Trends in Indications and Contraindications for Cervical Disk Arthroplasty from 2009 to 2019.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: Assess trends of indications and contraindications for the use of Cervical Disk Arthroplasty (CDA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As spine surgeons become more familiar with CDA, there have been expansions in indications. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Sets for 2009, 2014, and 2019 were utilized. Patients undergoing elective CDA were included. Diagnosis for index surgery and "contraindications" as defined by original CDA Investigative Device Exemption (IDE) criteria were assessed. Variables were identified by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis and procedural codes. RESULTS: A total of 1067 elective CDA patients were included. There were 230 patients in 2009, 300 patients in 2014, and 537 patients in 2019. The proportion of patients aged >65 increased from 35% to 51% (P<0.001). Incidence of CDA for radiculopathy increased from 57% to 69% (P<0.001), myelopathy increased from 23% to 78% (P<0.001), and spondylosis without radiculopathy or myelopathy decreased from 19% to 3% (P<0.001). There were increased incidences of ankylosing spondylitis (0.4% to 2.8%, P=0.007), long-term steroid use (1% to 2%, P=0.039), morbid obesity (2% to 6%, P=0.019), and osteoporosis (1% to 5%, P=0.014). The incidence of hybrid CDA and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) decreased from 28% to 23% (P=0.007). CONCLUSION: From 2009 to 2019, the number of CDA performed in older patients increased. An increase in the use of CDA for the treatment of myelopathy and radiculopathy and a decrease in the treatment of isolated cervical spondylosis was observed. The proportion of CDA performed in patients with original IDE trial "contraindications" increased. Further research into the efficacy of CDA for patients with contraindications is warranted.

Resource Utilization following Anterior Versus Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Acute Central Cord Syndrome.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the impact of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for the treatment of acute traumatic central cord syndrome (CCS) on hospital episodes of care in terms of (1) cost, (2) length of hospital stay, and (3) discharge destination. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Acute traumatic CCS is the most common form of spinal cord injury in the United States. CCS is commonly treated with surgical decompression and fusion. Hospital resource utilization based on surgical approach remains unclear. METHODS: Patients undergoing ACDF and PCDF for acute traumatic CCS were identified using the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2019 Impact File. Multivariate models for hospital cost of care, length of stay, and discharge destination were performed, controlling for confounders. Subanalysis of accommodation and revenue center cost drivers was performed. RESULTS: There were 1474 cases that met inclusion criteria: 673 ACDF (45.7%) and 801 PCDF (54.3%). ACDF was independently associated with a decreased cost of $9802 (P<0.001) and a 59.2% decreased risk of discharge to nonhome destinations (adjusted odds ratio: 0.408, P<0.001). The difference in length of stay was not statistically significant. On subanalysis of cost drivers, ACDF was associated with decreased charges ($55,736, P<0.001) compared with PCDF, the largest drivers being the intensive care unit ($15,873, 28% of total charges, P<0.001) and medical/surgical supply charges ($19,651, 35% of total charges, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of acute traumatic CCS, ACDF was associated with almost $10,000 less expensive cost of care and a 60% decreased risk of discharge to nonhome destination compared with PCDF. The largest cost drivers appear to be ICU and medical/surgical-related. These findings may inform value-based decisions regarding the treatment of acute traumatic CCS. However, injury and patient clinical factors should always be prioritized in surgical decision-making, and increased granularity in reimbursement policies is needed to prevent financial disincentives in the treatment of patients with CCS better addressed with posterior approach-surgery.

Elective Single-Level Primary Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Degenerative Spondylotic Cervical Myelopathy is Associated With Decreased Resource Utilization Versus Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare elective single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) in terms of (1) cost, (2) length of hospital stay, and (3) discharge destination in Medicare patients. A sub-analysis of potential cost drivers was also performed. BACKGROUND: In the era of value-based medicine, there is substantial interest in reducing the cost of care. Both ACDF and PCDF are used to treat DCM but carry different morbidity and risk profiles that can impact hospital resource utilization. However, this has not been assessed on a national level. METHODS: Patients undergoing single-level elective ACDF and PCDF surgery were identified using the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) Limited Data Set (LDS) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2019 Impact File. Multivariate models of hospital cost of care, length of stay, and discharge destination were performed, controlling for confounders. A univariate sub-analysis of 9 revenue centers was performed. RESULTS: In all, 3942 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean cost of elective single-level cervical fusion for myelopathy was $18,084±10,783, and the mean length of stay was 2.45±2.95 d. On multivariate analysis, ACDF was independently associated with decreased cost of $5,814 (P<0.001), shorter length of stay by 1.1 days (P<0.001), and decreased risk of nonhome discharge destination by 58% (adjusted odds ratio: 0.422, P<0.001).On sub-analysis of 9 revenue centers, medical/surgical supply ($10,497, 44%), operating room charges ($5401, 23%), and accommodations ($3999, 17%) were the largest drivers of charge differences. CONCLUSIONS: Single-level elective primary ACDF for DCM was independently associated with decreased cost, decreased hospital length of stay, and a lower rate of nonhome discharge compared with PCDF. Medical and surgical supply, operating room, and accommodation differences between ACDF and PCDF are potential areas for intervention. Increased granularity in reimbursement structures is warranted to prevent the creation of disincentives to the treatment of patients with DCM with pathology that is better addressed with PCDF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III Retrospective Cohort Study.

What Are the Differences in Hospital Cost Associated With the Use of Cemented Versus Cementless Femoral Stems in Hemiarthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in hospital costs associated with the use of cemented versus cementless femoral stems in hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the treatment of femoral neck fracture (FNF). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilizes the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set. Patients undergoing arthroplasty for the treatment of FNF were identified. Patients were grouped by cemented or cementless femoral stem fixation. There were 16,148 patients who underwent arthroplasty for FNF available: 4,913 THAs (3,705 patients who had cementless femoral stems and 1,208 patients who had cemented femoral stems) and 11,235 HAs (6,099 patients who had cementless femoral stems and 5,136 who had cemented femoral stems). Index hospital costs were estimated by multiplying total charges by cost-to-charge ratios. Costs were analyzed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear models. RESULTS: Cemented femoral stem THA generated 1.080 times (95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.10; P < .001), or 8.0%, greater index hospital costs than cementless femoral stem THA, and cemented femoral stem HA generated 1.042 times (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.05; P < .001), or 4.2%, greater index hospital costs than cementless femoral stem HA. CONCLUSIONS: Cemented femoral stems for FNF treated with either THA or HA are associated with only a small portion of increased cost compared to cementless femoral stems. Providers may choose the method of arthroplasty stem fixation for the treatment of FNF based on what they deem most appropriate for the specific patient.

Elective THA for Indications Other Than Osteoarthritis Is Associated With Increased Cost and Resource Use: A Medicare Database Study of 135,194 Claims.

BACKGROUND: Under Medicare's fee-for-service and bundled payment models, the basic unit of hospital payment for inpatient hospitalizations is determined by the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding system. Primary total joint arthroplasties (hip and knee) are coded under MS-DRG code 469 for hospitalizations with a major complication or comorbidity and MS-DRG code 470 for those without a major complication or comorbidity. However, these codes do not account for the indication for surgery, which may influence the cost of care.Questions/purposes We sought to (1) quantify the differences in hospital costs associated with six of the most common diagnostic indications for THA (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis, hip dysplasia, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty), (2) assess the primary drivers of cost variation using comparisons of hospital charge data for the diagnostic indications of interest, and (3) analyze the median length of stay, discharge destination, and intensive care unit use associated with these indications. METHODS: This study used the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set. Patients undergoing primary elective THA were identified using MS-DRG codes and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedure Coding System codes. Exclusion criteria included non-fee-for-service hospitalizations, nonelective procedures, patients with missing data, and THAs performed for indications other than the six indications of interest. A total of 713,535 primary THAs and TKAs were identified in the dataset. After exclusions were applied, a total of 135,194 elective THAs were available for analysis. Hospital costs were estimated using cost-to-charge ratios calculated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The primary benefit of using cost-to-charge ratios was that it allowed us to analyze a large national dataset and to mitigate the random cost variation resulting from unique hospitals' practices and patient populations. As an investigation into matters of health policy, we believe that assessing the surgical cost borne by the "average" hospital was most appropriate. To analyze estimated hospital costs, we performed a multivariable generalized linear model controlling for patient demographics (gender, age, and race), preoperative health status, and hospital characteristics (hospital setting [urban versus rural], geography, size, resident-to-bed ratio, and wage index). We assessed the principal drivers of cost variation by analyzing the median hospital charges arising from 30 different hospital revenue centers using descriptive statistics. Length of stay, intensive care use, and discharge to a nonhome location were analyzed using multivariable binomial logistic regression. RESULTS: The cost of THA for avascular necrosis was 1.050 times (95% confidence interval 1.042 to 1.069; p < 0.001), or 5% greater than, the cost of THA for osteoarthritis; the cost of hip dysplasia was 1.132 times (95% CI 1.113 to 1.152; p < 0.001), or 13% greater; the cost of posttraumatic arthritis was 1.220 times (95% CI 1.193 to 1.246; p < 0.001), or 22% greater; and the cost of conversion arthroplasty was 1.403 times (95% CI 1.386 to 1.419; p < 0.001), or 40% greater. Importantly, none of these CIs overlap, indicating a discernable hierarchy of cost associated with these diagnostic indications for surgery. Rheumatoid arthritis was not associated with an increase in cost. Medical or surgical supplies and operating room charges represented the greatest increase in charges for each of the surgical indications examined, suggesting that increased use of medical and surgical supplies and operating room resources were the primary drivers of increased cost. All of the orthopaedic conditions we investigated demonstrated increased odds that a patient would experience a prolonged length of stay and be discharged to a nonhome location compared with patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis. Avascular necrosis, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty were also associated with increased intensive care unit use. Posttraumatic arthritis and conversion arthroplasty demonstrated the largest increase in resource use among all the orthopaedic conditions analyzed. CONCLUSION: Compared with THA for osteoarthritis, THA for avascular necrosis, hip dysplasia, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty is independently associated with stepwise increases in resource use. These cost increases are predominantly driven by greater requirements for medical and surgical supplies and operating room resources. Posttraumatic arthritis and conversion arthroplasty demonstrated substantially increased costs, which can result in financial losses in the setting of fixed prospective payments. These findings underscore the inability of MS-DRG coding to adequately reflect the wide range of surgical complexity and resource use of primary THAs. Hospitals performing a high volume of THAs for indications other than osteoarthritis should budget for an anticipated increase in costs, and orthopaedic surgeons should advocate for improved MS-DRG coding to appropriately reimburse hospitals for the financial and clinical risk of these surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

Conversion THA With Concomitant Removal of Orthopaedic Hardware Should Be Reclassified as a Revision Surgery in the Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group Coding Scheme: An Analysis of Cost and Resource Use.

BACKGROUND: Conversion THA, which we defined for this study as THA with concomitant removal of preexisting orthopaedic hardware, has been associated with increased hospital costs and perioperative complications compared with primary THA. Yet, conversion THA is classified as a primary procedure under the Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group coding scheme, and hospitals are reimbursed based on the resource use expected for a routine primary surgery. Prior authors have argued for conversion THA to be reclassified as a revision procedure. Although prior research has focused on comparisons between conversion THAs and primary arthroplasties, little is known about the resource use of conversion THA compared with that of revision THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do inpatient hospital costs, estimated using cost-to-charge ratios, differ between conversion THA and revision THA? (2) Do the median length of stay, intensive care unit use, and likelihood of discharge to home differ between conversion and revision THA? METHODS: This was a retrospective study of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set for 2019. A total of 713,535 primary and 74,791 revision THAs and TKAs were identified initially. Exclusion criteria then were applied; these included non-fee-for-service hospitalizations, nonelective admissions, and patients with missing data. Approximately 37% (263,545 of 713,535) of primary and 34% (25,530 of 74,791) of revision arthroplasties were excluded as non-fee-for-service hospitalizations. Two percent (13,159 of 713,535) of primaries and 11% (8159 of 74,791) of revisions were excluded because they were nonelective procedures. Among the remaining 436,831 primary and 41,102 revision procedures, 31% (136,748 of 436,831) were primary THAs and 36% (14,774 of 41,102) were revision THAs. Two percent (2761 of 136,748) of primary THAs involved intraoperative removal of hardware and were classified as conversion THAs. After claims with missing data were excluded, there were 2759 conversion THAs and 14,764 revision THAs available for analysis. Propensity scores were generated using a multivariate logistic regression model using the following variables as covariates: gender, age, race, van Walraven index, hospital setting, geography, hospital size, resident-to-bed ratio, and wage index. After matching, 2734 conversion THAs and 5294 revision THAs were available for analysis. The van Walraven index, which is a weighted score of patient preoperative comorbidities, was used to measure patient health status. Hospital costs were estimated by multiplying cost-to-charge ratios obtained from the 2019 Impact File by total hospital charges. This methodology enabled the use of a large national database to mitigate the random effects of individual hospitals' unique practices and patient populations. Multivariable regression was performed after matching to determine the independent effects of surgery type (that is, conversion versus revision THA) on hospital cost, length of stay greater than 2 days, intensive care unit use, and discharge to home. RESULTS: There was no difference in the estimated hospital cost between conversion THA and revision THA (ß = 0.96 [95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.01]; p = 0.13). Patients undergoing conversion THA had increased odds of staying in the hospital for more than 2 days (odds ratio 1.12 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.23]; p = 0.01), increased odds of using the intensive care unit (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.48]; p = 0.02), and decreased odds of being discharged to home (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.80]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The inpatient hospital cost of conversion THA is no different from that of revision THA, although patients undergoing conversion surgery have modestly increased odds of prolonged length of stay, intensive care unit use, and discharge to a nonhome location. These findings support the conclusion that reclassification of conversion THA is warranted. Orthopaedic surgeons must advocate for the reclassification of conversion THA using data-backed evidence or run the risk that orthopaedic procedures will be given decreased reimbursement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analysis.

Trends in costs, reimbursements, and surgeon payments for cervical disc arthroplasty cost of care from 2009 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: The use of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) continues to increase in the Medicare population. As healthcare costs continue to rise, payors have begun to implement bundled payment structures for spine surgery. While Medicare has steadily decreased reimbursements for cervical fusions, Medicare reimbursements for CDA have not been studied. The purpose of this study was to assess trends in 1) hospital costs and reimbursement, 2) physician reimbursement, and 3) potential cost drivers for CDA in a Medicare population. METHODS: This is a retrospective longitudinal study of CDA in Medicare patients. The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Sets for 2009, 2014, and 2019 were used for this study. Patients undergoing elective CDA were included. Corresponding Inpatient Prospective Payment System files were used to calculate cost through cost-to-charge ratios. Physician fees were obtained from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool. All financial data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 values based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Demographic, comorbidity, surgical, and hospital trends were assessed. Trends in revenue center-level charges were also assessed. RESULTS: Adjusted for inflation, from 2009 to 2019, mean total hospital charges for elective CDA increased from $64,609 ± $45,787 to $111,874 ± $78,611 (73% increase, p < 0.001) and the mean total cost for index hospital admission increased from $19,665 ± $13,414 to $24,682 ± $13,818 (26% increase, p < 0.001). Over the same period, Medicare reimbursement increased from a mean of $11,154 ± $11,684 to $12,879 ± $13,613 (15% increase, p = 0.003), while total reimbursement increased from a mean of $15,005 ± $15,684 to $15,547 ± $15,829 (4% increase, p = 0.040). The mean hospital profit decreased from -$4076 ± $14,041 to -$9023 ± $16,084 (-121%, p < 0.001). Surgeon reimbursement for CDA decreased from a mean of $1850 ± $165 (2009) to $1722 ± $138 (2019) (7% decrease, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, increasing year of surgery (p < 0.001), increasing age (p = 0.001), increasing length of stay (p < 0.001), rural hospital setting (p = 0.027), and hospital geography (p < 0.001) were independently associated with cost of care. Medical/surgical supplies and operating room charges increased 71.6% (p < 0.001) and 98.5% (p < 0.001) and accounted for 41.1%-42.5% and 30.6%-35.1% of total charges, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From 2009 to 2019, costs of care for elective inpatient CDA increased disproportionately to reimbursement. Hospitals operated at increasing losses and surgeon reimbursement decreased. Cost of care was independently associated with year of surgery, increasing age, length of stay, hospital setting, and hospital geography. The main charge drivers were medical/surgical supplies and operating room charges. These results may have implications for the future financial feasibility of inpatient CDA for Medicare patients and targets to improve the value of CDA. Further study is necessary to provide fair reimbursement for CDA in Medicare patients and prevent financially based bias against use of CDA in Medicare patients.

What Is the Prevalence of Clinically Important Findings Among Incidentally Found Osseous Lesions?

BACKGROUND: Patients with incidentally found musculoskeletal lesions are regularly referred to orthopaedic oncology. Most orthopaedic oncologists understand that many incidental findings are nonaggressive and can be managed nonoperatively. However, the prevalence of clinically important lesions (defined as those indicated for biopsy or treatment, and those found to be malignant) remains unknown. Missing clinically important lesions can result in harm to patients, but needless surveillance may exacerbate patient anxiety about their diagnosis and accrue low-value costs to the payor. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of patients with incidentally discovered osseous lesions referred to orthopaedic oncology had lesions that were clinically important, defined as those receiving biopsy or treatment or those found to be malignant? (2) Using standardized Medicare reimbursements as a surrogate for payor expense, what is the value of reimbursements accruing to the hospital system for the imaging of incidentally found osseous lesions performed during the initial workup period and during the surveillance period, if indicated? METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients referred to orthopaedic oncology for incidentally found osseous lesions at two large academic hospital systems. Medical records were queried for the word "incidental," and matches were confirmed by manual review. Patients evaluated at Indiana University Health between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, and those evaluated at University Hospitals between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, were included. All patients were evaluated and treated by the two senior authors of this study and no others were included. Our search identified 625 patients. Sixteen percent (97 of 625) of patients were excluded because their lesions were not incidentally found, and 12% (78 of 625) were excluded because the incidental findings were not bone lesions. Another 4% (24 of 625) were excluded because they had received workup or treatment by an outside orthopaedic oncologist, and 2% (10 of 625) were excluded for missing information. A total of 416 patients were available for preliminary analysis. Among these patients, 33% (136 of 416) were indicated for surveillance. The primary indication for surveillance included lesions with a benign appearance on imaging and low clinical suspicion of malignancy or fracture. A total of 33% (45 of 136) of these patients had less than 12 months of follow-up and were excluded from further analysis. No minimum follow-up criteria were applied to patients not indicated for surveillance because this would artificially inflate our estimated rate of clinically important findings. A total of 371 patients were included in the final study group. Notes from all clinical encounters with orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic providers were screened for our endpoints (biopsy, treatment, or malignancy). Indications for biopsy included lesions with aggressive features, lesions with nonspecific imaging characteristics and a clinical picture concerning for malignancy, and lesion changes seen on imaging during the surveillance period. Indications for treatment included lesions with increased risk of fracture or deformity, certain malignancies, and pathologic fracture. Diagnoses were determined using biopsy results if available or the documented opinion of the consulting orthopaedic oncologist. Imaging reimbursements were obtained from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2022. Because imaging charges vary across institutions and reimbursements vary across payors, this method was chosen to enhance the comparability of our findings across multiple health systems and studies. RESULTS: Seven percent (26 of 371) of incidental findings were determined to be clinically important, as previously defined. Five percent (20 of 371) of lesions underwent tissue biopsy, and 2% (eight of 371) received surgical intervention. Fewer than 2% (six of 371) of lesions were malignant. Serial imaging changed the treatment of 1% (two of 136) of the patients, corresponding to a rate of one in 47 person-years. Median reimbursements to work up the incidental findings analyzed was USD 219 (interquartile range USD 0 to 404), with a range of USD 0 to 890. Among patients indicated for surveillance, the median annual reimbursement was USD 78 (IQR USD 0 to 389), with a range of USD 0 to 2706. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of clinically important findings among patients referred to orthopaedic oncology for incidentally found osseous lesions is modest. The likelihood of surveillance resulting in a change of management was low, but the median reimbursements associated with following these lesions was also low. We conclude that after appropriate risk stratification by orthopaedic oncology, incidental lesions are rarely clinically important, and judicious follow-up with serial imaging can be performed without incurring high costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Impact of Race/Ethnicity on Hospital Resource Utilization After Elective Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Degenerative Myelopathy.

INTRODUCTION: With the advent of bundled care payments for spine surgery, there is increasing scrutiny on the costs and resource utilization associated with surgical care. The purpose of this study was to compare (1) the total cost of the hospital episode of care and (2) discharge destination between White, Black, and Hispanic patients receiving elective anterior cervical decompression and fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) in Medicare patients. METHODS: The 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set and the 2019 Impact File were used for this project. Multivariate models were created for total cost and discharge destination, controlling for confounders found on univariate analysis. We then performed a subanalysis for differences in specific cost-center charges. RESULTS: There were 11,506 White (85.4%), 1,707 Black (12.7%), and 261 Hispanic (1.9%) patients identified. There were 6,447 males (47.8%) and 7,027 females (52.2%). Most patients were between 65 to 74 years of age (n = 7,101, 52.7%). The mean cost of the hospital episode was $20,919 ± 11,848. Most patients were discharged home (n = 11,584, 86.0%). Race/ethnicity was independently associated with an increased cost of care (Black: $783, Hispanic: $1,566, P = 0.001) and an increased likelihood of nonhome discharge (Black: adjusted odds ratio: 1.990, P < 0.001, Hispanic: adjusted odds ratio: 1.822, P < 0.001) compared with White patients. Compared with White patients, Black patients were charged more for accommodations ($1808), less for supplies (-$1780), and less for operating room (-$1072), whereas Hispanic patients were charged more ($3556, $7923, and $5162, respectively, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Black and Hispanic race/ethnicity were found to be independently associated with an increased cost of care and risk for nonhome discharge after elective anterior cervical decompression and fusion for DCM compared with White patients. The largest drivers of this disparity appear to be accommodation, medical/surgical supply, and operating room-related charges. Further analysis of these racial disparities should be performed to improve value and equity of spine care for DCM.

Trends in Orthopedic Device Innovation: An Analysis of 510(k) Clearances and Premarket Approvals From 2000 to 2019.

The objective of this study was to characterize recent trends in orthopedic device development across different subspecialty areas. Orthopedic 510(k) clearances, premarket approvals (PMAs; together, "authorizations"), and new market entrants from 2000 to 2019 were analyzed as markers of research and development activity. Data were extracted from the US Food and Drug Administration website and stratified into one of 9 "subspecialty" groups: spine, trauma, hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, shoulder, hand/elbow, foot/ankle, cement/filler/graft, and other. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Growth rates were calculated from trailing 3-year averages. During the study period, there were 9906 orthopedic 510(k) clearances and 1409 PMAs, of which 61 were for original PMA submissions. The preponderance of 510(k) clearances were for devices used in spine (36%) and trauma (30%) surgery, followed by hip (11%) and knee (8%) arthroplasty. Annual 510(k) clearances for spine and trauma devices grew by 232% and 44%, respectively, whereas annual hip and knee arthroplasty clearances declined. Paralleling these findings, the influx of new manufacturers of orthopedic devices was greatest for the trauma surgery (438), spine surgery (383), and cement/filler/graft (181) markets. Spinal surgery and orthopedic trauma have become leading priorities in orthopedic product development during the past two decades. Meanwhile, hip and knee arthroplasty products have proportionally become a smaller category of new devices over time. These findings demonstrate changing priorities within orthopedic innovation. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(2):e98-e104.].

Medicare Payments to Hospitals and Physicians for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Declined From 2009 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Recent research has reported hospital payments for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) from commercial payers to be increasing, despite increasing price pressure from the increasing scale and scope of alternative reimbursement schemes. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to analyze the recent trends in Medicare payments to hospitals and surgeons for primary THA and TKA. METHODS: The primary data source for this study was the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set (MEDPAR) for the years 2009, 2014, and 2019. A total of 331,721 patients undergoing primary elective THA and 742,476 patients undergoing primary elective TKA were included. Total Medicare payments and total hospital reimbursements, which included Medicare payments and patient copayments, were calculated. Physician fees were obtained from the Medicare physician fee schedule (MPFS) look-up tool. All financial data were inflation-adjusted. Patient comorbidities were identified as a measure of health status. The data were stratified by year and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2019, inflation-adjusted Medicare payments declined by 11.5% and total hospital reimbursements (Medicare payments plus copayments) declined by 6.5% for THA, while Medicare payments declined by 13.4%, and total hospital reimbursements declined by 7.7% for TKA. Over the same period, surgeons' fees declined by 13.1% for THA and 18.9% for TKA. CONCLUSION: From 2009 to 2019, Medicare payments to hospitals and physicians declined markedly. Physician payments decreased faster than hospital payments. These results may have implications for the future viability of performing THA and TKA on Medicare patients.

High-volume Arthroplasty Centers Are Associated With Lower Hospital Costs When Performing Primary THA and TKA: A Database Study of 288,909 Medicare Claims for Procedures Performed in 2019.

BACKGROUND: With bundled payments and alternative reimbursement models expanding in scope and scale, reimbursements to hospitals are declining in value. As a result, cost reduction at the hospital level is paramount for the sustainability of profitable inpatient arthroplasty practices. Although multiple prior studies have investigated cost variation in arthroplasty surgery, it is unknown whether contemporary inpatient arthroplasty practices benefit from economies of scale after accounting for hospital characteristics and patient selection factors. Quantifying the independent effects of volume-based cost variation may be important for guiding future value-based health reform. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed this study to (1) determine whether the cost incurred by hospitals for performing primary inpatient THA and TKA is independently associated with hospital volume and (2) establish whether length of stay and discharge to home are associated with hospital volume. METHODS: The primary data source for this study was the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set, which includes claims data for 100% of inpatient Medicare hospitalizations. We included patients undergoing primary elective inpatient THA and TKA in 2019. Exclusion criteria included non-Inpatient Prospective Payment System hospitalizations, nonelective admissions, bilateral procedures, and patients with cancer of the pelvis or lower extremities. A total of 500,658 arthroplasties were performed across 2762 hospitals for 492,262 Medicare beneficiaries during the study period; 59% (288,909 of 492,262) of procedures were analyzed after the exclusion criteria were applied. Most exclusions (37% [182,733 of 492,262]) were because of non-Inpatient Prospective Payment System hospitalizations. Among the study group, 87% (251,996 of 288,909) of procedures were in patients who were 65 to 84 years old, 88% (255,415 of 288,909) were performed in patients who were White, and 63% (180,688 of 288,909) were in patients who were women. Elixhauser comorbidities and van Walraven indices were calculated as measures of patient health status. Hospital costs were estimated by multiplying cost-to-charge ratios obtained from the 2019 Impact File by total hospital charges. This methodology enabled us to use the large Medicare Provider Analysis and Review database, which helped decrease the influence of random cost variation through the law of large numbers. Hospital volumes were calculated by stratifying claims by national provider identification number and counting the number of claims per national provider identification number. The data were then grouped into bins of increasing hospital volume to more easily compare larger-volume and smaller-volume centers. The relationship between hospital costs and volume was analyzed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear models. Results are reported as exponential coefficients, which can be interpreted as relative differences in cost. The impact of surgical volume on length of stay and discharge to home was assessed using binary logistic regression, considering the nested structure of the data, and results are reported as odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Hospital cost and mean length of stay decreased, while rates of discharge to home increased with increasing hospital volume. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as patient demographics, health status, and geographic location, we found that inpatient arthroplasty costs at hospitals with 10 or fewer, 11 to 100, and 101 to 200 procedures annually were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30 to 1.34; p < 0.001), 1.17 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.17; p < 0.001), and 1.10 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.10; p < 0.001) times greater than those of hospitals with 201 or more inpatient procedures annually. In addition, patients treated at smaller-volume hospitals had increased odds of experiencing a length of stay longer than 2 days (OR 1.25 to 3.44 [95% CI 1.10 to 4.03]; p < 0.001) and decreased odds of being discharged to home (OR 0.34 to 0.78 [95% CI 0.29 to 0.86]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Higher-volume hospitals incur lower costs, shorter lengths of stay, and higher rates of discharge to home than lower-volume hospitals when performing inpatient THA and TKA. These findings suggest that small and medium-sized regional hospitals are disproportionately impacted by declining reimbursement and may necessitate special treatment to remain viable as bundled payment models continue to erode hospital payments. Further research is also warranted to identify the key drivers of this volume-based cost variation, which may facilitate quality improvement initiatives at the hospital and policy levels.

Association of Cost Savings and Surgical Quality With Single-Vendor Procurement for Spinal Implants.

Importance: Significant cost savings can be achieved from consolidating purchases of spinal implants with a single vendor. However, it is currently unknown whether sole-source contracting or vendor rationalization more broadly affects patient care. Objectives: To describe the single-vendor procurement of spinal implants, characterize the economic benefits of sole-source contracting, and gauge whether vendor rationalization is associated with a diminished quality of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study assessed adult patients receiving single-level lumbar interbody fusions at a single institution from January 1, 2009, to July 31, 2017. Exclusion criteria included multilevel fusions and prior spinal fusions. Exposures: Patients were analyzed based on the number of vendors available to surgeons at the time of the patient's surgery. January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010, was defined as the multivendor period (10 vendors); January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014, was defined as the dual-vendor period; and January 1, 2015, to July 31, 2017, was defined as the single-vendor period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of 12-month revision surgery, complications, 30-day readmissions, and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, as measured by 5-dimension European Quality of Life (EQ-5D) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Health (PROMIS-GH) utilities. Propensity score weighting was performed to control for confounding. The Holm method was used to correct for multiple testing. Annual cost savings associated with the dual-vendor and single-vendor periods were also reported. Results: A total of 1373 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.2 [12.6] years; 763 [55.6%] female; 1161 [84.6%] white) were analyzed. Rates of revisions after adjusting for confounding were 3.2% (95% CI, 1.5%-6.7%) for the multivendor period, 4.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-6.5%) for the dual-vendor period, and 3.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-5.0%) for the single-vendor period. Complication rates were 5.3% (95% CI, 2.7%-10.1%) for the multivendor period, 7.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-9.6%) for the dual-vendor period, and 6.4% (95% CI, 4.6%-8.8%) for the single-vendor period. Readmission rates were 14.2% (95% CI, 9.7%-20.2%) for the multivendor period, 12.6% (95% CI, 10.1%-15.5%) for the dual-vendor period, and 9.7% (95% CI, 7.4%-12.7%) for the single-vendor period. Revisions, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were statistically equivalent across all periods. Readmissions were not statistically equivalent but not statistically different. The savings attributable to vendor rationalization were 24% for the dual-vendor and 21% for the single-vendor periods. Conclusions and Relevance: The single-vendor procurement of spinal implants was associated with significant cost savings without evidence of an associated decline in the quality of care. Large hospital systems may consider sole-source purchasing as a viable cost reduction strategy.

Clinical Outcomes Associated With Allogeneic Red Blood Cell Transfusions in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review were to report the available clinical evidence on patient outcomes associated with perioperative allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in adult patients undergoing spinal surgery and to determine whether there is any evidence to support an association between transfusion timing and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify all articles examining outcomes of adult spinal surgery patients who received perioperative allogeneic RBC transfusions. The level of evidence for each study was assessed using the "Oxford Levels of Evidence 2" classification system. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity of reports. RESULTS: A total of 2759 unique citations were identified and 76 studies underwent full-text review. Thirty-four studies were selected for analysis. All the studies, except one, were retrospective. Eleven studies investigated intraoperative or postoperative transfusions. Only one article compared outcomes related to intraoperative versus postoperative transfusions. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative transfusion is associated with increased rates of postoperative complications, especially infectious complications, and prolonged length of stay. Some evidence suggests that a dose-response relationship may exist between morbid events and the number of RBC units administered, but these findings are inconsistent. Because of the heterogeneity of reports and inconsistent findings, the incidence of specific complications remains unclear. Limited research activity has focused on intraoperative versus postoperative transfusions, or the effect of transfusion on functional outcomes of spine surgery patients. Further research is warranted to address these clinical issues.

A Comparison of the Minimal-Touch Technique and the Eversion Technique for Microvascular Anastomosis in a Rat Model.

Background During microvascular anastomosis, needle placement is facilitated by inserting the tips of the forceps into the lumen of the vessel, rather than grasping and everting the luminal wall, to minimize trauma to the vessel. This study examines whether the vessel wall can be grasped and everted during microvascular anastomosis without compromising surgical outcomes. Methods A total of 20 Sprague-Dawley rats weighing between 252 and 483 g were used. Bilateral anastomoses of the animals' femoral arteries (mean size: 0.90 mm) were performed using two different techniques: the classic minimal-touch approach and the eversion technique. The first 10 animals were survived for 48 hours and the second 10 animals were survived for 2 weeks. Patency was assessed immediately after surgery and just before sacrifice. Hematoxylin and eosin stains were performed and each anastomosis scored according to a grading rubric assessing endothelial cell loss, neointimal proliferation, medial necrosis, adventitial inflammation, and inflammation thickness. Results The patency rates of both techniques were identical (100%). There was no difference in the patency rates of anastomoses evaluated 48 hours after surgery (100%) and 2 weeks after surgery (100%). Histological outcomes between the minimal-touch technique and the eversion method were similar. The thickness of adventitial inflammation at 2 weeks was the only outcome found to be statistically different (p = 0.046) between the two treatments and this difference favored the eversion technique (i.e., less inflammation thickness). Conclusion The eversion method of performing microvascular anastomosis provides comparable results to the classic minimal-touch approach in rat femoral artery anastomoses.