What Factors Lead to Racial Disparities in Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most commonly performed, major elective surgeries in the USA. African American TKA patients on average experience worse clinical outcomes than whites, including lower improvements in patient-reported outcomes and higher rates of complications, hospital readmissions, and reoperations. The mechanisms leading to these racial health disparities are unclear, but likely involve patient, provider, healthcare system, and societal factors. Lower physical and mental health at baseline, lower social support, provider bias, lower rates of health insurance coverage, higher utilization of lower quality hospitals, and systemic racism may contribute to the inferior outcomes that African Americans experience. Limited evidence suggests that improving the quality of surgical care can offset these factors and lead to a reduction in outcome disparities.

What Is the Appropriate Price for Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Evidence From Level I Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To identify the price of treatment at which platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is cost-effective relative to hyaluronic acid (HA) and saline solution intra-articular injections. METHODS: A systemized review process of the PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with HA and saline solution with up to 1 year of follow-up. Level I trials that reported Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Likert scores were included. These scores were converted into utility scores. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee schedules. Total costs included the costs of the injectable, clinic appointments, and procedures. The change in utility scores from baseline to 6 months and 1 year for the PRP, HA, and saline solution groups was divided by total cost to determine utility gained per dollar and to identify the price needed for PRP to be cost-effective relative to these other injection options. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 882 patients were included: 483 in the PRP group, 338 in the HA group, and 61 in the saline solution group. Baseline mean utility scores ranged from 0.55 to 0.57 for the PRP, HA, and saline solution groups. The 6-month gains in utility were 0.12, 0.02, and -0.06, respectively. The 12-month gains in utility from before injection were 0.14, 0.03, and 0.06, respectively. The lowest total costs for HA and saline solution were $681.93 and $516.29, respectively. For PRP to be cost-effective, the total treatment cost would have to be less than $3,703.03 and $1,192.08 for 6- and 12-month outcomes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, PRP is cost-effective, from the payer perspective, at a total price (inclusive of clinic visits, the procedure, and the injectable) of less than $1,192.08 over a 12-month period, relative to HA and saline solution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review.

Evaluating meniscus allograft transplant using a cost-effectiveness threshold analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) delays progression of osteoarthritis (OA). Cost-effectiveness threshold analysis can demonstrate the necessary delay in OA progression required by MAT to be considered cost-effective compared to non-operative management. The purpose of this study is to identify the efficacy MAT requires in delaying progression to OA in previously meniscectomized knees in order to be considered cost-effective compared to non-operative treatment. A secondary goal is to demonstrate the influence of age and BMI on the required efficacy of MAT for cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MAT compared to non-operative management for patients with prior meniscectomy. Input parameters were identified in existing literature. Cost was derived from literature and The PearlDiver Patient Records Database. The required rate of OA progression was compared across treatment modalities to determine how effective MAT is required to be cost-effective. RESULTS: MAT needs to be 31% more effective in delaying OA compared to non-operative interventions in order to be cost-effective. MAT is most cost-effective in 20-29 year-old patients, requiring a 25% greater efficacy in delaying OA. Obesity (BMI 30-35) makes MAT less cost-effective when compared to non-obese patients; however, the difference in required efficacy in delaying OA among obese patient when compared to non-operative management is approximately 10%. CONCLUSIONS: MAT needs to be approximately one-third more effective in delaying OA in previously meniscectomized knees to be considered cost-effective. Younger, non-obese patients have the lowest required efficacy of MAT to be cost-effective.

Cost-benefit analysis of routine pathology examination in primary shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The annual number of shoulder arthroplasty procedures is continuing to increase. Specimens from shoulder arthroplasty cases are routinely sent for pathologic examination. This study sought to evaluate the clinical utility and associated costs of routine pathologic examination of tissue removed during primary shoulder arthroplasty cases and to determine cost-effectiveness of this practice. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of primary shoulder arthroplasty cases. Patients whose humeral head was sent for routine pathologic examination were included. Cases were determined to have concordant, discrepant, or discordant diagnoses based on preoperative/postoperative diagnosis and pathology diagnosis. Costs were estimated in 2015 U.S. dollars, and cost-effectiveness was determined by the cost per discrepant diagnosis and cost per discordant diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 714 cases of primary shoulder arthroplasty in 646 patients who met inclusion criteria. The prevalence of concordant diagnoses was 94.1%, the prevalence of discrepant diagnoses was 5.9%, and no cases had discordant diagnoses. There were 172 cases that had biceps tendon specimens sent for pathology examination, and none led to a change in patient care. Total estimated costs were $77,309.34 in 2015 U.S. dollars. Cost per discrepant diagnosis for humeral head specimens was $1424.09, and cost per discordant diagnosis is at least $59,811.78. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Primary shoulder arthroplasty has a high rate of concordant diagnosis. Discrepant diagnoses were 5.9% in our study, and there were no discordant diagnoses. This study showed limited clinical utility in routinely sending specimens from primary shoulder arthroplasty cases for pathology examination, and calculation using a traditional life-year value of $50,000 showed that the standard for cost-effectiveness is not met.