Disparities Associated With Total Joint Arthroplasty Transfusion Rates.

BACKGROUND: Infections, readmissions, and mortalities after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are serious complications, and transfusions have been associated with increased complication rates following TJA. Certain populations, including women, Black patients, patients who have public insurance and older adults have higher risks of transfusion. Recently, there has been a decline in transfusion rates and a greater emphasis on equity in medicine. This study examined whether disparities in transfusion rates still exist and what variables influence rates over time. METHODS: We used a health care system database to identify 5,435 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 2,105 total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients from 2013 to 2021. Transfusion rates were 2.9 and 3.1% in the TKA and THA arthroplasty groups, respectively. White race represented 67.1 and 69.8% of the TKA and THA groups, respectively. Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to predict transfusion rates within 5 days of surgery and adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Transfusion rates declined over time. However, Black patients had a higher rate of transfusion than White patients despite similar hemoglobin levels, 5.1 versus 1.8% (P < .001) in the TKA group and 4.1 versus 2.7% (P = .103) in the THA group. Following adjustment, the biggest factor associated with a higher transfusion risk in the TKA group was being Black (adjusted odds ratio = 2.2, 95% confidence interval = 1.55 to 3.13). CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion rates for TJA patients are declining; however, Black patients continued to receive transfusions at higher rates in patients receiving TKA.

Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Randomized Controlled Trials Infrequently Report on the Social Determinants of Health Factors of Their Patient Cohorts.

PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in orthopaedic sports medicine-related journals reporting on the social determinants of health (SDOH) of their patient cohorts, including factors receiving less attention, such as education level, employment status, insurance status, and socioeconomic status. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE database was used to search for RCTs between 2020 and 2022 from 3 high-impact orthopaedic sports medicine-related journals: American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. The following information was extracted from each article: age, sex/gender, body mass index, year published, corresponding author country, and self-reported SDOH factors (race, ethnicity, education level, employment status, insurance status, and socioeconomic status). RESULTS: A total of 189 articles were analyzed. Articles originated from 34 different countries, with the United States (n = 66) producing the greatest number of articles. Overall, age (n = 186; 98.4%) and sex/gender (n = 184; 97.4%) were the factors most commonly reported, followed by body mass index (n = 112; 59.3%), race (n = 17; 9.0%), ethnicity (n = 10; 5.3%), employment status (n = 9; 4.8%), insurance status (n = 7; 3.7%), and education level (n = 5; 2.6%). Socioeconomic status was not reported in any of the articles analyzed. Articles from the United States report on SDOH factors more frequently than international articles, most notably race (24.2% vs 0.8%, respectively) and ethnicity (15.2% and 0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: RCTs from 3 high-impact orthopaedic sports medicine journals infrequently report on SDOH. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Better understanding patient SDOH factors in RCTs is important to help orthopaedic surgeons and other practitioners best apply study results to their patients, as well as help researchers and our field ensure that research is being done transparently with relevance to as many patients as possible.

Lack of Demographic Information in Total Hip Arthroplasty/Total Knee Arthroplasty Randomized Controlled Trial Publications.

BACKGROUND: The impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) has been documented in orthopaedic literature. However, there is a lack of data on the inclusion of these variables in orthopaedic studies. Our aim was to investigate how many total hip arthroplasties and total knee arthroplasties randomized controlled trials report SDOH variables such as race, ethnicity, insurance, income, and education within the manuscript. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials published from 2017 to 2019 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Journal of Arthroplasty, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. Data collected included publication year, type of surgery, and the inclusion of race, ethnicity, insurance, income, and education. RESULTS: Of the 72 manuscripts included in the study, 5.6% of the manuscripts mentioned race, 4.2% included race within the demographic table, and 1.4% included ethnicity in the demographic table. Overall, only 5 studies discussed any one of the variables studied and none included any SDOH variables in their multivariable regressions. There were no statistically significant differences on inclusion across journal year (P value = .78), journal name (P value = 1.00), or surgery type (P value = .555). CONCLUSION: Our findings identify a major shortcoming in the inclusion of SDOH variables in total knee arthroplasty/total hip arthroplasty publications. Their exclusion may be indirectly perpetuating disparities if research that does not use representative patient samples is used in creating health policies and national standards. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Low Rates of Reporting Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status in Studies Published in Top Orthopaedic Journals.

BACKGROUND: Although there have been calls for the routine reporting of patient demographics associated with health disparities, including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES), in published research, the extent to which these variables are reported in orthopaedic journals remains unclear. METHODS: We identified and examined all research articles with human cohorts published in 2019 in the 2 highest-ranked U.S. general orthopaedics journals, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research and The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. Excluded from analysis were studies with no U.S.-based institution and those that did not report any demographic data. Articles were reviewed to determine study type; reporting of race, ethnicity, and any of 3 SES variables (i.e., income, education, and health-care insurance); and the inclusion of these demographics in multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 156 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 56 (35.9%) reported patient race and 24 (15.4%) reported patient ethnicity. Income was reported in 13 (8.3%) of the articles, education in 23 (14.7%), and health insurance in 18 (11.5%). Of the 97 papers that reported results of multivariable analyses, 30 (30.9%) included race in the analysis and 21 (21.6%) reported significance associated with race. Income, education, and health insurance were included in multivariable analyses in 7 (7.2%), 11 (11.3%), and 10 (10.3%) of the articles, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Race, ethnicity, and SES were infrequently reported and analyzed within articles published in 2 of the top orthopaedic journals. This problem may be remedied if orthopaedic journals impose standards for the reporting and analysis of patient demographics in studies with human cohorts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Failure to report key demographics makes it difficult for practitioners to determine whether study results apply to their patient populations. In addition, when orthopaedic interventions are evaluated without accounting for potential disparities by demographics, clinicians may incorrectly assume that the overall benefits and risks reported in studies apply equally to all patients.

Quantifying Mediators of Racial Disparities in Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Studies on symptomatic osteoarthritis suggest that Black patients report worse pain and symptoms compared with White patients with osteoarthritis. In this study, we aimed to quantify the relationship among variables such as overall health and socioeconomic status that may contribute to disparities in patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: A total of 223 patients were enrolled. A mediation analysis was used to evaluate cross-sectional associations between race and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire, which was administered to patients prior to undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Black patients had worse KOOS pain, symptoms, and activities of daily living subscale scores than White patients. In our cohort, Black patients were younger, more likely to be female, and more likely to report lower educational status. We identified age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and education as partial mediators of racial disparities in KOOS subscale scores. Insurance status, deformity, radiographic (Kellgren-Lawrence) grade, C-reactive protein level, marital status, body mass index, and income did not show mediating effects. We found that, if age and sex were equal in both cohorts, the racial disparity in KOOS symptom scores would be reduced by 20.7% and 9.1%, respectively (95% confidence intervals [CIs], -5.1% to 47% and -5.5% to 26.3%). For KOOS pain scores, age and education level explained 18.9% and 5.1% of the racial disparity (95% CIs, -0.6% to 37% and -10.8% to 22.9%). Finally, for KOOS activities of daily living scores, education level explained 3.2% of the disparity (95% CI, -19.4% to 26.6%). CONCLUSIONS: No single factor in our study completely explained the racial disparity in KOOS scores, but our findings did suggest that several factors can combine to mediate this disparity in outcome scores. Quantification of variables that mediate racial disparity can help to build models for risk adjustment, pinpoint vulnerable populations, and identify primary points of intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Resource evaluation framework for total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: This article describes a framework for evaluating efficiency of OR procedures incorporating time measurement, personnel activity, and resource utilization using traditional industrial engineering tools of time study and work sampling. METHODS: The framework measures time using time studies of OR procedures and work sampling of personnel activities, ultimately classified as value-added or non-value-added. Statistical methods ensure that the collected samples meet adequate levels of confidence and accuracy. Resource utilization is captured through documentation of instrument trays used, defects in instruments, and trash weight and classification at the conclusion of surgeries. FINDINGS: A case study comprising 12 observations of total knee arthroplasty surgeries illustrates the use of the framework. The framework allows researchers to compare time, personnel, and resource utilization simultaneously within the OR setting. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The framework provides a holistic evaluation of methods, instrumentation and resources, and staffing levels and allows researchers to identify areas for efficiency improvement. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The methods presented in this article are rooted in traditional industrial engineering work measurement methods but are applied to a healthcare setting in order to efficiently identify areas for improvement including time, personnel, and processes in operating rooms.

Rapid Versus Standard Recovery Protocol Is Associated With Improved Recovery of Range of Motion 12 Weeks After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: With the increasing demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), rapid recovery protocols (RRPs) have been introduced to reduce costs and the length of stay (LOS). Little is known about the effects of RRPs on postoperative knee range of motion (ROM). METHODS: We reviewed the medical charts of 323 patients who underwent primary TKA performed by a single orthopaedic surgeon at a university-based orthopaedic tertiary care safety net practice. Of the 323 patients, 129 were treated with a standard recovery protocol (SRP) between January 1, 2012, and December 10, 2013, and 194 with a RRP beginning December 11, 2013. Knee ROM was assessed at the preoperative visit and at scheduled postoperative visits for up to 1 year. Differences in mean LOS between the groups were compared using a Poisson regression with and without adjustment for covariates. Repeated measures analysis of covariance was used to evaluate the effects of recovery protocol, time, and the interaction of recovery protocol by time on flexion and flexion contracture. The probability of achieving flexion ≥120° and having a flexion contracture ≥10° was estimated using the SAS/STAT GLIMMIX procedure with a binary distribution and a logit link. RESULTS: The mean LOS for the RRP and SRP groups was 0.8 and 2.5 days, respectively. RRP was associated with greater flexion at 2, 6, and 12 weeks and a higher probability of attaining flexion ≥120° at 6 and 12 weeks. Patients receiving a RRP had less severe flexion contracture and a lower probability of flexion contracture ≥10° at 2, 6, and 12 weeks. DISCUSSION: During the first 12 weeks after TKA, patients who received a RRP had a markedly greater ROM than patients who received a SRP, suggesting that RRP may allow patients to do a greater variety of activities of daily living during the first 3 postoperative months while reducing health care costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

A comparison of 4-year total medical care costs, adverse outcomes, and opioid/prescription analgesic use for 3 knee osteoarthritis pain treatments: Intra-articular hyaluronic acid, intra-articular corticosteroids, and knee arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the medical costs associated with treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA): intra-articular corticosteroids (ICS) and intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IHA) primarily, and ICS/IHA vs knee arthroplasty (TKA) secondarily. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of an insurance claims database. Eligible members had diagnosed OA and no claims for ICS, IHA, or TKA during the 6-18-month look-back period. Cohorts of interest over the 4-year observation period were: patients who received ICS only, those who received IHA only, and those who received TKA only. Outcomes assessed included: (1) total allowed medical costs, (2) claims for pre-specified, treatment-related adverse outcomes and costs, and (3) opioid and/or prescription analgesic use and costs. Data extraction began on the date of the first ICS, IHA, or TKA in 2013 until December 31, 2017. RESULTS: Of the 260,828 patients who qualified, 126,831 were taking monotherapy (IHA=3703, ICS=117,588, TKA = 5540). Adjusted 4-year per patient per month (PPPM) costs were lowest in the IHA cohort ($733); PPPM costs were $1230 in the ICS cohort and $1548 in the TKA cohort. A smaller percentage of patients in the IHA (7.1%) vs ICS (8.4%) or TKA cohort (11.8%) experienced any of the pre-specified adverse outcomes. Adverse outcome-related costs in the IHA cohort were lower ($19.91) than costs in the ICS ($32.18) and TKA cohorts ($31.12). Per-patient opioid and analgesic prescriptions were consistently and significantly lower in the IHA (range, 0.70-0.96) vs ICS cohort (range, 2.0-2.26) for Years 1 through 4. Usage rates were significantly lower in the IHA cohort vs TKA cohort in Year 1 (0.96 vs 4.77) and not different in Years 2 through 4 (TKA range, 0.76-1.08). In Year 1, opioid and prescription analgesic costs were significantly lower in the IHA vs ICS and TKA cohorts ($3.45 vs $11.14 and $12.82). After Year 1, opioid and prescription analgesic costs were significantly higher in the ICS (range, $13.83-15.96) vs IHA (range, $3.02-3.87) and TKA cohorts (range, $3.43-4.97). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the IHA cohort had lower total medical care costs, fewer adverse outcomes, and lower use/costs of opioids and prescription analgesics vs patients in the ICS and TKA cohorts. Reducing total medical care costs and minimizing opioid/analgesic use should be a treatment goal when selecting therapies for patients with knee OA.

Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes in Patients with Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and Commercial Insurance.

As more commercial insurance companies adopt a bundled reimbursement model, similar to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) algorithm for Medicare beneficiaries, accurate risk adjustment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critical to ensure success. With this movement toward bundled reimbursement, it is unknown if a formula adjusting for similar risks in the Medicare population could be applied to PROs in commercially insured and Medicare Advantage populations undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study was performed to compare PROs after TKA in these insurance groups after adjusting for proposed risks. Demographics and clinical data were abstracted from medical records of 302 patients who underwent TKA performed by a single surgeon at a university-based orthopaedic practice during 2013 to 2017. Differences in PROs between commercially insured, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare patients during the 6 months following surgery were evaluated while controlling for demographics, clinical data, and baseline PRO scores. Medicare and Medicare Advantage patients were older (p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities (p = 0.001) than commercial patients. During the first 3 months following TKA, patients in all three groups experienced similar rates of recovery. At 6 months after surgery, outcomes began to diverge by insurance group. Medicare patients reported significantly less ability to perform activities of daily living (78.6 vs. 63.2; p = 0.001), worse physical function (39.6 vs. 44.9; p = 0.003), and more pain interference (57.9 vs. 52.4; p = 0.018) at day 180 than commercially insured patients. There were no statistically significant differences between Medicare Advantage patients and either commercially insured or Medicare patients. Therefore, commercial insurance companies that intend to apply a risk-adjusted equation similar to the CJR algorithm to commercial populations should be cautioned since the postoperative outcomes in this investigation differed after adjusting for the same risk factors that have been proposed for inclusion in the CJR algorithm. Nonetheless, further studies should be performed to ensure that companies participating in bundled reimbursement models have a positive influence on comprehensive health care for patients and providers. This is a level III, retrospective prognostic study.

Viscosupplementation for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Key Opinion Leader Panel Discussion.

With a sharp rise in the prevalence of osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK) in a younger population, new management strategies are needed to preserve mobility, improve patients' quality of life, and reduce the effects of potential disease-related comorbidities. Viscosupplementation with the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) injection is a treatment option for OAK that can provide lubrication and elastic shock absorption, leading to potential pain relief, improved function, and reduced stiffness. A key opinion leader (KOL) panel discussion was held December 3, 2016, with the objective of sharing opinions, ideas, information, and trends regarding OAK and the potential treatment and management offered by viscosupplementation. The panel concluded that viscosupplementation with HA injections presents a viable, cost-effective, and safe alternative for the treatment of OAK. DISCLOSURES: This panel discussion and report was facilitated by Magellan Rx Manage-ment and funded by Sanofi. Bert and Ruane report fees from Sanofi outside of this project. Sgaglione reports royalty payments from Zimmer Biomet and Wolters Kluwer. Dasa has received fees from Bioventus and Myoscience. All the authors received an honorarium for work on this project. Lopes is employed by Magellan Rx Management.

Clinical and cost outcomes from different hyaluronic acid treatments in patients with knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a US health plan claims database.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) for knee osteoarthritis (OA) effectively reduces pain and delays total knee replacement (TKR) surgery; however, little is known about relative differences in clinical and cost outcomes among different HA products. OBJECTIVE: To compare disease-specific costs and risk of TKR among patients receiving different HA treatments in a commercially insured cohort of patients with knee OA in the USA. METHOD: Retrospective analyses using IMS Health's PharMetrics Plus Health Plan Claims Database were conducted by identifying knee OA patients with claims indicating initiation of HA treatment at an 'index date' during the selection period (2007-2010). Patients were required to be continuously enrolled in the database for 12 months preindex to 36 months postindex. A generalized linear model (GLM) with a gamma distribution and log-link function was used to model aggregate patient-based changes in disease-specific costs. A Cox proportional hazards model (PHM) was used to model the risk of TKR. Both multivariate models included covariates such as age, gender, comorbidities, and preindex healthcare costs. RESULTS: 50,389 patients with HA treatment for knee OA were identified. 18,217 (36.2%) patients were treated with HA products indicated for five injections per treatment course (Supartz and Hyalgan). The remainder were treated with HA products indicated for fewer than five injections per treatment course, with 20,518 patients (40.7%) receiving Synvisc; 6,263 (12.4%), Euflexxa; and 5,391 (10.7%), Orthovisc. Synvisc- and Orthovisc-injected patients had greater disease-specific costs compared to Supartz/Hyalgan (9.0%, p<0.0001 and 6.8%, p=0.0050, respectively). Hazard ratios (HRs) showed a significantly higher risk of TKR for patients receiving Synvisc compared to Supartz/Hyalgan (HR=1.069, p=0.0009). Patients treated with Supartz/Hyalgan, Euflexxa, and Orthovisc had longer delays to TKR than those treated with Synvisc. CONCLUSION: Analysis of administrative claims data provides real-world evidence that meaningful differences exist among some HA products in disease-specific cost and time to knee replacement surgery.

Hyaluronic Acid Injections Are Associated with Delay of Total Knee Replacement Surgery in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Evidence from a Large U.S. Health Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: The growing prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) and the medical costs associated with total knee replacement (TKR) surgery for end-stage OA motivate a search for agents that can delay OA progression. We test a hypothesis that hyaluronic acid (HA) injection is associated with delay of TKR in a dose-dependent manner. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We retrospectively evaluated records in an administrative claims database of ~79 million patients, to identify all patients with knee OA who received TKR during a 6-year period. Only patients with continuous plan enrollment from diagnosis until TKR were included, so that complete medical records were available. OA diagnosis was the index event and we evaluated time-to-TKR as a function of the number of HA injections. The database included 182,022 patients with knee OA who had TKR; 50,349 (27.7%) of these patients were classified as HA Users, receiving ≥1 courses of HA prior to TKR, while 131,673 patients (72.3%) were HA Non-users prior to TKR, receiving no HA. Cox proportional hazards modelling shows that TKR risk decreases as a function of the number of HA injection courses, if patient age, gender, and disease comorbidity are used as background covariates. Multiple HA injections are therefore associated with delay of TKR (all, P < 0.0001). Half of HA Non-users had a TKR by 114 days post-diagnosis of knee OA, whereas half of HA Users had a TKR by 484 days post-diagnosis (χ2 = 19,769; p < 0.0001). Patients who received no HA had a mean time-to-TKR of 0.7 years; with one course of HA, the mean time to TKR was 1.4 years (χ2 = 13,725; p < 0.0001); patients who received ≥5 courses delayed TKR by 3.6 years (χ2 = 19,935; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: HA injection in patients with knee OA is associated with a dose-dependent increase in time-to-TKR.

Is resurfacing the patella cheaper? An economic analysis of evidence based medicine on patellar resurfacing.

BACKGROUND: Primary total knee arthroplasty is a high volume procedure which is expected to grow dramatically in the near future. The decision to resurface the patella has been discussed extensively in the literature yet the financial implications of resurfacing versus not resurfacing have not been demonstrated. METHODS: We identified all randomized controlled trials comparing patellar resurfacing to nonresurfacing in the past ten years and identified the total number of patellofemoral revision surgeries for both resurfaced and nonresurfaced patellas in each study. An expected-value decision tree analysis was created using only data from the randomized controlled trials. Actual costs collected from Medicare reimbursement rates were then applied to the model and a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The expected value of primary total knee arthroplasty with patellar resurfacing was $13,788.48 while a primary total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing was $14,016.41 after five years. The difference represents an additional $227.92 of Medicare dollars for every primary total knee arthroplasty performed without patellar resurfacing at five years. The model remains valid as long as patellofemoral revision rates after patellar resurfacing remain below 3.54% and patellofemoral revision rates after nonresurfaced patellas remain above 0.77%. CONCLUSIONS: While initially counterintuitive, resurfacing the patella during a primary total knee arthroplasty is the optimal financial strategy from a Medicare perspective over a mid term period.