Dual Mobility Articulation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An American Joint Replacement Registry Analysis of Patients Aged 65 Years and Older.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, dual mobility (DM) articulations have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), which may prevent postoperative hip instability. The purpose of this study was to report on outcomes of DM implants used in revision THA from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). METHODS: Revision THA cases performed between 2012 and 2018 Medicare were eligible and categorized by 3 articulations: DM, ≤32 mm, and ≥36 mm femoral heads. The AJRR-sourced revision THA cases were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data to supplement (re)revision cases not captured in the AJRR. Patient and hospital characteristics were described and modeled as covariates. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, considering competing risk of mortalities, hazard ratios were estimated for all-cause re-revision and re-revision for instability. Of 20,728 revision THAs, 3,043 (14.7%) received a DM, 6,565 (31.7%) a ≤32 mm head, and 11,120 (53.6%) a ≥36 mm head. RESULTS: At 8-year follow-up, the cumulative all-cause re-revision rate for ≤32 mm heads was 21.9% (95%-confidence interval (CI) 20.2%-23.7%) and significantly (P < .0001) higher than DM (16.5%, 95%-CI 15.0%-18.2%) and ≥36 mm heads (15.2%, 95%-CI 14.2%-16.3%). At 8-year follow-up, ≥36 heads had significantly (P < .0001) lower hazard of re-revision for instability (3.3%, 95%-CI 2.9%-3.7%) while the DM (5.4%, 95%-CI 4.5%-6.5%) and ≤32 mm groups (8.6%, 95%-CI 7.7%-9.6%) had higher rates. CONCLUSION: The DM bearings are associated with lower rates of revision for instability compared to patients who had ≤32 mm heads and higher revision rates for ≥36 mm heads. These results may be biased due to unidentified covariates associated with implant selection.

A Risk Assessment Tool Based on Orthopedic Psychosocial and Health Status Factors is Associated With Post-Acute Resources.

BACKGROUND: We implemented a risk assessment tool (RAT) used by clinical navigators to quantify pre-operative mobility, home safety, social/cognitive barriers, and patient health history. We sought to determine if this RAT is associated with the need for post-acute care (PAC) services defined as inpatient rehabilitation and skilled nursing facility, home health, and none (home) following total joint arthroplasty. METHODS: The study sample comprised of a total of 1438 primary TJA patients included in a bundled payment model. The RAT score, which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing healthier, more independent patents, was the key independent variable and post-acute service was the primary outcome variable. RESULTS: The median RAT score was 83 (interquartile range 78-87.5) for no PAC discharges compared to 74 (interquartile range 67-81) for inpatient PAC discharges (P < .0001). After adjusting for the effects of length of hospital stay, surgery type, and patient gender, there was 6× increased odds of inpatient PAC for higher risk patients compared to low risk patients. A RAT score of 74 predicts discharges without PAC 87% of the time. CONCLUSION: The RAT that is based on psychosocial, cognitive, environmental factors, and health status was significantly associated with the need for PAC services. The next step is to build and validate a real time, risk adjustment model to assist physicians and patients with planning post-discharge resources.

Unintended Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Consequences After Removal of Total Knee Arthroplasty From Inpatient-Only List.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beginning in 2013 introduced the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative to test innovative payment and service delivery models. Early implementers of the BPCI program have shown decreased hospital length of stays, discharges to inpatient facilities, and readmission rates with overall cost savings. Removal of total knee arthroplasty from the Medicare inpatient-only list may potentially cause substantial changes in patients included in BPCI bundles in 2018. METHODS: The 2017 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to compare total expenditures of diagnosis-related groups 469 and 470. Medicare patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty between January 2017 and December 2017 were defined as group one (n = 1024) and expenditures were compared to group two patients (n = 631) that included only those patients staying greater than 24 hours. Postacute events within the 90-day episode including admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility/skilled nursing facility (SNF), home health (HH), and readmissions were analyzed. Expenditures were converted to 2018 dollars using Consumer Price Index. Statistical analysis of expenditures was performed with Wilcoxon Tests. RESULTS: Median expenditures were $15,587 (interquartile range [IQR] $13,915-$17,684) for group 1 and $16,706 (IQR $15,333-$19,247) for group 2 (P < .001). Median postacute care spend was $3817 (IQR $2431-$5057) for group 1 and $4195 (IQR $3049-$6064) for group 2 patients (P < .001). Compared with group 1 patients, group 2 patients had a higher rate of SNF admissions (21% vs 13%), inpatient rehabilitation facility admissions (0.16% vs 0.1%), HH (72% vs 69%), and readmissions (5% vs 4%). CONCLUSION: Implications of the removal of total knee arthroplasty from the inpatient-only list could potentially remove up to 40% of patients from the BPCI program leading to substantially less savings on average $1100 per patient. Remaining bundle patients are also more likely to require HH and SNF after discharge.

Are Ceramic Bearings Becoming Cost-Effective for All Patients Within a 90-Day Bundled Payment Period?

BACKGROUND: We analyzed whether the total hospital cost in a 90-day bundled payment period for ceramic-on-polyethylene (C-PE) and ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) total hip arthroplasty (THA) bearings was changing over time, and whether the cost differential between ceramic bearings and metal-on-polyethylene (M-PE) bearings was approaching the previously published tipping point for cost-effectiveness of US$325. METHODS: A total of 245,077 elderly Medicare patients (65+) who underwent primary THA between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the United States Medicare 100% national administrative hospital claims database. The total inpatient cost, calculated up to 90 days after index discharge, was computed using cost-to-charge ratios, and hospital payment was analyzed. The differential total inpatient cost of C-PE and COC bearings, compared to metal-on-polyethylene (M-PE), was evaluated using parametric and nonparametric models. RESULTS: After adjustment for patient and clinical factors, and the year of surgery, the mean hospital cost up to 90 days for primary THA with C-PE or COC was within ±1% of the cost for primary THA with M-PE bearings (P < .001). From the nonparametric analysis, the median total hospital cost was US$296-US$353 more for C-PE and COC than M-PE. Cost differentials were found to decrease significantly over time (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patient and clinical factors had a far greater impact on the total cost of inpatient THA surgery than bearing selection, even when including readmission costs up to 90 days after discharge. Our findings indicate that the cost-effectiveness thresholds for ceramic bearings relative to M-PE are changing over time and increasingly achievable for the Medicare population.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Meniscal Repair Versus Partial Meniscectomy in the Setting of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with meniscal repair to ACL reconstruction with partial meniscectomy. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov disease progression model with a 40-year horizon was created simulating outcomes after both meniscal repair and partial meniscectomy at the time of ACL reconstruction. Event probabilities, costs, and utilities were used for the index procedures. The development of osteoarthritis and subsequent knee replacement were either calculated or selected from published literature. Difference in cost, difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effective ratio were calculated to determine which index procedure is most cost-effective. RESULTS: There is total direct cost from ACL reconstruction with meniscus repair of $17,898 compared with that with partial meniscectomy of $24,768 (cost savings of $6,870). There was an estimated gain of 18.00 QALYs after ACL reconstruction with meniscus repair compared with 17.16 QALYs with partial meniscectomy (increase of 0.84 QALYs). In this scenario, meniscus repair is the dominant index procedure at the time of ACL reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Meniscal repair at the time of ACL reconstruction is more cost-effective than partial meniscectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

Are Ceramic Bearings Becoming Cost-Effective for All Patients?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to analyze whether the cost for ceramic-on-polyethylene (C-PE) and ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) bearings used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) was changing over time, and if the cost differential between ceramic bearings and metal-on-polyethylene (M-PE) bearings was approaching the previously published tipping point for cost-effectiveness of $325. METHODS: A total of 245,077 elderly Medicare patients (65+) who underwent primary THA between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the United States Medicare 100% national administrative hospital claims database. The inpatient hospital cost, calculated using cost-to-charge ratios, and hospital payment were analyzed. The differential cost of C-PE and COC bearings, compared to M-PE, were evaluated using parametric and nonparametric models. RESULTS: After adjustment for patient and clinical factors, and the year of surgery, the mean hospital cost and payments for primary THA with a C-PE or COC was within ±1% of the cost for primary THA with M-PE bearings (P < .001). From the nonparametric analysis, the median hospital cost was $318-$360 more for C-PE and COC than M-PE. The differential in median Medicare payment for THA with ceramic bearings compared to M-PE was <$100. Cost differentials were found to decrease significantly over time (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patient and clinical factors had a far greater impact on the cost of inpatient THA surgery than bearing selection. Because we found that costs and cost differentials for ceramic bearings were decreasing over time, and approaching the tipping point, it is likely that the cost-effectiveness thresholds relative to M-PE are likewise changing over time and should be revisited in light of this study.

Is there value in retrospective 90-day bundle payment models for shoulder arthroplasty procedures?

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative was implemented as part of the Affordable Care Act. We implemented a retrospective payment model 2 for a 90-day total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) episode to assess the value of TSA BPCI at our private practice. METHODS: Expenditures and postacute event rates of 132 fee-for-service (FFS) patients who underwent a TSA operation between 2009 and 2012 were compared with 333 BPCI patients who had a TSA operation in 2015. The 90-day postacute events included an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), skilled nursing facility (SNF), and home health (HH) admissions and readmissions. Expenditures were converted to 2016 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Wilcoxon tests and multivariate generalized estimating equation were used to assess independent cost-drivers. RESULTS: The median FFS expenditure was $21,157 (interquartile range, $16,894-$30,748) compared with $17,894 (interquartile range, $15,796-$20,894) for BPCI (P < .0001). The BPCI patients had significantly lower rates of SNF admissions (34% FFS vs. 16% BPCI; P < .001), IRF admissions (3% FFS vs. 0.6% BPCI; P = .05), HH utilization (49% FFS vs. 41% BPCI; P = .05), and readmissions (14% FFS vs. 7% BPCI; P = .01). After controlling for postacute events in the multivariate regression model, we found BPCI had a 4% decrease in expenditures (P = .08). All postacute events were independently associated with higher expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Our private practice implemented cost-containment practices, including clinical guidelines, patient navigators, and a BPCI management team. IRF and SNF utilization and the 90-day readmission rate significantly decreased. As a result, we were able to control the postacute spending, which resulted in decreased costs of performing TSA surgery.

Biceps Tenodesis: Biomechanical Assessment of 3 Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Techniques.

Biceps tenodesis maintains the cosmetic appearance and length-tension relationship of the biceps with an associated predictable clinical outcome compared with tenotomy. Arthroscopic suprapectoral techniques are being developed to avoid the disadvantages of the open subpectoral approach. This study biomechanically compared 3 arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis techniques performed with a suture anchor with lasso loop technique, an interference screw, and a compressive rivet. For a total of 15 randomized paired tests, 15 pairs of human cadaveric shoulders were used to test 1 technique vs another 5 times with 3 customized setups. Biomechanical testing was performed with an electromechanical testing system. The tendon was preloaded with 10 N and cyclically loaded at 0 to 40 N for 50 cycles. Load to failure testing was performed at 1 mm/s until failure occurred. The compressive rivet, interference screw, and suture anchor with lasso loop had mean load to failure of 97.1 N, 146.4 N, and 157.6 N, respectively. The difference in ultimate strength between the suture anchor with lasso loop and the compressive rivet was statistically significant (P=.04). No significant differences were found between the suture anchor with lasso loop and the interference screw (P=.93) or between the interference screw and the rivet (P=.10). When adjusted for sex, the load to failure overall among the 3 constructs was not significantly different. All 3 techniques had a different predominant mechanism of failure. The suture anchor with lasso loop showed superior load to failure compared with the compressive rivet. The minimum load to failure required to achieve clinically reliable biceps tenodesis is unknown. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(6):e1009-e1016.].

Bundled Payments for Care Improvement: Boom or Bust?

BACKGROUND: As early implementors of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, our private practice sought to compare our readmission rates, post-acute care utilization, and length of stay for the first year under BPCI compared to baseline data. METHODS: We used CMS data to compare total expenditures of all diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Medicare patients who underwent orthopedic surgery between 2009 and 2012 were defined as non-BPCI (n = 8415) and were compared to Medicare BPCI patients (n = 4757) who had surgery in 2015. Ninety-day post-acute events including inpatient rehabilitation facility or subacute nursing facility admission, home health (HH), and readmissions were analyzed. RESULTS: The median expenditure for non-BPCI patients was $22,193 compared to $19,476 for BPCI patients (P < .001). Median post-acute care spend was $6861 for non-BPCI and $5360 for BPCI patients (P < .001). Compared to non-BPCI patients, BPCI patients had a lower rate of subacute nursing facility admissions (non-BPCI 43% vs 37% BPCI; P < .001), inpatient rehabilitation facility admissions (non-BPCI 3% vs 4% BPCI; P = .005), HH (non-BPCI 79% vs 73% BPCI; P < .001), and readmissions (non-BPCI 12% vs 10% BPCI; P = .02). Changes in length of stay for post-acute care were only significant for HH with BPCI patients using a median 12 days and non-BPCI using 24 days. CONCLUSION: The objective of BPCI was to improve healthcare value. Through substantial efforts both financially and utilization of human resources to contain costs with clinical practice guidelines, patient navigators, and a BPCI management team, the expenditures for CMS were significantly lower for BPCI patients.

Cost Analysis of Ceramic Heads in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The advent of adverse local tissue reactions seen in metal-on-metal bearings, and the recent recognition of trunnionosis, have led many surgeons to recommend ceramic-on-polyethylene articulations for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, to our knowledge, there has been little research that has considered whether the increased cost of ceramic provides enough benefit over cobalt-chromium to justify its use. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of ceramic-on-polyethylene implants and metal-on-polyethylene implants in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Markov decision modeling was used to determine the ceramic-on-polyethylene implant revision rate necessary to be cost-effective compared with the revision rate of metal-on-polyethylene implants across a range of patient ages and implant costs. A different set of Markov models was used to estimate the national cost burden of choosing ceramic-on-polyethylene implants over metal-on-polyethylene implants for primary total hip arthroplasties. The Premier Research Database was used to identify 20,398 patients who in 2012 were ≥45 years of age and underwent a total hip arthroplasty with either a ceramic-on-polyethylene implant or a metal-on-polyethylene implant. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of ceramic heads is highly dependent on the cost differential between ceramic and metal femoral heads and the age of the patient. At a cost differential of $325, ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings are cost-effective for patients <85 years of age. At a cost differential of $600, it is cost-effective to utilize ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in patients <65 years of age, and, at a differential of $1,003, ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings are not cost-effective at any age. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to recoup the initial increased expenditure of ceramic heads through a diminished lifetime revision cost is dependent on the price premium for ceramic and the age of the patient. A wholesale switch to ceramic bearings regardless of age or cost differential may result in an economic burden to the health system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analysis, Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Differences in Hospital Billing for Total Joint Arthroplasty Based on Hospital Profit Status.

BACKGROUND: Regional variations in hospital billing for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have been reported. It is not clear whether differences exist in hospital charges for TJA based on hospital profit status. METHODS: Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRGs) 469 (TJA with comorbidity) and 470 (TJA without comorbidity) for fiscal year 2011 were analyzed. Differences in hospital charges and payments were investigated based on hospital profit status (nonprofit, government, and proprietary). Generalized estimating equations determined differences in charges and reimbursement between hospital types controlling for census region, MS-DRG, and number of discharges. RESULTS: Significant differences in billing between institutions existed with median average hospital charges for nonprofit, government, and proprietary institutions being $70,514.30, $73,540.99, and $113,203.77 (P < .0001), respectively, for DRG 469 and $45,363.95, $44,956.57, and $62,715.39 (P < .0001), respectively, for DRG 470. Median average Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payments for nonprofit, government, and proprietary institutions for DRG 469 were $22,334.34, $21,346.65, and $21,281.30 (P = .017), respectively, and $14,461.95, $14,466.04, and $13,733.62 (P < .0001), respectively, for DRG 470. Multivariate analyses indicate that nonprofit hospitals charge 5% more (P = .021) and receive 3% less (P = .011) reimbursement than government hospitals. Proprietary hospitals charge 34% more (P < .0001) and receive 7% less (P < .0001) reimbursement than government hospitals. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in hospital charges based on institution profit status were found, with proprietary institutions charging significantly more than nonprofit and government institutions. However, proprietary institutions had the lowest median average reimbursement.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Using Platelet-Rich Plasma During Rotator Cuff Repair: A Markov Model Analysis.

PURPOSE: To perform a cost-utility analysis to determine if the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) products during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) is cost-effective. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a Markov decision model. Model inputs including health utility values, retear rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the best evidence available in the literature regarding full-thickness rotator cuff tears and their repair, as well as the augmentation of their repair with PRP. Costs were determined by examining the typical patient undergoing treatment for a full-thickness rotator cuff tear in a private orthopaedic clinic and outpatient surgery center. RESULTS: The cost per quality-adjusted life-year ($/QALY) of RCR with and without PRP was $6,775/QALY and $6,612/QALY, respectively. In our base case, the use of PRP to augment RCR was not cost-effective because it had exactly the same "effectiveness" as RCR without PRP augmentation while being associated with a higher cost (additional $750). Sensitivity analysis showed that to achieve a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the addition of PRP would need to be associated with a 9.1% reduction in retear rates. If the cost of PRP were increased to $1,000, the retear rate would need to be reduced by 12.1% to reach this same threshold. This compared with a necessary reduction of only 6.1% if the additional cost of PRP was $500. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-utility analysis shows that, currently, the use of PRP to augment RCR is not cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis showed that PRP-augmented repairs would have to show a reduced retear rate of at least 9.1% before the additional cost would be considered cost-effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, analysis of Level I, II, and III studies.

What Is the Benefit of Tranexamic Acid vs Reinfusion Drains in Total Joint Arthroplasty?

We sought to compare the efficacy and cost of reinfusion drains vs tranexamic acid (TA) in primary total joint athroplasty (TJA) patients. We randomized 186 primary TJAs (71 hips, 115 knees) to standard drains (61/186), autologous reinfusion drains (60/186), or single dose (20 mg/kg) of TA (65/186). There was a statistically significant (P < .0001) less drop in hemoglobin levels (2.98 mg/dL; range, 0.5-6.10) in the TA group compared with standard drains (P < .0001) and reinfusion drains (P < .0061). There was no significant difference in transfusion rates. At $581.89, the unit cost of the reinfusion system is substantially higher than the standard drain ($7.56) and TA ($35.91/g). The results of this randomized controlled trial demonstrate that TA is more efficacious and provides cost savings compared with reinfusion drains as a blood management tool for TJA.

Variations in hospital billing for total joint arthroplasty.

Although regional variations in Medicare spending are known, it is not clear whether regional variations exist in hospital charges for total joint arthroplasty. Data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on Diagnosis Related Groups 469 and 470 (Major Joint with and without Major Complicating or Comorbid Condition) from 2011 were analyzed for variation by region. Drastic variations in charges between institutions were apparent with significant differences between regions for hospital charges and payments. The median hospital charge nationwide was $71,601 and $46,219 for Diagnosis Related Groups 469 and 470, respectively, with corresponding median payments of $21,231 and $13,743. Weak to no correlation was found between hospital charges and payments despite adjustments for wage index, cost of living, low-income care and teaching institution status.

A cost-utility analysis comparing the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous and staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of simultaneous or staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty have long been debated among orthopaedic surgeons. Advocates for simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty posit that the benefits of decreased costs and recovery time, with no difference in functional outcomes, outweigh the economic costs of potential complications. The purpose of the study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with that of staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Nationwide Inpatient Sample data sets from 2004 to 2007 were used to identify 24,574 simultaneous and 382,496 unilateral procedures. On the basis of the codes of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, perioperative complications were categorized as minor, major, and mortality, and respective probability values were calculated. Nationwide Inpatient Sample data were used to determine hospital costs conditional on procedure type and complications. Rehabilitation costs, anesthesia costs, and heath utilities were estimated from the literature. To minimize selection bias, propensity score matching was used to match the groups on comorbid conditions, socioeconomic variables, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Using the matched sample, all complication rates were higher for the staged group. The estimated mean cost (in 2012 U.S. dollars) was $43,401 for simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty compared with $72,233 for staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. The quality-adjusted life years gained were 9.31 for simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty and 9.29 for staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. On the basis of these matched results, simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty dominated staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty with lower costs and better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this analysis, simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty is more cost-effective than staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty, with lower costs and better outcomes for the average patient. These data can inform shared medical decision-making when bilateral total knee arthroplasty is indicated.

Physical therapy mandates by Medicare administrative contractors: effective or wasteful?

Documentation of medical necessity for arthroplasty has come under scrutiny by Medicare. In some jurisdictions three months of physical therapy prior to arthroplasty has been mandated. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and cost of this policy to treat advanced osteoarthritis. A systematic review was performed to assimilate efficacy data for physical therapy in patients with advanced osteoarthritis. The number of arthroplasties performed annually was obtained to calculate cost. Evidence-based studies documenting the efficacy of physical therapy in treating advanced arthritis are lacking with a potential cost of 36-68 million dollars. Physical therapy mandates by administrative contractors are not only ineffective but are costly without patient benefit. Medical necessity documentation should be driven by orthopedists not retroactively by Medicare contractors.

Is socioeconomic status a risk factor for stiffness after total knee arthroplasty? A multicenter case-control study.

Socioeconomic factors may play a role in the development of arthrofibrosis following total knee arthroplasty. Using manipulation following total knee arthroplasty as a surrogate for stiffness, this multicenter case-control study found that African American and young patients (<45 years of age) had twice the odds for manipulation compared with Caucasian and older-age patients.

Joint replacement access in 2016: a supply side crisis.

Demand for primary and revision arthroplasty is expected to double in 10 years. Coincident with this is a decreased interest in arthroplasty by residents. Retirement of arthroplasty surgeons further threatens access. This study determines if supply will meet demand. Survey data were used to calculate the 2016 workforce. Demand in 2016 was estimated using the Nationwide Inpatients Sample. Between 2008 and 2016, 400 arthroplasty specialists and 1584 generalists will enter the workforce. By 2016, 1896 arthroplasty surgeons will retire using 65 years as a conservative retirement age, whereas 4239 will retire using 59 years as a baseline retirement age. In 2016, the model estimated a procedural shortfall ranging from 174,409 (↓18.6%) using conservative retirement assumptions (age, 65 years) to 1,177,761 (↓69.4%) using baseline retirement assumptions (age, 59 years). This economic model predicts a supply side crisis that threatens patient access to specialty care. Immediate steps to stimulate supply must be taken.

The obesity epidemic: its effect on total joint arthroplasty.

A retrospective review of patients with joint arthroplasty was performed to determine if body mass index has increased with time and if the body mass index of patients with arthroplasty was significantly different than that of the general population. We also sought to determine if reimbursement kept pace with this growing cohort. The number of obese patients increased from 30.4% in 1990 to 52.1% in 2005 (P < .0001). In 2005, 24% of the general population was obese, whereas 52.1% of arthroplasty patients were obese. Physician reimbursement decreased 38% for knee arthroplasty and 46% for hip arthroplasty and the need for total joint arthroplasty because of these confounding variables will increase exponentially beyond scheduled expectations. Patients and health policy forecasters must understand the interrelationship between obesity and the need for arthroplasty.