Performing a knee arthroscopy among patients with degenerative knee disease: one-third is potentially low value care.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess in which proportion of patients with degenerative knee disease aged 50+ in whom a knee arthroscopy is performed, no valid surgical indication is reported in medical records, and to explore possible explanatory factors. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using administrative data from January to December 2016 in 13 orthopedic centers in the Netherlands. Medical records were selected from a random sample of 538 patients aged 50+ with degenerative knee disease in whom arthroscopy was performed, and reviewed on reported indications for the performed knee arthroscopy. Valid surgical indications were predefined based on clinical national guidelines and expert opinion (e.g., truly locked knee). A knee arthroscopy without a reported valid indication was considered potentially low value care. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess whether age, diagnosis ("Arthrosis" versus "Meniscal lesion"), and type of care trajectory (initial or follow-up) were associated with performing a potentially low value knee arthroscopy. RESULTS: Of 26,991 patients with degenerative knee disease, 2556 (9.5%) underwent an arthroscopy in one of the participating orthopedic centers. Of 538 patients in whom an arthroscopy was performed, 65.1% had a valid indication reported in the medical record and 34.9% without a reported valid indication. From the patients without a valid indication, a joint patient-provider decision or patient request was reported as the main reason. Neither age [OR 1.013 (95% CI 0.984-1.043)], diagnosis [OR 0.998 (95% CI 0.886-1.124)] or type of care trajectory [OR 0.989 (95% CI 0.948-1.032)] were significantly associated with performing a potentially low value knee arthroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: In a random sample of knee arthroscopies performed in 13 orthopedic centers in 2016, 65% had valid indications reported in the medical records but 35% were performed without a reported valid indication and, therefore, potentially low value care. Patient and/or surgeons preference may play a large role in the decision to perform an arthroscopy without a valid indication. Therefore, interventions should be developed to increase adherence to clinical guidelines by surgeons that target invalid indications for a knee arthroscopy to improve care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

No differences in cost-effectiveness and short-term functional outcomes between cemented and uncemented total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate regarding optimal fixation of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however cost has not been addressed as profoundly. Therefore, the current study primarily aimed to compare costs and cost-effectiveness 1 year after cemented or uncemented TKA. A secondary objective was to compare short-term functional outcomes between both groups. METHODS: A posthoc prospective observational multicenter cohort study of 60 cemented and 50 uncemented Low Contact Stress (LCS) knee systems. Outcome was evaluated using the EuroQol5D-3 L (EQ5D) index, in order to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Total costs were calculated considering direct costs within the hospital setting (inpatient cost) as well as direct and indirect costs outside the hospital. Cost-effectiveness (total costs per QALY), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) were compared between cemented and uncemented cases at 1 year after surgery. HealthBASKET project, a micro-costing approach, represents the Dutch costs and situation and was used to calculate hospital stay. (In) direct costs outside the healthcare (medical cost and productivity cost) were determined using two validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Median costs per QALY were similar between cemented and uncemented TKA patients (€16,269 and €17,727 respectively; p = 0.50). Median OKS (44 and 42; p = 0.79), EQ5D (0.88 and 0.90; p = 0.82) and NRS for pain (1.0 and 1.0; p = 0.48) and satisfaction (9.0 and 9.0; p = 0.15) were also comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: For this type of knee implant (LCS), inpatient hospital costs and costs after hospitalization were comparable between groups.

Healthcare costs and loss of productivity in patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis.

The objective of this study was to analyse healthcare and productivity costs in patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. We included 161 patients who received surgery or steroid injection and calculated their healthcare costs in Euro (€) over 1 year. Patients filled out the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire to assess loss of productivity at baseline, and after 3, and 12 months. In the surgical group, loss of productivity among employed patients first increased and then decreased (50%, 64%, and 25% at 0, 3, and 12 months). Productivity was more stable over time in the injection group (52%, 38%, and 48%). In the surgical group, estimated total annual healthcare and productivity costs were €5770 and €5548, respectively. In the injection group, healthcare and productivity costs were €348 and €3503. These findings highlight the need for assessing productivity costs to get a comprehensive view of the costs associated with a treatment.Level of Evidence III.

Development of a score set to measure function and quality of life in patients suffering from elbow pathology.

INTRODUCTION: Daily function plays an important role in the quality of life for patients suffering from pathology of the upper extremity. The recovery of functions of daily living determines the success or failure of the treatment for the patient. The goal of this study was to establish and validate a score set measuring quality of life, and objective and subjective function in general elbow pathologies. METHODS: A literature review was performed, in order to find a patient-based elbow specific questionnaire. The score set was tested and validated in a cross-sectional setting. RESULTS: The patient-rated elbow evaluation (PREE) was chosen as the patient-based elbow specific questionnaire. For measuring general health and subjective arm function, the short form-36 mental health (SF-36 MH) and the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (quick DASH) were chosen, respectively. To measure objective function, several clinical tests were implemented. The score set was tested in 66 patients, of which 56.1% had function restrictions due to pain. The correlation between the PREE-function and quick DASH was found to be the highest (r = 0.74*). Between the PREE and quick DASH, the correlation was good (r = 0.70*) and between the PREE-pain and quick DASH, the correlation was moderate (r = 0.58*). The lowest correlation (r = 0.18) was found between the PREE and SF-36 MH (*p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: General health, subjective and objective function can be measured in elbow pathology patients using a score set containing the SF-36 MH, quick DASH, PREE, and several clinical tests. Further testing of the score set needs to be executed in a prospective study.

Soft-tissue artefact assessment during step-up using fluoroscopy and skin-mounted markers.

When measuring knee kinematics with skin-mounted markers, soft tissue and structures surrounding the knee hide the actual underlying segment kinematics. Soft-tissue artefacts can be reduced when plate-mounted markers or marker trees are used instead of individual unconstrained mounted markers. The purpose of this study was to accurately quantify the soft-tissue artefacts and to compare two marker cluster fixation methods by using fluoroscopy of knee motion after total knee arthroplasty during a step-up task. Ten subjects participated 6 months after their total knee arthroplasty. The patients were randomised into (1) a plate-mounted marker group and (2) a strap-mounted marker group. Fluoroscopic data were collected during a step-up motion. A three-dimensional model fitting technique was used to reconstruct the in vivo 3-D positions of the markers and the implants representing the bones. The measurement errors associated with the thigh were generally larger (maximum translational error: 17mm; maximum rotational error 12 degrees ) than the measurement errors for the lower leg (maximum translational error: 11mm; maximum rotational error 10 degrees ). The strap-mounted group showed significant more translational errors than the plate-mounted group for both the shank (respectively, 3+/-2.2 and 0+/-2.0mm, p = 0.025) and the thigh (2+/-2.0 and 0+/-5.9mm, p = 0.031). The qualitative conclusions based on interpretation of the calculated estimates of effects within the longitudinal mixed-effects modelling evaluation of the data for the two groups (separately) were effectively identical. The soft-tissue artefacts across knee flexion angle could not be distinguished from zero for both groups. For all cases, recorded soft-tissue artefacts were less variable within subjects than between subjects. The large soft-tissue artefacts, when using clustered skin markers, irrespective of the fixation method, question the usefulness of parameters found with external movement registration and clinical interpretation of stair data in small patient groups.