Standardized Protocol for Chest Tube Management for Trauma Patients Significantly Decreases Complications.

Background: As health care shifts to a value-based model with a focus on patient outcomes per dollar spent, it is important to develop and evaluate standardized protocols that ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes and decreased hospital complications. Prior to our chest tube protocol, chest tube management at our Trauma Center was nonuniform and surgeon-specific. The aim of this study was to (1) develop an institutional standardized protocol for chest tube management at our Level II Trauma Center and (2) compare patient outcomes before and after the implementation of our protocol. Methods: An institutional, standardized protocol was initiated at our Level II-Certified Trauma Center teaching hospital in 2014. An IRB-approved, single-institution retrospective chart review was performed between January 2011 and May 2017, in order to capture the 3 years prior and 3 years after protocol implementation. All patients with a diagnosis of hemothorax or pneumothorax (H/PTX) from blunt or penetrating trauma that resulted in a >24 French chest tube placement were included in the study. Patients were excluded if interventional radiology (IR) placed the chest tube, the mechanism was nontraumatic, or the patient expired at index hospitalization. Univariate analyses were performed to evaluate significant differences in patient outcomes before and after the implementation of the protocol. Results: A total of 143 patients were analyzed for this study, with 43 preprotocol patients and 100 postprotocol patients. Hospital length of stay (LOS), persistent H/PTX, and the need for further surgical intervention all improved after the implementation of the standardized protocol (p < 0.04). Conclusions: Our standardized protocol for chest tube management at our Level II Trauma Center significantly improved patient outcomes and can serve as a model for similar institutions.

Acute Proximal Hamstring Tears Can be Defined Using an Imaged-Based Classification.

Purpose: To develop a clinically meaningful proximal hamstring tear classification system and to present outcome data for defined subtypes. Methods: Retrospective review was undertaken of patients diagnosed with proximal hamstring tears at a single institution from 2012 to 2019. Images were reviewed by an orthopedic surgeon and musculoskeletal radiologist. Tears were classified as Type 1: partial with subtypes (1A, 1 cm or mild complete tear; 1B, 1-2 cm or full tear with <2 cm retraction), Type 2: complete single-tendon tears with subtypes (2c conjoint tendon only; 2s semimembranosus tendon only); or Type 3: complete tears with >2 cm retraction. Demographics, patient-reported outcome measures including Hip Outcome Score, Activities of Daily Living Subscore (HOS-ADL) and patient satisfaction were evaluated. A poor outcome was defined as HOS-ADL < 80%, and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was defined as HOS-ADL 89.7%. Results: At a mean follow-up of 38.6 (range: 12-94) months for 114 patients, distributions were as follows: 18.4% Type 1A, 19.2% Type 1B, 7.8% Type 2c, 3.5% Type 2s, and 50.9% Type 3. Intra-observer and inter-observer reliability had a mean Kappa of 0.985 (95% CI: .956, 1.01) and .905 (95% CI: .895 .915). 66 patients underwent surgery, with 68.97% of them being Type 3. The mean HOS-ADL and PASS rate were higher for operatively treated patients (95%, 93.4%) than for nonoperatively treated patients (81.86%, 44.7%). There were significantly more patients satisfied in the surgery group in both Type 1 and Type 3 tears (P = .046 and P = .049). Body mass index was a significant predictor of a poor outcome in Type 3 tears (P = .039). History of corticosteroid or PRP injection, smoking, and diabetes were not significant predictors of a poor outcome. Conclusion: We present an MRI-based classification system for proximal hamstring injuries with both excellent intra-observer and inter-observer reliability. Outcome measures were improved in patients who underwent surgery. Level of Evidence: IV, cohort study: diagnostic case series.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Rates of Ninety-Day Peri-Prosthetic Joint and Surgical Site Infections after Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study.

Background: The impact of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the rate of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and superficial surgical site infections (SSI) is currently unknown. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate any changes in the rates of 90-day PJI or 30-day SSI, including trends in microbiology of the infections, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the three years prior. Patients and Methods: An Institutional Review Board-approved, multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with five participating academic institutions across two healthcare systems in the northeastern United States. Primary TJA patients from the years 2017-2019 were grouped as a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort and patients from the year 2020 were grouped as a COVID-19 pandemic cohort. Differences in patient demographics, PJI, SSI, and microbiology between the two cohorts were assessed. Results: A total of 14,844 TJAs in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort and 5,453 TJAs in the COVID-19 pandemic cohort were evaluated. There were no substantial differences of the combined 90-day PJI and 30-day superficial SSI rates between the pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (0.35%) compared with the COVID-19 pandemic cohort (0.26%; p = 0.303). Conclusions: This study did not find any change in the rates of 90-day PJI or 30-day superficial SSI in patients undergoing primary TJA between a pre-COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic cohort. Larger national database studies may identify small but substantial differences in 90-day PJI and 30-day superficial SSI rates between these two time periods. Our data may support continued efforts to maintain high compliance with hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment, and limited hospital visitation whenever possible.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index Is an Independent Predictor of Adverse Outcomes for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition affects patient outcomes after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Although hypoalbuminemia has been used as a surrogate, there is no unanimous method for screening and assessing malnutrition. This study aimed to determine if malnutrition, as defined by the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), is independently correlated with short-term (<30 days) postoperative complications and prognosis in patients undergoing TJA. METHODS: The 2016-2019 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for all patients aged >65 years who underwent TJA. Based on GNRI value, patients were divided into 3 groups: normal nutrition (GNRI >98), moderate malnutrition (GNRI 92-98), and severe malnutrition (GNRI <92). After adjusting for potential confounders, multivariable regression models were used to analyze the association between GNRI and patient outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 191,087 patients were included in the study. Prevalence of malnutrition based on body mass index (<18.5 kg/m2), albumin (<3.5 mg/dL), and GNRI (≤98) was 0.41% (784), 4.17% (7975), and 15.83% (30,258). Adjusted analysis showed that compared with normal nutrition, moderate and severe malnutrition status were associated with a higher rate of transfusion, readmission, and postoperative length of stay over 8 days (P < .05). Severe malnutrition was also associated with pneumonia, surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, sepsis, and revision surgery (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Malnutrition, as defined by GNRI, is an independent predictor of adverse outcomes after TJA, including 30-day readmission, revision surgery, and increased length of stay. GNRI can be used to routinely screen and assess patient nutritional status before TJA and counsel patients and families appropriately. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Reducing Narcotic Usage With 0.5% Bupivacaine Periarticular Injections in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Periarticular injections (PAIs) and adductor canal blocks (ACBs) are widely accepted pain management strategies for total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, the optimal anesthetic concentration to provide adequate pain relief while avoiding toxicity remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of different anesthetic concentrations for PAI alone and in combination with ACB. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary TKAs between January 2019 and November 2020 included 3 groups: 0.25% PAI (50 cc of 0.25% bupivacaine PAI diluted with 50 cc of saline and ketorolac), 0.5% PAI (50 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine with 50 cc of saline and ketorolac), and PAI + ACB (ultrasound-guided preoperative anesthesiologist-administered ACB and 0.25% PAI). RESULTS: In total, 368 TKAs were analyzed (123 0.25%, 132 0.5%, and 113 PAI + ACB). Total overall hospital narcotic usage in oral morphine equivalents (OME) was significantly lower for the 0.5% group (120.09 vs 165.26 and 175.75) compared to the 0.25% and PAI + ACB groups, respectively (P < .0001). Cumulative OME for the first 3 shifts was also lower for 0.5% (68.7 vs 83.7 and 76.4) compared to the 0.25% and PAI + ACB groups, respectively (P = .030). Total postoperative narcotics in OME were significantly lower for 0.5% (617.9 vs 825.2 and 1047.6) than 0.25% and PAI + ACB, respectively (P = .0003). Number of prescriptions within 6 weeks postoperatively were also significantly lower for 0.5% (1.7) than 0.25% (2.1) and PAI + ACB (2.4) (P = .0003). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving 0.5% PAI had lower narcotic usage compared to 0.25% PAI or PAI + ACB. ACB may be eliminated without compromising pain control if the dose of local anesthetic in the PAI is sufficiently high.

Total Knee Arthroplasty Hospital Costs by Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Robotic vs Conventional.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) represents a major national health expenditure. The last decade has seen a surge in robotic-assisted TKA (roTKA); however, literature on the costs of roTKA as compared to conventional TKA (cTKA) is limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the costs associated with roTKA as compared to cTKA. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort cost-analysis study of patients undergoing primary, elective roTKA or cTKA from July 2020 to March 2021. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was used to determine granular costs. Patient demographics, medical/surgical details, and costs were compared. RESULTS: A total of 2058 TKAs were analyzed (1795 cTKAs and 263 roTKAs). roTKA patients were more often male (50.2% vs 42.3%; P = .016), and discharged home (98.5% vs 93.7%; P = .017), and had longer operating room (OR) time (144.6 vs 130.9 minutes; P < .0001), and lower length of stay (LOS) (1.8 vs 2.1 days; P < .0001). roTKA costs were 2.17× greater for supplies excluding implant (P < .0001), 1.18× for total supplies (P < .0001), 1.12× for OR personnel (P < .0001), and 1.05× for total personnel (P = .0001). Implant costs were similar (P = .076), but 0.98× cheaper for post-anesthesia care unit personnel (P = .018) and 0.84× for inpatient personnel (P < .0001). Overall hospital costs for roTKA were 1.10× more than cTKA (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: roTKA had higher total hospital costs than cTKA. Despite a lower LOS, the longer OR time with higher supply and personnel costs resulted in a costlier procedure. Understanding the costs of roTKA is essential when considering the value (ie, outcomes per dollars spent) of this modern technology.

Variation in the Profit Margin for Different Types of Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: As health care shifts to a value-based model with bundled-payment methods, it is important to understand the costs and reimbursements of arthroplasty procedures that represent the largest expenditure of Medicare. The aim of the present study was to characterize the variation in (1) total hospital costs, (2) reimbursement, and (3) profit margin for different arthroplasty procedures. METHODS: The total hospital costs of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) were calculated with use of time-driven activity-based costing at an orthopaedic institution from 2018 to 2020. The average reimbursement for each type of procedure was determined. Profit margin, defined as the reimbursement profit after direct costs, was calculated by deducting the average time-drive activity-based total hospital costs from the reimbursement value. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between costs, reimbursement, and profit margins. RESULTS: There were 13,545 arthroplasty procedures analyzed for this study, including 6,636 TKAs, 5,902 THAs, 346 TSAs, 577 RSAs, and 84 TAAs. Costs and reimbursement were highest for TAA. THA and TKA resulted in the highest profit margins, whereas RSA resulted in the lowest. The strongest associations with profit margin were private insurance (0.46547), age (-0.22732), and implant cost (-0.19240). CONCLUSIONS: THA and TKA had greater profit margins overall than TAA and upper-extremity arthroplasty in general. Profit margins for RSA, TSA, and TAA were all at least 28% lower than those for TKA or THA. Lower-volume arthroplasty procedures were associated with decreased profit margins. Study findings suggest that optimizing implant costs and length of stay are important for sustaining institutional fiscal health when performing shoulder and ankle arthroplasty surgery.

Elimination of Routine Urinalysis before Elective Orthopaedic Surgery Reduces Antibiotic Utilization without Impacting Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infection or Surgical Site Infection Rates.

PURPOSE: Routine preoperative urinalysis has been the standard of care for the orthopedic population for decades, regardless of symptoms. Studies have demonstrated antibiotic overuse and low concordance between bacteria cultured from the surgical wound and the urine. Testing and treatment of asymptomatic urinary tract colonization before total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is unnecessary and increases patient risk. We investigated reducing antibiotic use by (1) modifying testing algorithms to target patients at risk, (2) modifying reflex to culture criteria, and (3) providing treatment guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pre-post study was conducted to determine identify the impact of eliminating universal urinalysis prior to TJA on surgical site infection (SSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) rates and number of antibiotic prescriptions. Patients who underwent primary hip or knee TJA or spinal fusions from February 2016 to March 2018 were included. Patient data was collected for pre- and post-practice change period (February 2016-October 2016 and August 2017-March 2018). Patient demographics, urinalysis results, cultures, and prescriptions were analyzed retrospectively from every tenth chart in the pre-period and prospectively on all patients in the post-period. RESULTS: A total of 4,663 patients were studied. There was a 96% decrease in urinalyses performed (P<0.0001), and a 93% reduction rate in antibiotic utilization (P<0.001). No significant difference in SSI and CAUTI rates was observed (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The elimination of routine urinalysis before orthopedic surgery resulted in a reduction in antibiotic utilization with no significant change in the SSI or CAUTI rates. Cost savings resulted from reduced antibiotic usage.

Financial Burden of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty at an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital: Higher Costs and Unequal Reimbursements.

BACKGROUND: As demand for primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) continues to grow, a proportionate increase in revision TJA (rTJA) is expected. It is essential to understand costs and reimbursement of rTJA as our country moves to bundled payment models. We aimed (1) to characterize implant and total hospital costs, (2) assess reimbursement, and (3) determine revenue for rTJA in comparison with primary TJA. METHODS: The average implant and total hospital cost of all primary and rTJA procedures by diagnosis-related group (DRG) was calculated using time-driven activity-based costing at an orthopedic hospital from 2018 to 2020. Average reimbursement and payer type were assessed by DRG. Revenue was calculated by deducting average time-driven activity-based costing total costs from reimbursement. RESULTS: 13,946 arthroplasties were included in the study. Implant cost comprised 55.8% of total hospital costs for rTJA DRG 468, compared with 43.6% of total hospital costs for primary TJA DRG 470. Total hospital costs for DRG 468 were 61.1% more than DRG 470. Reimbursement for rTJA was 1.23x more than primary TJA. Private payers paid 23.2% more than Medicare for rTJA. Margin for DRG 468 was 1.5% less than primary DRG 470. CONCLUSION: rTJA requires more hospital resources and costs than primaries, yet hospital reimbursement may be inadequate with the additional expenditures necessary to provide optimal care. If hospitals cannot perform revision services under the current reimbursement model, patient access may be limited. Implant costs are a major contributor to overall rTJA cost. Strategies are needed to reduce revision implant costs to improve value of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analysis.

The Cost of Hip and Knee Revision Arthroplasty by Diagnosis-Related Groups: Comparing Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing and Traditional Accounting.

BACKGROUND: Traditional hospital cost accounting (TA) has innate disadvantages that limit the ability to meaningfully measure care pathways and quality improvement. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) allows a meticulous account of costs in primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, differences between TA and TDABC have not been examined in revision hip and knee TJA (rTJA). We aimed to compare total costs of rTJA by the diagnosis-related group (DRG), measured by TDABC vs TA. METHODS: Overall costs were calculated for rTJA care cycles by DRG for 2 years of financial data (2018-2019) at our single-specialty orthopedic institution using TA and TDABC. Costs derived from TDABC, based on time and resources used, were compared with costs derived from TA based on historical costs. Proportions of implant and nonimplant costs were measured to total TA costs. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-three rTJAs were included in this study, with TA methodology resulting in higher cost estimates. The total cost per DRG 468, rTJA with no comorbidities or complications (CC), DRG 467, rTJA with CC, and DRG 466, rTJA with major CC, estimated by TDABC was 69%, 67%, and 49% of the estimation by TA, respectively. Implant and nonimplant costs represented different proportions between methodologies. CONCLUSION: Considerable differences exist, as TA estimations were 31%-51% higher than TDABC. The true cost is likely a value between the estimations, but TDABC presents granular and patient-specific cost data. TDABC for rTJA provides valuable bottom-up information on cost centers in the care pathway and, with targeted interventions, may lead to a more optimal delivery of value-based health care.

Reference Pricing Reduces Total Knee Implant Costs.

BACKGROUND: Reference pricing establishes a set price a hospital is willing to pay for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) components regardless of vendor. The hospital contracts with vendors that sell implants to the hospital at the hospital-dictated prices. Orthopedic surgeons are free to utilize any implant system that has met the reference price using their best clinical judgment. Our hypothesis is that vendors will meet the set price and selection of different vendors and technologies will not change. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the 12 months prior (May 2017-2018) and the most recent 12 months after (March 2019-2020) implementing reference pricing at our institution. We investigated differences in average prices for total implant and component costs. We evaluated cost of implants with respect to surgeon volume, assessed the rate of cementless TKAs used, and number of companies purchased from before and after reference pricing. RESULTS: In total, 7148 TKAs were included in the study with 3790 arthroplasties before and 3358 after implementation of reference pricing. Overall implant costs decreased by 16.7% (P < .0001). All individual knee component costs decreased by at least 11% (P = .0003). No difference in prices were found among surgeons (P = .9758). Cementless knee use increased by 9% (P < .0001; odds ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-2.24). No vendor business was lost. CONCLUSION: The strategy of reference pricing significantly reduced costs for TKA implants at our institution. The reduction in implant costs was regardless of surgeon volume. Newer technologies were utilized more often after reference pricing. This strategy represents a significant cost-savings approach for other hospitals.