Screw Fixation Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Nondisplaced Femoral Neck Fractures in the Elderly: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screw fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for nondisplaced femoral neck fractures in low-demand elderly patients. METHODS: We constructed a Markov decision model using a low-demand, 80-year-old patient as the base case. Costs, health-state utilities, mortality rates, and transition probabilities were obtained from published literature. The simulation model was cycled until all patients were deceased to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000 per QALY. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess our parameter assumptions. RESULTS: For the base case, hemiarthroplasty was associated with greater quality of life (2.96 QALYs) compared with screw fixation (2.73 QALYs) with lower cost ($23,467 vs. $25,356). Cost per QALY for hemiarthroplasty was $7925 compared with $9303 in screw fixation. Hemiarthroplasty provided better outcomes at lower cost, indicating dominance over screw fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Hemiarthroplasty is a cost-effective option compared with screw fixation for the treatment of nondisplaced femoral neck fractures in the low-demand elderly. Medical comorbidities and other factors that impact perioperative mortality should also be considered in the treatment decision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly.

Background: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of proximal humerus fractures in elderly individuals (age >70) carries a relatively high short-term complication and reoperation rate but is generally durable once healed. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for fractures may be associated with superior short-term quality of life but carries the lifelong liabilities of joint replacement. The tradeoff between short and long-term risks, coupled with disparities in quality of life and cost, makes this clinical decision amenable to cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A Markov state-transition model was constructed with a base case of a 75 year-old patient. Reoperation rates, quality of life values, mortality rates, and costs were based upon published literature. The model was run until all patients had died to simulate the accumulated costs and benefits. Results: RTSA was associated with greater quality of life (7.11 QALYs) than ORIF (6.22 QALYs). RTSA was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,945/QALY and $27,299/ QALY from payor and hospital perspectives, respectively. RTSA was favored and cost-effective at any age above 65 and any Charlson Score. The model was sensitive to the utility of both procedures. Conclusion: RTSA resulted in a higher quality of life and was cost-effective in comparison to ORIF for elderly patients.Level of Evidence: III.

Mapping the Diffusion of Technology in Orthopaedic Surgery: Understanding the Spread of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism by which surgical innovation is spread in orthopaedic surgery is not well studied. The recent widespread transition from open to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques provides us with the opportunity to study the spread of new technology; doing so would be important because it is unclear how novel orthopaedic techniques disseminate across time and geography, and previous studies of innovation in healthcare may not apply to the orthopaedic community. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How much regional variation was associated with the adoption of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in the United States Medicare population between 2006 and 2014 and how did this change over time? (2) In which regions of the United States was arthroscopic rotator cuff repair first adopted and how did it spread geographically? (3) Which regional factors were associated with the adoption of this new technology? METHODS: We divided the United States into 306 hospital referral regions based upon referral patterns observed in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services MedPAR database, which records all Medicare hospital admissions; this has been done in numerous previous studies using methodology introduced by the Dartmouth Atlas. The proportion of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs versus open rotator cuff repairs in each hospital referral region was calculated using adjusted procedural rates from the Medicare Part B Carrier File from 2006 to 2014, as it provided a nationwide sample of patients, and was used as a measure of adoption. A population-weighted, multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify regional characteristics independently associated with adoption. RESULTS: There was substantial regional variation associated with the adoption of arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair as the percentage of rotator cuff repair completed arthroscopically in 2006 ranged widely among hospital referral regions with a high of 85.3% in Provo, UT, USA, and a low of 16.7% in Seattle, WA, USA (OR 30, 95% CI 17.6 to 52.2; p < 0.001). In 2006, regions in the top quartiles for Medicare spending (+9.1%; p = 0.008) independently had higher adoption rates than those in the bottom quartile, as did regions with a greater proportion of college-educated residents (+12.0%; p = 0.009). The Northwest region (-14.4%; p = 0.009) and the presence of an academic medical center (-5.8%; p = 0.026) independently had lower adoption than other regions and those without academic medical centers. In 2014, regions in the top quartiles for Medicare spending (+5.7%; p = 0.033) and regions with a greater proportion of college-educated residents (+9.4%; p = 0.005) independently had higher adoption rates than those in the bottom quartiles, while the Northwest (-9.6%; p = 0.009) and Midwest regions (-5.1%; p = 0.017) independently had lower adoption than other regions. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneous diffusion of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair across the United States highlights that Medicare beneficiaries across regions did not have equal access to these procedures and that these discrepancies continued to persist over time. A higher level of education and increased healthcare spending were both associated with greater adoption in a region and conversely suggest that regions with lower education and healthcare spending may pursue innovation more slowly. There was evidence that regions with academic medical centers adopted this technology more slowly and may highlight the role that private industry and physicians in nonacademic organizations play in surgical innovation. Future studies are needed to understand if this later adoption leads to inequalities in the quality and value of surgical care delivered to patients in these regions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Next-Generation Sequencing vs Culture-Based Methods for Diagnosing Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty is challenging to diagnose. Compared with culture-based techniques, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive for identifying organisms but is also less specific and more expensive. To date, there has been no study comparing the cost-effectiveness of these two methods to diagnose PJI after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A Markov, state-transition model projecting lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was constructed to determine the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate parameter assumptions. RESULTS: At our base case values, culture was not determined to be cost-effective compared to NGS, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $422,784 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses found NGS to be the cost-effective choice above a pretest probability of 45.5% for PJI. In addition, NGS was cost-effective if its sensitivity was greater than 70.0% and its specificity greater than 94.1%. Two-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the pretest probability and test performance parameters (sensitivity and specificity) were the largest factors for identifying whether a particular strategy was cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The results of our model suggest that the cost-effectiveness of NGS to diagnose PJI depends primarily on the pretest probability of PJI and the performance characteristics of the NGS technology. Our results are consistent with the idea that NGS should be reserved for clinical contexts with a high pretest probability of PJI. Further study is required to determine the indications and subgroups for which NGS offers clinical benefit.

Transfer of hip arthroplasty patients leads to increased cost and resource utilization in the receiving hospital.

Factors other than complexity of care often drive the transfer of orthopedic patients to tertiary centers. We sought to compare the demographics, diagnoses, insurance data, peri-operative outcomes and institutional costs of total hip arthroplasty patients transferred from outside facilities with those of patients derived from our clinics. We analyzed 419 consecutive patients as part of a prospective risk study. Transferred patients were older (P=0.01), less likely to have private insurance (P<0.0001), and more likely to be admitted on weekends (P=0.04). Both dislocation and fracture were more prevalent in transferred patients (P=0.04; P=0.003). Across all key metrics - including length of stay, mortality scoring, peri-operative complications, and direct and total costs - transferred patients more significantly strained the resources of our arthroplasty center.

Unplanned hip arthroplasty imposes clinical and cost burdens on treating institutions.

BACKGROUND: Emergent surgery has been shown to be a risk factor for perioperative complications. Studies suggest that patient morbidity is greater with an unplanned hip arthroplasty, although it is controversial whether unplanned procedures also result in higher patient mortality. The financial impact of these procedures is not fully understood, as the costs of unplanned primary hip arthroplasties have not been studied previously. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) What are the institutional costs associated with unplanned hip arthroplasties (primary THA, hemiarthroplasty, revision arthroplasty, including treatment of periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections)? (2) Does timing of surgery (urgent/unplanned versus elective) influence perioperative outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, or need for advanced care? (3) What diagnoses are associated with unplanned surgery and are treated urgently most often? (4) Do demographics and insurance status differ between admission types (unplanned versus elective hip arthroplasty)? METHODS: We prospectively followed all 419 patients who were admitted to our Level I trauma center in 2011 for procedures including primary THA, hemiarthroplasty, and revision arthroplasty, including the treatment of periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections. Fifty-seven patients who were treated urgently on an unplanned basis were compared with 362 patients who were treated electively. Demographics, admission diagnoses, complications, and costs were recorded and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: Median total costs were 24% greater for patients admitted for unplanned hip arthroplasties (USD 18,206 [USD 15,261-27,491] versus USD 14,644 [USD 13,511-16,309]; p < 0.0001) for patients admitted for elective arthroplasties. Patients with unplanned admissions had a 67% longer median hospital stay (5 days [range, 4-9 days] versus 3 days [range, 3-4 days]; p < 0.0001) for patients with elective admissions. Mortality rates were equivalent between groups (p = 1.0). Femoral fracture (p < 0.0001), periprosthetic fracture (p = 0.01), prosthetic infection (p = 0.005), and prosthetic dislocation (p < 0.0001) were observed at higher rates in the patients with unplanned admissions. These patients were older (p = 0.04), less likely to have commercial insurance (p < 0.0001), more likely to be transferred from another institution (p < 0.0001), and more likely to undergo a revision procedure (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned arthroplasty and urgent surgery are associated with increased financial and clinical burdens, which must be accounted for when considering bundled quality and reimbursement measures for these procedures.