RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), a novel cost calculation method that more accurately reflects true resource utilization in health care, we sought to compare the total facility costs across different body mass index (BMI) groups following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). METHODS: The study consisted of 13,806 TJAs (7,340 total knee arthroplasties [TKAs] and 6,466 total hip arthroplasties [THAs]) performed between 2019 and 2023. The TDABC data from an analytics platform was employed to depict total facility costs, comprising personnel and supply costs. For the analysis, patients were stratified into four BMI categories: <30, 30 to <35, 35 to <40, and ≥40. Multivariable regression was used to determine the independent effect of BMI on facility costs. RESULTS: When indexed to patients who had BMI <30, elevated BMI categories (30 to <35, 35 to <40, and ≥40) were associated with higher total personnel costs (TKA 1.03x versus 1.07x versus 1.13x, P < .001; THA 1.00x versus 1.08x versus 1.08x, P < .001), and total supply costs (TKA 1.01x versus 1.04x versus 1.04x, P < .001; THA 1.01x versus 1.02x versus 1.03x, P = .007). Total facility costs in TJAs were significantly greater in higher BMI categories (TKA 1.02x versus 1.05x versus 1.08x, P < .001; THA 1.01x versus 1.05x versus 1.05x, P < .001). Notably, when incorporating adjustments for demographics and comorbidities, BMI values of 35, 40, and 45 relative to BMI of 25, exhibit a significant association with a 2, 3, and 5% increase in total facility cost for TKAs and a 3, 5, and 7% increase for THAs. CONCLUSIONS: Using TDABC methodology, this study found that overall facility costs of TJAs increase with BMI. The present study provides patient-level cost insights, indicating the potential need for reassessment of physician compensation models in this population. Further studies may facilitate the development of risk-adjusted procedural codes and compensation models for public and private payors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic and decision analyses.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) remains underexplored regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), particularly in terms of time to reach minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This study addresses this gap by comparing the time to achieve MCID between primary TKA (pTKA) and rTKA patients, providing valuable insights into their recovery trajectories. METHODS: A total of 8,266 TKAs (7,618 pTKA and 648 rTKA) were retrospectively studied in a multi-institutional arthroplasty registry. Patients who completed the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global physical, PROMIS physical function short form 10a (PF-10a), and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score physical function short form (KOOS-PS) questionnaires were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Survival curves with and without interval censoring were utilized to evaluate the time to achieve MCID. RESULTS: Comparing the time to achieve MCID, rTKAs were significantly faster than pTKA for PROMIS global physical (3.5 versus 3.7 months, P = 0.004) and KOOS-PS (3.3 versus 4.2 months, P < 0.001), but similar for PROMIS PF-10a (4.4 versus 4.8 months, P = 0.057). Interval censoring also showed similar trends with earlier times to achieve MCID for rTKAs for PROMIS global physical (0.6 to 0.61 versus 0.97 to 0.97 months, P = 0.009) and KOOS-PS (0.97 to 0.97 versus 1.47 to 1.47 months, P < 0.001), but not for PROMIS PF-10a (2.43 to 2.54 versus 1.90 to 1.91 months, P = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed that the time to achieve MCID was faster in patients undergoing rTKA compared to those undergoing pTKA. These findings allow surgeons to reassure preoperative rTKA patients that their recovery to a MCID postoperatively may be quicker than expected, especially when compared to their initial recovery after primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA) and robotic-assisted TKA (rTKA) have not been adequately assessed. We compared the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for improvement (MCID-I) and worsening (MCID-W) between mTKA and rTKA patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary TKA (874 mTKA and 439 rTKA) with complete preoperative and 1-year postoperative PROMs were retrospectively identified using a multihospital joint arthroplasty registry. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Short Form 10a (PROMIS PF-10a), PROMIS Global - Physical, or Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form were collected. The MCID-I, MCID-W, and "no significant change" rates were calculated using distribution-based methods. Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding. RESULTS: Similar 90-day pulmonary embolism (P = 0.26), deep venous thrombosis (P = 0.67), and emergency department visit (P = 0.35) rates were found. The 90-day readmission rate for mTKA was 1.7 and 3.4% for rTKA (P = 0.08), and the overall revision rates were 2.2% for mTKA and 0.7% for rTKA (P = 0.07). Revision-free survival was 99% at one and 2 years for both groups (P = 0.65 and P = 0.43, respectively). There were no differences in the proportion of patients achieving MCID-I or MCID-W for PROMIS PF-10a, PROMIS Global - Physical, or Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form. The MCID-I for PROMIS PF-10a was achieved in 65.5 and 62.2% of patients who had mTKA and rTKA, respectively (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated similar complication rates and MCID-I and MCID-W attainment rates between mTKA and rTKA patients. Future studies should assess MCID attainment rates in the long term and in larger cohorts comparing mTKA and rTKA.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Iliopsoas tendinitis after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become more prevalent with the increased use of large-diameter femoral heads impinging on native surrounding tissues. Anatomically contoured heads (ACH) are soft-tissue-friendly femoral heads created to minimise this issue. This retrospective study assesses iliopsoas tendinitis prevalence and re-operations in primary THAs with ACH, while determining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement and improvement with 5 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 53 ACHs from January 2020 to July 2023. Patients who completed Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF SF-10a), PROMIS Global Health (GH)-Mental, or PROMIS GH-Physical, and pain score questionnaires were identified. PROM scores were collected preoperatively and at 3-month and 1-year postoperative intervals. Comparisons using chi-square and ANOVA tests were applied. RESULTS: The rates of achieving MCID and improvement within the first year were (69.2 vs. 76.9%) for PROMIS GH-Physical, (38.5 vs. 46.2%) for PROMIS GH-Mental, (71.4 vs. 92.9%) for HOOS-PS, (80.0 vs. 80.0%) for PROMIS PF SF-10a, and (74.0 vs. 91.7%) for pain scores. PROM scores at 3 months and 1 year significantly varied across all categories, except for PROMIS GH-Mental. No patients had iliopsoas tendinitis, dislocations, or re-operations. DISCUSSION: ACH implants may alleviate anterior hip pain, while maintaining comparable strength and bio-compatibility to conventional femoral heads. This study underscores the early safety and potential of ACH implants in reducing iliopsoas tendinitis and impingement.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the true cost between posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion and cervical laminoplasty using time driven activity-based costing methodology. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical laminoplasty (LP) and posterior cervical laminectomy with fusion (LF) are effective procedures for treating cervical myelopathy. A comprehensive accounting of cost differences between LP versus LF is not available. Using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), we sought to compare the total facility costs in patients with cervical myelopathy undergoing LP versus LF. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 277 LP and 229 LF performed between 2019 and 2023. Total facility costs, which included personnel and supply costs, were assessed using TDABC. Separate analyses including and excluding implant costs were performed. Multiple regression analysis was utilized to assess the independent effect of LP compared to LF on facility costs, with all costs standardized using cost units (CUs). RESULTS: Patients undergoing LP had lower total supply costs (672.5 vs. 765.0 CUs [0.88x], P<0.001) and lower total personnel costs (330.0 vs. 830.0 CUs [0.40x], P<0.001), resulting in a lower total facility cost both including (1,003.8 vs. 1,600.0 CUs [0.63x], P<0.001) and excluding implant costs (770.0 vs. 875.0 CUs [0.88x], P<0.001) (Table 1). After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, LF was associated with increased total facility costs, including (588.5 CUs, 95% CI 517.1-659.9 CUs, P<0.001) and excluding implant costs (104.3 CUs, 95% CI 57.6-151.0 CUs, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using time-driven activity-based costing, we found that total facility costs were lower in patients treated with laminoplasty. These findings suggest that laminoplasty may offer a less costly and more efficient surgical option for treating cervical myelopathy.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Robotics in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) continues to increase with the ever-growing demand to use technology in the surgical setting. However, no studies have used minimal clinically important difference (MCID) to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between robotic UKA (rUKA) and manual UKA (mUKA). This study aimed to compare the rate of achieving MCID for improvement (MCID-I) and worsening (MCID-W) and the time to achieving MCID. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of robotic and manual UKAs performed between 2016 and 2022. Preoperative and postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Physical, PROMIS Physical Function Short-Form 10a (PF-10a), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-Form (KOOS-PS) scores were collected. Patients were stratified on reaching MCID-I, MCID-W, or "no notable change" (score between MCID-W and MCID-I). Survival curves with and without interval censoring were used to assess the time to achieving the MCID. Log-rank and weighted log-rank tests were used to compare groups. RESULTS: A total of 256 UKAs (64 robotic and 192 manual) were analyzed. No differences were observed in the proportion of patients achieving MCID-I or MCID-W across all three PROMs. Similarly, median time to achieving MCID showed no significant differences between rUKA and mUKA for PROMIS Global Physical (3.3 versus 4.9 months, P = 0.44), PROMIS PF-10a (7.7 versus 8.3 months, P = 0.93), and KOOS-PS (3.0 versus 6.0 months, P = 0.055) scores, both with and without interval censoring. DISCUSSION: This study indicates that rUKA and mUKA exhibit comparable rates of achieving MCID-I and MCID-W, along with similar median time to reach MCID. These findings offer valuable patient-centric insights into the effectiveness of rUKA. Additional studies evaluating the long-term outcomes of rUKA are needed to determine its long-term advantages. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.