Are Ceramic Bearings Becoming Cost-Effective for All Patients Within a 90-Day Bundled Payment Period?

BACKGROUND: We analyzed whether the total hospital cost in a 90-day bundled payment period for ceramic-on-polyethylene (C-PE) and ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) total hip arthroplasty (THA) bearings was changing over time, and whether the cost differential between ceramic bearings and metal-on-polyethylene (M-PE) bearings was approaching the previously published tipping point for cost-effectiveness of US$325. METHODS: A total of 245,077 elderly Medicare patients (65+) who underwent primary THA between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the United States Medicare 100% national administrative hospital claims database. The total inpatient cost, calculated up to 90 days after index discharge, was computed using cost-to-charge ratios, and hospital payment was analyzed. The differential total inpatient cost of C-PE and COC bearings, compared to metal-on-polyethylene (M-PE), was evaluated using parametric and nonparametric models. RESULTS: After adjustment for patient and clinical factors, and the year of surgery, the mean hospital cost up to 90 days for primary THA with C-PE or COC was within ±1% of the cost for primary THA with M-PE bearings (P < .001). From the nonparametric analysis, the median total hospital cost was US$296-US$353 more for C-PE and COC than M-PE. Cost differentials were found to decrease significantly over time (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patient and clinical factors had a far greater impact on the total cost of inpatient THA surgery than bearing selection, even when including readmission costs up to 90 days after discharge. Our findings indicate that the cost-effectiveness thresholds for ceramic bearings relative to M-PE are changing over time and increasingly achievable for the Medicare population.

Early Failure of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is Surgical Approach a Risk Factor?

BACKGROUND: In an era of innovation in surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is concern for increasing trends of early failure. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incidence of early failure of primary THA stratified by surgical approach. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on consecutive primary THAs completed from 2007 to 2014 at a high-volume center. THAs were stratified by surgical approach. Only the direct anterior (DAA) and posterior approaches (PA) were included. The primary outcome measure was early revision (<5 years). Descriptive statistics were performed using SAS software. RESULTS: In total, 6894 primary THAs performed between 2007 and 2014 were included. Across 2431 DAA THAs and 4463 PA THAs, there were 103 revisions overall. There was no difference in the overall revision rate for DAA THAs (1.69%) compared to PA THAs (1.39%) (P = .33). The DAA had a higher rate of early revisions for femoral component loosening compared to the PA (P = .0003). About 35.7% of DAA THAs were revised for femoral loosening compared to 8% for the PA (P = .0003). Early failure by femoral loosening occurred more often via the DAA in Dorr A bone (P = .03). The PA had a higher incidence of revision for instability (P = .04). There was no difference in modes of failure with regards to time to failure, acetabular loosening, early periprosthetic fracture, or infection. CONCLUSION: The DAA had a higher incidence of femoral loosening while PA had a higher mode of failure due to instability. Overall revision rates were not statistically different between approaches.

Why do revision knee arthroplasties fail?

This study identified the mechanisms of failure and the variables associated with failure after revision knee arthroplasty. Five hundred sixty-six index revision knee arthroplasties were studied. Of index revisions, 12.0% failed at an average of 40.1 months. Predominant revision failure modes included infection (46%), aseptic loosening (19%), and instability (13%). Only 4.3% of knees revised for aseptic loosening required rerevision as compared to 21% of knees revised for infection. Revision knee arthroplasty was more likely to fail in younger patients and in those who underwent polyethylene exchanges. Mechanisms of failure for revision arthroplasties are different than for primary knee arthroplasties. Revisions for infection are 4 times more likely to fail than revisions for aseptic loosening. The survivorship for the entire cohort, with revision for any reason as an end point, was 82% at 12 years.