Early Arthroscopic Debridement May Be More Cost-Effective Than Nonoperative Management for Symptomatic Osteochondritis Dissecans Lesions of the Capitellum.

Purpose: To compare the cost-effectiveness of an initial trial of nonoperative treatment to that of early arthroscopic debridement for stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions of the capitellum. Methods: A Markov Chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1,000 simulated patients undergoing nonoperative management versus early arthroscopic debridement for stable OCD lesions of the capitellum. Health utility values, treatment success rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined on the basis of the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at our institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Mean total costs resulting from nonoperative management and early arthroscopic debridement were $5,330 and $21,672, respectively. On average, early arthroscopic debridement produced an additional 0.64 QALYS, resulting in an ICER of $25,245/QALY, which falls well below the widely accepted $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Overall, early arthroscopic debridement was determined to be the preferred cost-effective strategy in 69% of patients included in the microsimulation model. Conclusion: Results of the Monte Carlo microsimulation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated early arthroscopic debridement to be a cost-effective treatment strategy for the majority of stable OCD lesions of the capitellum. Although early arthroscopic debridement was associated with higher total costs, the increase in QALYS that resulted from early surgery was enough to justify the cost difference based on an ICER substantially below the $50,000 WTP threshold. Level of Evidence: Level III, economic computer simulation model.

Understanding risk for early dislocation resulting in reoperation within 90 days of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: extreme rare event detection through cost-sensitive machine learning.

BACKGROUND: Reliable prediction of postoperative dislocation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) would inform patient counseling as well as surgical and postoperative decision making. Understanding interactions between multiple risk factors is important to identify those patients most at risk of this rare but costly complication. To better understand these interactions, a game theory-based approach was undertaken to develop machine learning models capable of predicting dislocation-related 90-day readmission following RSA. MATERIAL & METHODS: A retrospective review of the Nationwide Readmissions Database was performed to identify patients who underwent RSA between 2016 and 2018 with a subsequent readmission for prosthetic dislocation. Of the 74,697 index procedures included in the data set, 740 (1%) experienced a dislocation resulting in hospital readmission within 90 days. Five machine learning algorithms were evaluated for their ability to predict dislocation leading to hospital readmission within 90 days of RSA. Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values were calculated for the top-performing models to quantify the importance of features and understand variable interaction effects, with hierarchical clustering used to identify cohorts of patients with similar risk factor combinations. RESULTS: Of the 5 models evaluated, the extreme gradient boosting algorithm was the most reliable in predicting dislocation (C statistic = 0.71, F2 score = 0.07, recall = 0.84, Brier score = 0.21). SHAP value analysis revealed multifactorial explanations for dislocation risk, with presence of a preoperative humerus fracture; disposition involving discharge or transfer to a skilled nursing facility, intermediate care facility, or other nonroutine facility; and Medicaid as the expected primary payer resulting in strong, positive, and unidirectional effects on increasing dislocation risk. In contrast, factors such as comorbidity burden, index procedure complexity and duration, age, sex, and presence or absence of preoperative glenohumeral osteoarthritis displayed bidirectional influences on risk, indicating potential protective effects for these variables and opportunities for risk mitigation. Hierarchical clustering using SHAP values identified patients with similar risk factor combinations. CONCLUSION: Machine learning can reliably predict patients at risk for postoperative dislocation resulting in hospital readmission within 90 days of RSA. Although individual risk for dislocation varies significantly based on unique combinations of patient characteristics, SHAP analysis revealed a particularly at-risk cohort consisting of young, male patients with high comorbidity burdens who are indicated for RSA after a humerus fracture. These patients may require additional modifications in postoperative activity, physical therapy, and counseling on risk-reducing measures to prevent early dislocation after RSA.

Identifying modifiable and nonmodifiable cost drivers of ambulatory rotator cuff repair: a machine learning analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Implementing novel tools that identify contributors to the cost of orthopedic procedures can help hospitals maximize efficiency, minimize waste, improve surgical decision-making, and practice value-based care. The purpose of this study was to develop and internally validate a machine learning algorithm to identify key drivers of total charges after ambulatory arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and compare its performance with a state-of-the-art statistical learning model. METHODS: A retrospective review of the New York State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database was performed to identify patients who underwent elective outpatient rotator cuff repair (RCR) from 2015 to 2016. Initial models were constructed using patient characteristics (age, gender, insurance status, patient income, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index) as well as intraoperative variables (concomitant procedures and services, operative time). These were subsequently entered into 5 separate machine learning algorithms and a generalized additive model using natural splines. Global variable importance and partial dependence curves were constructed to identify the greatest contributors to cost. RESULTS: A total of 33,976 patients undergoing ambulatory RCR were included. Median total charges after ambulatory RCR were $16,017 (interquartile range: $11,009-$22,510). The ensemble model outperformed the generalized additive model and demonstrated the best performance on internal validation (root mean squared error: $7112, 95% confidence interval: 7036-7188; logarithmic root mean squared error: 0.354, 95% confidence interval: 0.336-0.373, R2: 0.53), and identified major drivers of total charges after RCR as increasing operating room time, patient income level, number of anchors used, use of local infiltration anesthesia/peripheral nerve blocks, non-White race/ethnicity, and concurrent distal clavicle excision. The model was integrated into a web-based open-access application capable of providing individual predictions and explanations on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSION: This study developed an ensemble supervised machine learning algorithm that outperformed a sophisticated statistical learning model in predicting total charges after ambulatory RCR. Important contributors to total charges included operating room time, duration of care, number of anchors used, type of anesthesia, concomitant distal clavicle excision, community characteristics, and patient demographic factors. Generation of a patient-specific payment schedule based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality risk of mortality highlighted the financial risk assumed by physicians in flat episodic reimbursement schedules given variable patient comorbidities and the importance of an accurate prediction algorithm to appropriately reward high-value care at low costs.

Cost comparison and complication profiles of superior capsular reconstruction, lower trapezius transfer, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for irreparable rotator cuff tears.

BACKGROUND: Irreparable rotator cuff tears (IRCTs) pose treatment challenges both clinically and financially. As cost-effectiveness initiatives are prioritized, value-based health care delivery models are becoming increasingly common. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the cost, complications, and readmission rates of 3 common surgical treatment options for IRCTs: superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), arthroscopically assisted lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTTT), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). METHODS: Between 2018 and 2020, 155 patients who underwent shoulder surgery at a single institution for IRCT with minimal to no arthritis were identified. Procedures performed included 20 SCRs, 47 LTTTs, and 88 RSAs. A cost analysis was designed to include a period of 60 days preoperatively, the index surgical hospitalization, and 90 days postoperatively, including costs of any readmission or reoperation. RESULTS: Mean standardized costs were as follows: preoperative evaluation SCR $507, LTTT $507, and RSA $730; index surgical hospitalization SCR $19,675, LTTT $15,722, and RSA $16,077; and postoperative care SCR $655, LTTT $686, and RSA $404. Significant differences were observed in the index surgical costs (P < .001), with SCR incurring an additional average cost of $3953 and $3598 compared with LTTT and RSA, respectively. The 90-day complication, reoperation, and readmission rates were 0%, 0%, and 0% in the SCR group; 2.1%, 0%, and 0% in the LTTT group; and 3.4%, 0%, and 1.1% in the RSA group, respectively. With the numbers available, differences among the 3 surgical procedures with respect to complication (P = .223), reoperation (P = .999), and readmission rates (P = .568) did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The mean standardized costs for the treatment of 3 common IRCT procedures inclusive of 60-day workup and 90-day postoperative recovery were $16,915, $17,210, and $20,837 for LTTT, RSA (average added cost $295), and SCR (average added cost $3922), respectively. This information may provide surgeons and institutions with cost-related information that will become increasingly relevant with the expansion of value-based surgical reimbursements.

Three-dimensional muscle loss assessment: a novel computed tomography-based quantitative method to evaluate rotator cuff muscle fatty infiltration.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff fatty infiltration (FI) is one of the most important parameters to predict the outcome of certain shoulder conditions. The primary objective of this study was to define a new computed tomography (CT)-based quantitative 3-dimensional (3D) measure of muscle loss (3DML) based on the rationale of the 2-dimensional (2D) qualitative Goutallier score. The secondary objective of this study was to compare this new measurement method to traditional 2D qualitative assessment of FI according to Goutallier et al and to a 3D quantitative measurement of fatty infiltration (3DFI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 102 CT scans from healthy shoulders (46) and shoulders with cuff tear arthropathy (21), irreparable rotator cuff tears (18), and primary osteoarthritis (17) were analyzed by 3 experienced shoulder surgeons for subjective grading of fatty infiltration according to Goutallier, and their rotator cuff muscles were manually segmented. Quantitative 3D measurements of fatty infiltration (3DFI) were completed. The volume of muscle fibers without intramuscular fat was then calculated for each rotator cuff muscle and normalized to the patient's scapular volume to account for the effect of body size (NVfibers). 3D muscle mass (3DMM) was calculated by dividing the NVfibers value of a given muscle by the mean expected volume in healthy shoulders. 3D muscle loss (3DML) was defined as 1 - (3DMM). The correlation between Goutallier grading, 3DFI, and 3DML was compared using a Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: Interobserver reliability for the traditional 2D Goutallier grading was moderate for the infraspinatus (ISP, 0.42) and fair for the supraspinatus (SSP, 0.38), subscapularis (SSC, 0.27) and teres minor (TM, 0.27). 2D Goutallier grading was found to be significantly and highly correlated with 3DFI (SSP, 0.79; ISP, 0.83; SSC, 0.69; TM, 0.45) and 3DML (SSP, 0.87; ISP, 0.85; SSC, 0.69; TM, 0.46) for all 4 rotator cuff muscles (P < .0001). This correlation was significantly higher for 3DML than for the 3DFI for SSP only (P = .01). The mean values of 3DFI and 3DML were 0.9% and 5.3% for Goutallier 0, 2.9% and 25.6% for Goutallier 1, 11.4% and 49.5% for Goutallier 2, 20.7% and 59.7% for Goutallier 3, and 29.3% and 70.2% for Goutallier 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Goutallier score has been helping surgeons by using 2D CT scan slices. However, this grading is associated with suboptimal interobserver agreement. The new measures we propose provide a more consistent assessment that correlates well with Goutallier's principles. As 3DML measurements incorporate atrophy and fatty infiltration, they could become a very reliable index for assessing shoulder muscle function. Future algorithms capable of automatically calculating the 3DML of the cuff could help in the decision process for cuff repair and the choice of anatomic or reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Cost analysis and complication rate comparing open, mini-open, and all arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Hypothesis/Background: Value-based healthcare delivery models are becoming increasingly common and are driving cost effectiveness initiatives. Rotator cuff repair (RCR) is a commonly performed procedure with some variations on the specific surgical technique. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the cost, complications, and readmission rates of 3 categories of RCR techniques (open [oRCR], combined arthroscopically assisted and mini-open [CRCR], and all arthroscopic [ARCR]) at a high-volume institution. Methods: All RCR procedures performed by 2 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons at a single institution between 2012 and 2017 were retrospectively identified. These consisted of oRCR, CRCR, and ARCR repair techniques. One surgeon performed oRCR and CRCR, and the second surgeon performed ARCR. A cost analysis was designed to include a period of 60 days preoperatively, the index surgical hospitalization, and 90 days postoperatively, including costs of any readmission or reoperation. Results: The cohort consisted of 95 oRCR, 233 CRCR, and 287 ARCR. Median standardized costs were as follows: preoperative evaluation $486.03; index surgical hospitalization oRCR $9,343.10, CRCR $10,057.20, and ARCR $10,330.60; and postoperative care $875.02. Preoperative and postoperative costs did not vary based on the type of RCR performed. However, significant differences were observed among index surgical costs (P = .0008). The highest standardized cost for hospitalization for both the CRCR group and the ARCR group was related to the cost of the operating room and the implants. The 90-day complication, reoperation, and readmission rates were 1.1%, 1.1%, and 2.1% in the open group; 0.8%, 0.8%, and 1.7% in the combination group; 0%, 0%, and 1.7% in the all arthroscopic group, respectively. There were no significant differences among the 3 surgical procedures with respect to complication (P = .26), reoperation (P = .26), and readmission rates (P = .96). Discussion/Conclusions: In this investigation, the median standardized costs for RCR inclusive of 60-day workup and 90-day postoperative care were $10,704.15, $11,418.25, and $11,691.65 for oRCR, CRCR (average added cost $714.10), and ARCR (added cost $987.50), respectively. The group complication, reoperation, and readmission rate were 0.5%, 0.5%, and 1.8% with no significant differences between the varying techniques, respectively. This retrospective cost analysis and complication profile may serve as a useful reference as surgeons consider engaging in bundled payment for RCR. As value based initiatives continue to progress, implant cost may serve as an actionable area for cost reduction.

Cost analysis and complication profile of primary shoulder arthroplasty at a high-volume institution.

BACKGROUND: Paralleling the increased utilization of shoulder arthroplasty, bundled-payment reimbursement is becoming increasingly common. An understanding of the costs of each element of care and detailed information on the frequency of and reasons for readmission and reoperation are keys to developing bundled-payment initiatives. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of complications, readmission rates, and costs of primary shoulder arthroplasty at a high-volume institution. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2016, 2 shoulder surgeons from a single institution performed 1794 consecutive primary shoulder arthroplasties: 636 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs), 1081 reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs), and 77 hemiarthroplasties. A cost analysis was designed to include a period of 60 days preoperatively, the index surgical hospitalization, and 90 days postoperatively, including costs of any readmission or reoperation. RESULTS: The 90-day complication, reoperation, and readmission rates were 2.3%, 0.6%, and 1.8%, respectively. The 90-day readmission risk was higher among patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or greater; a 1-unit increase in the American Society of Anesthesiologists score was associated with a $429 increase in index cost. Of the hospital readmissions, 10 were directly related to the index arthroplasty whereas 21 were not. The median standardized costs were as follows: preoperative evaluation, $481; index surgical hospitalization, $15,758; and postoperative care, $183. The median standardized costs for index surgical hospitalization were different for each procedure: TSA, $14,010; RSA, $16,741; and hemiarthroplasty, $12,709. CONCLUSION: In this study, primary shoulder arthroplasty was associated with low 90-day reoperation and complication rates. The median standardized costs inclusive of preoperative workup and 90-day postoperative recovery were $14,675 and $17,407 for TSA and RSA, respectively.

2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection: Research Priorities from the General Assembly Questions.

Musculoskeletal infections (MSKI) remain the bane of orthopedic surgery, and result in grievous illness and inordinate costs that threaten healthcare systems. As prevention, diagnosis, and treatment has remained largely unchanged over the last 50 years, a 2nd International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection (ICM 2018, https://icmphilly.com) was completed. Questions pertaining to all areas of MSKI were extensively researched to prepare recommendations, which were discussed and voted on by the delegates using the Delphi methodology. The questions, including the General Assembly (GA) results, have been published (GA questions). However, as critical outcomes include: (i) incidence and cost data that substantiate the problems, and (ii) establishment of research priorities; an ICM 2018 research workgroup (RW) was assembled to accomplish these tasks. Here, we present the result of the RW consensus on the current and projected incidence of infection, and the costs per patient, for all orthopedic subspecialties, which range from 0.1% to 30%, and $17,000 to $150,000. The RW also identified the most important research questions. The Delphi methodology was utilized to initially derive four objective criteria to define a subset of the 164 GA questions that are high priority for future research. Thirty-eight questions (23% of all GA questions) achieved the requisite > 70% agreement vote, and are highlighted in this Consensus article within six thematic categories: acute versus chronic infection, host immunity, antibiotics, diagnosis, research caveats, and modifiable factors. Finally, the RW emphasizes that without appropriate funding to address these high priority research questions, a 3rd ICM on MSKI to address similar issues at greater cost is inevitable.

Comparison of the hospital costs for two-stage reimplantation for deep infection, single-stage revision and primary total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine the cost of two-stage reimplantation for the treatment of deep infection after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and compare this with primary and aseptic revision TEA. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-one primary TEA and 286 revision TEAs (including 47 elbows requiring two-stage reimplantation) were performed. Total direct medical costs during each hospitalization were obtained from our institutional research database and compared for three groups: primary TEA, revision for nonseptic reasons and two-stage reimplantation for deep infection. RESULTS: The mean cost of an uncomplicated primary TEA and aseptic revision TEA was $18,464 and $18,796, respectively. The mean overall cost associated with two-stage reimplantation increased to $34,286. Two-stage reimplantation increased both Part A (hospital costs) and Part B (professional costs). The mean Part A cost for septic revision TEA was $29,102 versus $15,844 for primary TEA. The mean Part B cost for septic revision TEA was $5,184 versus $2,621 for primary TEA. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage reimplantation for treatment of an infected TEA costs 186% the hospital cost of a primary uncomplicated or aseptic revision TEA. The overall cost to society is even greater if we take into account the cost of antibiotic therapy in between stages and lost days from work.

The hospital cost of two-stage reimplantation for deep infection after shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The cost of treating infection after hip and knee arthroplasty is well documented in the literature. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost of two-stage reimplantation for deep infection after shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2012, 57 shoulders (56 patients) underwent a two-stage reimplantation for deep periprosthetic shoulder infection; implants placed at reimplantation included anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (a-TSA) in 58%, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (r-TSA) in 40%, and hemiarthroplasty (HA) in 2%. During the same timeframe, 2953 primary shoulder arthroplasties (2589 patients) were performed at the same institution (a-TSA in 55%, r-TSA in 28%, and HA in 17%). Total direct medical costs were calculated by using standardized, inflation-adjusted costs for services and procedures billed during hospitalization and were adjusted to nationally representative unit costs in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars. RESULTS: The mean hospital cost (per shoulder) for two-stage reimplantation was $35,824 (95% CI: 33,363 to 38,285) and was significantly higher than for primary procedures (mean: $16,068; 95% CI: 15,823 to 16,314). Both Part A and Part B costs were significantly higher in two-stage reimplantation (p < 0.001). For part A (hospital services), the mean cost for two-stage reimplantation was $29,851 (95% CI: 27,741 to 31,960), compared to $13,508 (95% CI: 13,302 to 13,715) for primaries. For part B (professional costs), mean costs were $5973 (95% CI: 5493 to 6453) versus 2560 (95% CI: 2512 to 2608) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital cost of two-stage reimplantation for the treatment of an infected shoulder arthroplasty is about two times higher than the cost of a primary shoulder arthroplasty.

Hospital cost of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty usually requires the use of expensive hospital resources and sometimes requires revision surgery. The hospital costs associated with treating this complication have not been previously analyzed, to our knowledge. The purpose of this study was to assess the financial impact of treating dislocations at our institution. METHODS: Between 1997 and 2001, 3671 patients underwent a total of 4054 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties at our institution. The patients were prospectively followed at regular intervals, and their follow-up data were recorded in an institutional total joint registry. Ninety-nine hips (2.4%) in ninety-nine patients dislocated. The costs to our institution to treat these dislocations were evaluated by determining the cost of each treatment episode required to reestablish hip stability and were expressed as the percent increase in cost compared with that of an uncomplicated primary total hip replacement. RESULTS: Of the ninety-nine hips that dislocated, sixty-two (63%) remained stable after one or more closed reductions and thirty-seven (37%) ultimately required revision surgery. The hospital cost of each closed reduction episode represented 19% of the hospital cost of an uncomplicated total hip replacement. When revision surgery was eventually needed, the average hospital costs of one or more closed reductions and the subsequent revisions represented 148% of the hospital cost of an uncomplicated primary total hip replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Dislocation after primary hip replacement continues to be a prevalent and costly complication that diminishes the cost-effectiveness of an otherwise very successful surgical procedure.