The SLIM Study: Economic, Energy, and Waste Savings Through Lowering of Instrumentation Mass in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 700,000 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are annually performed in North America, costing the healthcare system >$15 billion and creating over 5 million tons of waste. This study aims to (1) assess satisfaction of current THA setup; (2) determine economic cost, energy cost, and waste cost of current setup and apply lean methodology to improve efficiency; and (3) design and test "Savings through Lowering of Instrumentation Mass (SLIM) setup" based on lean principles and its ability to be safely implemented into practice. METHODS: A Needs Assessment Survey was performed. After review and surgeon input, the "SLIM" set was designed, significantly reducing redundancy. Eighty patients were randomized to either Standard or SLIM setup. Operating room time, blood loss, perioperative adverse events and complications, cost/case, instrument weight (kg/case), total waste (kg/case), case setup time, and number of times and number of extra trays required were compared between groups. RESULTS: The SLIM setup was associated with the following savings: Cost = -$408.19/case; Energy = -7.16 kWh/case; Waste = -1.61 kg/case; Trays = -6 (758 kg/case). No differences in operating room time, blood loss, and complication rate were detected (P > .05) between groups. Setup time was significantly shorter with SLIM (P < .05) and extra instrumentation was opened in <5% of cases. CONCLUSION: A more "minimalist approach" to THA can be safely implemented. The SLIM setup is efficient and has been openly accepted by our allied staff. Such setup can lead to 1,610 kg reduction in waste, 7,160 kWh, and $408,190 in savings per 1,000 THAs performed.

What Do Reported Learning Curves Mean for Orthopaedic Surgeons?

Practicing orthopaedic surgeons must assess the effects of the learning curve on patient safety and surgical outcomes if a new implant, technique, or approach is being considered; however, it remains unclear how learning curves reported in the literature should be interpreted and to what extent their results can be generalized. Learning curve reports from other surgical specialties and from orthopaedic surgery can be analyzed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of learning curve reporting. Single-surgeon series and registry data can be analyzed to understand learning challenges and to develop a personalized learning plan. Learning curve reports from single-surgeon series have several limitations that result from the limited dataset reported and inconsistencies in the way data are reported. Conversely, learning curve reports from registry data are likely to have greater generalizability, but are largely beneficial retrospectively, after data from a sufficient number of surgeons are assessed. There is a pressing need for surgeons to develop improved and consistent standards for learning curve reporting. Although registry data may provide better prospective measures in the future, the implementation of such registries faces several challenges. Despite substantial limitations, single-surgeon series remain the most effective way for practicing surgeons to assess their learning challenge and develop an appropriate learning plan.