Ultrasound-Guided Motor-Sparing Knee Blocks for Postoperative Analgesia Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Cost Analysis.

Background: We recently performed a clinical trial comparing motor sparing blocks (MSB) to periarticular infiltration (PAI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We found that MSBs provided longer analgesia (8.8 hours) than PAI with retention of quadriceps strength, and with similar function, satisfaction, and length hospital stay. However, its potential increased cost could serve as a barrier to its adoption. Therefore, our aim was to compare the costs of MSBs to PAI following TKA. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of data from our previous RCT. There were 82 patients included in the RCT (n = 41 MSB group, n = 41 PAI group). We compared the mean total costs associated with each group until hospital discharge including intervention costs, health-care professional service fees, intraoperative medications, length of stay, and postoperative opioid use. Results: Seventy patients were included (n = 35 MSB group, n = 35 PAI group). The mean total costs for the MSB group were significantly higher ($1959.46 ± 755.4) compared to the PAI group ($1616.25 ± 488.33), with a mean difference of $343.21 (95% CI = $73.28 to $664.11, p = 0.03). The total perioperative intervention costs for performing the MSB was also significantly higher; however, postoperative inpatient costs including length of stay and total opioid use did not differ significantly. Conclusion: Motor sparing blocks had significantly higher mean total and perioperative costs compared to PAI with no significant difference in postoperative inpatient costs. However, its quadricep sparing nature and previously demonstrated prolonged postoperative analgesia can be used to facilitate an outpatient TKA pathway thereby offsetting its increased costs.

Health Economic Evaluations of Hip and Knee Interventions in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of musculoskeletal diseases is substantial and growing. Economic evaluations compare costs and health benefits of interventions simultaneously to help inform value-based care; thus, it is crucial to ensure that studies are using appropriate methodology to provide valid evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. This is particularly the case in orthopaedic sports medicine, where several interventions of varying costs are available to treat common hip and knee conditions. PURPOSE: To summarize and evaluate the quality of economic evaluations in orthopaedic sports medicine for knee and hip interventions and identify areas for quality improvement. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The Medline, AMED, OVID Health Star, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to March 1, 2020, to identify economic evaluations that compared ≥2 interventions for hip and/or knee conditions in orthopaedic sports medicine. We assessed the quality of full economic evaluations using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, which consists of 16 questions for a total score of 100. We classified studies into quartiles based on QHES score (extremely poor quality to high quality) and we evaluated the frequency of studies that addressed each of the 16 QHES questions. RESULTS: A total of 93 studies were included in the systematic review. There were 41 (44%) cost analyses, of which 21 (51%) inappropriately concluded interventions were cost-effective. Only 52 (56%) of the included studies were full economic evaluations, although 40 of these (77%) fell in the high-quality quartile. The mean QHES score was 83.2 ± 19. Authors consistently addressed 12 of the QHES questions; questions that were missed or unclear were related to statistical uncertainty, appropriateness of costing methodology, and discussion of potential biases. The most frequently missed question was whether the cost perspective of the analysis was stated and justified. CONCLUSION: The number of studies in orthopaedic sports medicine is small, despite their overall good quality. Yet, there are still many highly cited studies based on low-quality or partial economic evaluations that are being used to influence clinical decision-making. Investigators should follow international health economic guidelines for study design and critical appraisal of studies to further improve quality.

A Randomized Trial Investigating the Cost-Utility of Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty in an Obese Population.

BACKGROUND: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been introduced in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with the goal of increased accuracy of component positioning by custom fitting cutting guides to the patient's bony anatomy. A criticism of this technology is the associated cost. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine the cost-utility of PSI compared with standard of care (SOC) instrumentation for TKA in an obese population. METHODS: Patients with body mass index greater than 30 with osteoarthritis and undergoing primary TKA were randomized to SOC or PSI. Patients completed a health care resource use diary and the EuroQol-5D at three, six, nine, and 12 months and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at three and 12 months postsurgery. We performed cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses from public health care payer and societal perspectives. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-three patients were included in the analysis with 86 patients randomized to PSI and 87 to SOC. PSI was dominated (more costly and less effective) by SOC from a health care payer perspective. From a societal perspective, an incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated at $11,230.00 per quality-adjusted life year gained, which is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. Net benefit analyses found PSI was not significantly cost-effective at any willingness to pay value from either perspective. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that widespread adoption of PSI may not be economically attractive or clinically indicated. Future considerations are to compare long-term clinical outcomes and radiographic alignment between the groups.

Use of the Corail stem for revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of clinical outcomes and cost

Background: With the growing number of total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures performed, revision surgery is also proportionately increasing, resulting in greater health care expenditures. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical outcomes and cost when using a collared, fully hydroxyapatite-coated primary femoral stem for revision THA compared to commonly used revision femoral stems. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients who underwent revision THA with a primary stem between 2011 and 2016 and matched them on demographic variables and reason for revision to a similar cohort who underwent revision THA. We extracted operative data and information on in-hospital resource use from the patients' charts to calculate average cost per procedure. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Results: We included 20 patients in our analysis, of whom 10 received a primary stem and 10, a typical revision stem. There were no significant between-group differences in mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, Harris Hip Score, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Mental Composite Scale score or Physical Composite Scale score at 1 year. Operative time was significantly shorter and total cost was significantly lower (mean difference ­3707.64, 95% confidence interval ­5532.85 to ­1882.43) with a primary stem than with other revision femoral stems. Conclusion: We found similar clinical outcomes and significant institutional cost savings with a primary femoral stem in revision THA. This suggests a role for a primary femoral stem such as a collared, fully hydroxyapatite-coated stem for revision THA.

Contexte: Avec le nombre croissant d'interventions pour prothèse de hanche (PTH) effectuées, la chirurgie de révision est aussi proportionnellement en hausse, ce qui entraîne des coûts supérieurs pour le système de santé. Le but de cette étude était d'évaluer les résultats cliniques et le coût associés à l'emploi d'une prothèse fémorale primaire à collerette entièrement recouverte d'hydroxyapatite pour la révision de PTH, comparativement à d'autres prothèses d'usage courant utilisées pour les révisions. Méthodes: Nous avons identifié rétrospectivement les patients ayant subi une révision de PTH avec une prothèse primaire entre 2011 et 2016 et nous les avons assortis selon les caractéristiques démographiques et le motif de la révision à une cohorte similaire soumise à une révision de PTH. Nous avons extrait les données sur l'opération et sur l'utilisation des ressources hospitalières à partir des dossiers des patients pour calculer le coût par intervention. Les résultats déclarés par les patients ont été notés avant l'intervention et 1 an après. Résultats: Nous avons inclus 20 patients dans notre analyse, dont 10 ont reçu une prothèse primaire et 10, une révision de prothèse typique. On n'a noté aucune différence significative entre les groupes pour ce qui est du score WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) moyen pour l'arthrose, du score de Harris pour la hanche, ou des sous-échelles santé mentale ou santé physique à 1 an du questionnaire SF-12 (12-Item Short Form Health Survey). L'intervention a duré significativement moins longtemps et le coût a été significativement moindre (différence moyenne ­3707,64, intervalle de confiance de 95 % ­5532,85 à ­1882,43) avec une prothèse primaire qu'avec les autres prothèses de révision. Conclusion: Nous avons observé des résultats cliniques similaires et des économies significatives pour l'établissement avec la prothèse primaire utilisée pour la révision de PTH. Cela donne à penser que la prothèse fémorale primaire, par exemple, à collerette et entièrement recouverte d'hydroxyapatite, aurait un rôle à jouer pour la révision de PTH.

Ninety-Day Costs, Reoperations, and Readmissions for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients of Varying Body Mass Index Levels.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare 90-day costs and outcomes for primary total hip arthroplasty patients between a nonobese (body mass index, 18.5-24.9) vs overweight (25-29.9), obese (30-34.9), severely obese (35-39.9), morbidly obese (40-44.9), and super obese (45+) cohorts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of an institutional database of primary total hip arthroplasty patients from 2006 to 2013. Thirty-three super-obese patients were identified, and the other 5 cohorts were randomly selected in a 2:1 ratio (n = 363). Demographics, 90-day outcomes (costs, reoperations, and readmissions), and outcomes after 3 years (revisions and change scores for Short-Form Health Survey, Harris Hip Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index) were collected. Costs were determined using unit costs from our institutional administrative data for all in-hospital resource utilization. Comparisons between the nonobese and other groups were made with Kruskal-Wallis tests for non-normal data and chi-square and Fisher exact test for categorical data. RESULTS: The 90-day costs in the morbidly obese ($13,134 ± $7250 mean ± standard deviation, P < .01) and super-obese ($15,604 ± 6783, P < .01) cohorts were significantly greater than the nonobese cohorts ($10,315 ± 1848). Only the super-obese cohort had greater 90-day reoperation and readmission rates than the nonobese cohort (18.2% vs 0%, P < .01 and 21.2% vs 4.5%, P = .02, respectively). Reoperations and septic revisions after 3 years were greater in the super-obese cohort compared to the nonobese cohort 21.2% versus 3.0% (P = .01) and 18.2% versus 1.5% (P = .01), respectively. Improvements in Short-Form Health Survey, Harris Hip Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index were comparable in all cohorts. CONCLUSION: Super-obese patients have greater risks and costs compared to nonobese patients, but also have comparable quality of life improvements.

Cost-Effectiveness of Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Nonoperative Management in Normal, Overweight, Obese, Severely Obese, Morbidly Obese, and Super Obese Patients: A Markov Model.

BACKGROUND: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of performing total hip arthroplasty (THA) vs nonoperative management (NM) among 6 body mass index (BMI) cohorts. METHODS: We constructed a state-transition Markov model to compare the cost utility of THA and NM in the 6 BMI groups over a 15-year period. Model parameters for transition probability (risk of revision, re-revision, and death), utility, and costs (inflation adjusted to 2017 US dollars) were estimated from the literature. Direct medical costs of managing hip arthritis were accounted in the model. Indirect societal costs were not included. A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of THA vs NM. One-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses of the model parameters were performed to determine the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Over the 15-year time period, the ICERs for THA vs NM were the following: normal weight ($6043/QALYs [quality-adjusted life years]), overweight ($5770/QALYs), obese ($5425/QALYs), severely obese ($7382/QALYs), morbidly obese ($8338/QALYs), and super obese ($16,651/QALYs). The 2 highest BMI groups had higher incremental QALYs and incremental costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that THA would be cost-effective in 100% of the normal, overweight, obese, severely obese, and morbidly obese simulations, and 99.95% of super obese simulations at an ICER threshold of $50,000/QALYs. CONCLUSION: Even at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALYs, which is considered low for the United States, our model showed that THA would be cost-effective for all obesity levels. BMI cut-offs for THA may lead to unnecessary loss of healthcare access.

Ninety-Day Costs, Reoperations, and Readmissions for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients With Varying Body Mass Index Levels.

BACKGROUND: We compared 90-day costs and outcomes for primary total knee arthroplasty patients among nonobese (body mass index [BMI] 18.5-24.9), overweight (25-29.9), obese (30-34.9), severely obese (35-39.9), morbidly obese (40-49.9), and super-obese (50+) cohorts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of an institutional database of total knee arthroplasty patients from 2006 to 2013 with a minimum of 3-year follow-up. Sixty-five super-obese patients were identified, and five other cohorts were randomly selected in a 2:1 ratio (total, n = 715). Demographics, 90-day outcomes (costs, reoperations, and readmissions), and outcomes after 3 years (revisions and change scores for Short-Form Health Survey [SF-12], Knee Society Scores, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index) were aggregated. RESULTS: The 90-day costs were significantly greater in the morbidly obese ($11,568 ± $1,960) and super-obese ($14,021 ± $7,903) cohorts relative to the smaller BMI cohorts ($9,938 - $10,352). The increased cost from readmissions was the main driver of costs. The outcome change scores were similar across all the BMI cohorts for Knee Society Scores, SF-12 Mental Health Composite Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, but not for the SF-12 Physical Health Composite Score. At the midterm follow-up, there was no statistical difference in repeat surgery or aseptic revision rates. Septic revisions were significantly greater in the super-obese cohort relative to the other cohorts (6.2% vs 0.8-3.1%). CONCLUSION: Health-care policy based purely on the economic costs may place morbidly obese and super-obese patients at risk of losing arthroplasty care, thereby denying them access to the comparable quality of life improvements.

Clinical Assessment of Physical Examination Maneuvers for Superior Labral Anterior to Posterior Lesions.

Purpose Shoulder pain and disability pose a diagnostic challenge owing to the numerous etiologies and the potential for multiple disorders to exist simultaneously. The evidence to support the use of clinical tests for superior labral anterior to posterior complex (SLAP) is weak or absent. The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic validity of physical examination maneuvers for SLAP lesions by performing a methodologically rigorous, clinically applicable study. Methods We recruited consecutive new shoulder patients reporting pain and/or disability. The physician took a history and indicated their certainty about each possible diagnosis ("certain the diagnosis is absent/present," or "uncertain requires further testing"). The clinician performed the physical tests for diagnoses where uncertainty remained. Magnetic resonance imaging arthrogram and arthroscopic examination were the gold standards. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) and investigated whether combinations of the top tests provided stronger predictions. Results Ninety-three patients underwent physical examination for SLAP lesions. When using the presence of a SLAP lesion (Types I-V) as disease positive, none of the tests was sensitive (10.3-33.3) although they were moderately specific (61.3-92.6). When disease positive was defined as repaired SLAP lesion (including biceps tenodesis or tenotomy), the sensitivity (10.5-38.7) and specificity (70.6-93.8) of tests improved although not by a substantial amount. None of the tests was found to be clinically useful for predicting repairable SLAP lesions with all LRs close to one. The compression rotation test had the best LR for both definitions of disease (SLAP tear present = 1.8 and SLAP repaired = 1.67). There was no optimal combination of tests for diagnosing repairable SLAP lesions, with at least two tests positive providing the best combination of measurement properties (sensitivity 46.1% and specificity 64.7%). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that the physical examination tests for SLAP lesions are poor diagnostic indicators of disease. Performing a combination of tests will likely help, although the magnitude of the improvement is minimal. These authors caution clinicians placing confidence in the physical examination tests for SLAP lesions rather we suggest that clinicians rely on diagnostic imaging to confirm this diagnosis.

Clinical Assessment of Physical Examination Maneuvers for Rotator Cuff Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain and disability pose a diagnostic challenge for clinicians owing to the numerous causes that exist. Unfortunately, the evidence in support of most clinical tests is weak or absent. PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic validity of physical examination maneuvers for rotator cuff lesions. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Consecutive shoulder patients recruited for this study were referred to 2 tertiary orthopaedic clinics. A surgeon took a thorough history and indicated his or her certainty about each possible diagnosis. A clinician performed the physical examination for diagnoses where uncertainty remained. Arthroscopy was considered the reference standard for patients who underwent surgery, and MRI with arthrogram was considered the reference for patients who did not. The sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated to investigate whether combinations of the top tests provided stronger predictions of the presence or absence of disease. RESULTS: There were 139 participants. None of the tests were highly sensitive for diagnosing rotator cuff tears or tendinosis. Tests for subscapularis tears were all highly specific. No optimal combination of tests improved the ability to correctly diagnose rotator cuff tears. Closer analysis revealed the internal rotation and lateral rotation lag sign did not improve the ability to diagnose subscapularis or supraspinatus tears, respectively, although the lateral rotation lag sign demonstrated a discriminatory ability for tear size. CONCLUSION: No test in isolation is sufficient to diagnose a patient with rotator cuff damage. A combination of tests improves the ability to diagnose damage to the rotator cuff. It is recommended that the internal rotation and lateral rotation lag signs be removed from the gamut of physical examination tests for supraspinatus and subscapularis tears.