evidentiary basis is needed to continue to perform vertebral augmentation. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the latest and highest quality evidence for efficacy, safety, cost effectiveness, and potential survival benefit after vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. The design, major inclusion criteria, primary outcome measures, relevant primary baseline characteristics, primary outcomes, relevant secondary outcomes, and limitations of prospective multicenter randomized sham-controlled and conservative management-controlled trials are summarized. Recently published meta-analyses or systematic reviews of efficacy that include these recent prospective studies of vertebral augmentation are examined. The highest quality procedural safety data relating to medical complications, cement leaks, and subsequent vertebral fracture are reviewed. Publications from national databases analyzing potential reduction in length of hospital stay and reduction in mortality after vertebral augmentation are presented. Finally, emerging literature assessing the potential cost-effectiveness of vertebral augmentation is considered. This narrative review will provide interventional pain physicians a summary of the latest and highest quality data published on vertebral augmentation. This will allow integration of the best available evidence with clinical expertise and patient wishes to make the most appropriate evidence-based clinical decisions for patients with symptomatic vertebral fracture.

The cost analysis of cemented versus cementless total hip replacement operations on the NHS.

In a time of limited resources, the debate continues over which types of hip prosthesis are clinically superior and more cost-effective. Orthopaedic surgeons increasingly need robust economic evidence to understand the full value of the operation, and to aid decision making on the 'package' of procedures that are available and to justify their practice beyond traditional clinical preference. In this paper we explore the current economic debate about the merits of cemented and cementless total hip replacement, an issue that continues to divide the orthopaedic community.

Endoscopic delivery of calcium phosphate cement for secondary craniofacial reconstruction.

Contour defects are common following primary craniofacial procedures including cranial vault remodeling, fronto-orbital and midface advancements, and complex posttraumatic reconstructions. When onlayed as fast-setting pastes, calcium phosphate cements (CPCs) have been used to effectively correct contour defects in open secondary reconstruction procedures. Here, we describe an endoscopic procedure using an injectable CPC and compare surgical outcomes with the open technique. A retrospective review was conducted for 36 consecutive patients aged 3.0-28.9 years (mean, 10.1 years) who underwent secondary craniofacial reconstruction over a 3-year period. Patients were stratified into endoscopic or open groups depending on the surgical approach utilized. Mean operative time was significantly shorter (P < 0.001) for the endoscopic group (64 minutes) than for the open group (131 minutes). Similarly, hospital stay was significantly shorter (P = 0.005) in the endoscopic group than in the open group. There was also a significant difference with respect to cost (P < 0.001), with the endoscopic approach resulting in a per-patient cost savings of $2208.05. In conclusion, endoscopic delivery of CPC appears to be a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective method of performing secondary craniofacial reconstruction, with the additional benefits of decreased operative time and shorter postoperative hospital stay when compared with an open procedure.

Cost comparison of cementless versus cemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures.

Hip hemiarthroplasties are frequently performed for displaced femoral neck fractures. The purpose of this study was to identify the costs associated with cementless and cemented hemiarthroplasties, compare operative times, and identify complications. The hypothesis was that cementless hemiarthroplasties cost less than cemented hemiarthroplasties, require less operative time, and have fewer perioperative complications. A retrospective review was conducted of 2 surgeons' patients admitted for displaced femoral neck fractures between 2006 and 2010. Group 1 included 45 patients who underwent monopolar hemiarthroplasties with cementless femoral components via a standard posterior approach by a single surgeon. Group 2 included 49 patients who underwent monopolar hemiarthroplasties with cemented femoral components via a modified lateral approach by a single surgeon. Surgical and anesthesia times and the cost of implants and accessories were recorded. The cost for cementless components was $3275.60 (femoral stem, $2800; monopolar head, $400; sleeve, $75.60), whereas the cost of cemented components was $3694.47 (femoral stem, $1800; monopolar head, $400; sleeve, $75.60, 3 Simplex with tobramycin cement packets, $1221; cement mixer/irrigator with tip/centralizer and plug/pressurizer, $197.87), a cost savings of 12.7% ($418.87). Operative time was significantly reduced in group 1 vs group 2 (mean, 32.9 vs 56.1 minutes, respectively; P<.01). Anesthesia time was also significantly reduced in group 1 (mean, 82.3 vs 102.9 minutes, respectively; P<.01). The difference in mean anesthetic times demonstrates an overall cost savings of 18.6%, or $1161.30. No difference in complications was noted between the groups perioperatively. Regional cost variances, vendor-hospital contracts, and surgeons' operative times are factors that may influence cost savings. This study demonstrates significantly lower operative and anesthetic times and observable cost savings with cementless femoral implants.