Direct Costs Vary by Outcome in Two-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Hip Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Background: Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the gold standard for treating chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI), but there has been limited analysis of the costs incurred beyond the index procedure and how additional complications and/or surgeries impact the cost of care. Methods: The electronic health record was queried for patients who underwent a total hip arthroplasty complicated by PJI and then underwent removal of the prosthesis with implantation of an antibiotic-impregnated articulating cement spacer. Patient demographics, surgical variables, hospital readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and postoperative complications were recorded. Data on total costs were collected with an internal accounting database. The average follow-up duration was 3.35 years. Results: Univariate analyses showed statistically significant differences between outcome groups (reimplantation, reimplantation requiring later revision, retained spacer, and Girdlestone resection arthroplasty) in total overall costs, ED visit costs, and postoperative costs at 1 and 2 years after the initial spacer placement. The median total cost at 2 years for each group was $38,865 ($29,144-49,471) (reimplantation), $79,223 ($53,442-100,152) (reimplantation with revision), $54,096 ($20,872-73,903) (retained spacer), $62,134 ($52,135-101,546) (Girdlestone). Patients who underwent successful reimplantation requiring no further surgery had significantly lower total costs than patients who needed revision surgeries after reimplantation ($38,865 [$29,144-49,471] vs $79,223 [$53,442-100,152], P = .007). Patients with a Girdlestone resection arthroplasty had higher total costs at 1 year ($59,708 [$41,781-80,916] vs $33,093 [$27,237-40,429], P = .043) and higher costs attributable to ED visits at 2 years than the reimplantation group ($23,581 [$14,029-41,519] vs $15,307 [$6291-29,119], P = .009). Conclusions: A significant variation exists among total costs for the 2-stage treatment of hip PJI when stratified by the final outcome.

Cost Drivers in Two-Stage Treatment of Hip Periprosthetic Joint Infection With an Antibiotic Coated Cement Hip Spacer.

BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for treating chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) is a 2-stage revision arthroplasty. There has been little investigation into what specific patient and operative factors may be able to predict higher costs of this treatment. METHODS: An institutional electronic health record database was retrospectively queried for patients who developed a PJI after a total hip arthroplasty, and underwent removal of the prosthesis and implantation of an antibiotic-impregnated articulating hip cement spacer. Patient demographics, surgical variables, hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and post-operative complications were collected. Total costs were captured through an internal accounting database through 2 years post-operatively. Negative binomial regressions were utilized for multivariable analyses. A total of 55 hips with PJI were available for cost analyses. RESULTS: A comorbidity index score was associated with a 70% increase (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.7 [1.18-2.5], P = .003) in total costs at 2-years. Illicit drug use was associated with a 70% increase in costs at 1-year post-operatively (OR 1.7 [1.18-2.5], P = .003). Metal-on-poly liners were associated with a 22% decrease in cost at 2-years post-operatively when compared to Cement-on-Bone articulating spacers, and Metal-on-poly -constrained liners accounted for 38% lower costs at 1-year (OR 0.62 [0.44-0.87], P = .004). Use of an intraoperative extended trochanteric osteotomy was associated with a 46 and 61% increase in cost at 1-year (OR 1.46 [1.14-1.89]) and 2-years (OR 1.61 [1.26-2.07], P < .001) post-operatively. CONCLUSION: Age, comorbidity index score, drug use, and extended trochanteric osteotomy were associated with increased costs of PJI treatment. This may be used to improve reimbursement models and target areas of cost savings.

Radiographic Evaluation of the Tibial Intramedullary Nail Entry Point.

INTRODUCTION: Tibia fractures are common injuries that can often be effectively treated with intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation. The ideal starting point for IMN reaming and nail placement is well described and regarded as a crucial aspect in the technique. The purpose of this study is to determine the accuracy and precision with which the starting point is established and if this is maintained after nail insertion during fracture fixation. METHODS: Fifty consecutive tibia fractures treated by IMN fixation sized 9 to 13 mm through an infrapatellar or medial parapatellar approach and 50 treated with a suprapatellar approach were evaluated. The starting point for reaming and IMN placement was measured using intraoperative fluoroscopy. Postoperative radiographs were used to determine the center of the IMN after placement. The distance between the measured points and the ideal starting point was measured. RESULTS: Deviation from the ideal entry point on intraoperative fluoroscopy averaged 4.6 ± 4.0 mm medially, 2.9 ± 3.7 mm anteriorly, and 2.7 ± 3.3 mm distally. In 30% of cases, the final IMN position varied from the entry point by greater than one SD in the coronal or sagittal plane. No difference between approaches was appreciated. DISCUSSION: Although the ideal starting point for tibial IMN fixation is known, this is frequently not the starting point accepted in practice. Final position of the IMN is independent of IMN size or approach and is not markedly different than the obtained starting point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III.