The clinical and economic burden of proximal femur periprosthetic fractures.

BACKGROUND: The number of hip replacements is constantly and progressively increasing, resulting in an increase in periprosthetic fractures. The main aim of this study is to analyze costs and outcomes of surgical treatment for those fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on periprosthetic proximal femur fracture presented a single-level I trauma center. Medical records were reviewed in terms of demographic data, diagnosis (according to Vancouver classification), type of surgical treatment, hospitalization length and follow-up. Patients were interviewed about number of consultations after discharge, medications and physiotherapy sessions. Clinical outcome was evaluated with WOMAC score at the last follow-up, and patient health status was evaluated with the EQ5D5L score pre-trauma and at the last follow-up. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical treatment: reduction and internal fixation alone and revision plus fixation. A further group was also considered: patients underwent a Girdlestone procedure. Global costs for each group were calculated. RESULTS: We initially recruited 117 patients, 17 of them were lost at follow-up. Furthermore, 19 patients (19%) died during the follow-up, and 81 of them were therefore included in the study. Mean follow-up was 26.5 months. Mean postoperative WOMAC score was 39.44, and EQ5D5L score was 9.12 for the preoperative period and 12.35 at the last follow-up. A significant worsening of clinical conditions was found comparing the period before fracture to the last follow-up (p < 0.01). Quality of life after surgery resulted to be poor or fair in 40% of the patients at a mean follow-up of 26.5 months. No significant differences between groups were found according to patients' health status. Mean global costs for mayor surgeries were 18,822 Euros; mean costs for fixation alone were 17,298 Euros while for fixation and revision were 20,966 Euros, but no statistically difference was found between these two groups. Mean cost for Girdlestone group was 12,664 Euros. CONCLUSIONS: In proximal femur periprosthetic fractures, either fixation or revision plus fixation presents high costs but patients' postoperative quality of life is poor.

Medical resource utilization and costs for intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic hip fractures following total hip arthroplasty in the medicare population: A retrospective cohort study.

This study assessed the impact of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHFx) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) on health care resource utilization and costs in the Medicare population.This retrospective observational cohort study used health care claims from the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Standard Analytic File (100%) sample. Patients aged 65+ with primary THA between 2010 and 2016 were identified and divided into 3 groups - patients with intraoperative PPHFx, patients with postoperative PPHFx within 90 days of THA, and patients without PPHFx. A multi-level matching technique, using direct and propensity score matching was used. The proportion of patients admitted at least once to skilled nursing facility (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), and readmission during the 0 to 90 or 0 to 365 day period after THA as well as the total all-cause payments during those periods were compared between patients in PPHFx groups and patients without PPHFx.After dual matching, a total 4460 patients for intraoperative and 2658 patients for postoperative PPHFx analyses were included. Utilization of any 90-day post-acute services was statistically significantly higher among patients in both PPHFx groups versus those without PPHFx: for intraoperative analysis, SNF (41.7% vs 30.8%), IRF (17.7% vs 10.1%), and readmissions (17.6% vs 11.5%); for postoperative analysis, SNF (64.5% vs 28.7%), IRF (22.6% vs 7.2%), and readmissions (92.8% vs 8.8%) (all P < .0001). The mean 90-day total all-cause payments were significantly higher in both intraoperative ($30,114 vs $21,229) and postoperative ($53,669 vs $ 19,817, P < .0001) PPHFx groups versus those without PPHFx. All trends were similar in the 365-day follow up.Patients with intraoperative and early postoperative PPHFx had statistically significantly higher resource utilization and payments than patients without PPHFx after primary THA. The differences observed during the 90-day follow up were continued over the 1-year period as well.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Fracture: More Expensive, More Complications, Same Diagnosis-Related Groups: A Local and National Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty (revision THA) occurs for a wide variety of indications and in the United States it is coded under Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) 466, 467, and 468, which do not account for revision etiology, a potentially substantial driver of cost. This study investigates revision THA costs and 30-day complications by indication, both locally and nationally. METHODS: Hospitalization costs and complication rates for 1,422 aseptic revision THAs performed at a high-volume center between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Additionally, charges for 28,133 revision THAs in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were converted to costs using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project cost-to-charge ratios, and 30-day complication rates for 3,224 revision THAs were obtained with use of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Costs and complications were compared between revision THAs performed for fracture, wear/loosening, and dislocation/instability with use of simultaneous and pairwise comparisons and a multivariable model accounting for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, age, and sex. RESULTS: Local hospitalization costs for fracture (median, $25,672) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening ($20,228; p < 0.001) or dislocation/instability ($17,911; p < 0.001), with differences remaining significant even after adjusting for patient comorbidities (p < 0.001). NIS costs for fracture (median, $27,596) were higher than those for other aseptic indications (wear/loosening: $21,176, p < 0.001; dislocation/instability: $16,891, p< 0.001). Local 30-day orthopaedic complication rates for fracture (20.7%) were higher those than for dislocation/instability (9.0%; p = 0.007) and similar to those for wear/loosening (17.6%; p = 0.434). Nationally, combined medical and surgical complication rates for fracture (71.3% of patients with ≥1 complication) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening (35.2%; p < 0.001) or dislocation/instability (35.1%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization costs for revision THA for fracture were 33% to 48% higher than for all other aseptic revision THAs, both locally and nationally. This increased cost persisted even after multivariable comorbidity adjustment, the current DRG basis for stratifying revision THA reimbursement. Additionally, 30-day complication rates suggest that increased resource utilization for fracture patients continues even after discharge. Indication-specific coding and reimbursement systems are necessary to maintain sustainable access to revision THA for all patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Costs and Risk Factors for Hospital Readmission After Periprosthetic Knee Fractures in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFX) around total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are devastating complications with significant morbidity. With growing healthcare costs, hospital readmissions have become a marker for quality healthcare delivery. However, little is known about the risk factors or costs associated with readmission after treatment of PPFX. We sought to identify the patient demographics, prevalence of treatment types (open reduction internal fixation [ORIF] vs revision TKA), 30 and 90-day readmission rates, costs of initial treatment and readmission, and risk factors for readmission. METHODS: We used the 2013 Nationwide Readmissions Database to select patients who underwent TKA, revision TKA, and treatment of PPFX with either ORIF or revision TKA. The 90-day readmission rate was determined through a survival analysis, and risk factors were identified using a cox proportional hazards model that adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 1526 patients with PPFX treated with ORIF and 1458 treated with revision TKA. Ninety-day readmissions were 20.5% and 21.8%, respectively. Patients with ORIF were more often female and had multiple medical comorbidities. Patient factors associated with readmission included advanced age, male gender, comorbidities, discharge to a skilled nursing facility or home with health aide, and Medicare or Medicaid insurance. Treatment at a teaching hospital was the only hospital-associated risk factor identified. ORIF cost USD 25,539 and revision THA cost USD 37,680, with associated readmissions costing 15,269 and 16,806, respectively. CONCLUSION: PPFX results in greater costs compared to primary and revision TKA. This study highlights risk factors for readmission after PPFX treatment.

The economic impact of surgically treated peri-prosthetic hip fractures on a university teaching hospital in Wales 7.5-year study.

The number of total hip replacements taking place across the UK continues to grow. In an ageing population, with people placing greater demands on their prostheses, the number of peri-prosthetic fractures is increasing. We studied the economic impact this has on a large teaching hospital. All patients with peri-prosthetic femoral fracture in a 7.5 year period were identified. Radiographic and case note analysis was performed. Costings from the finance departments were obtained. 90 cases were identified, 58 female and 32 male, with a mean age of 76 (range: 38-91). 89 of the cases were managed surgically, 66% undergoing revision and 33% receiving open reduction and internal fixation. According to the Vancouver Classification, 3% were Type A, 79% Type B and 18% Type C. The mean length of stay was 43 days. The mean cost of management was £31,370 (range: £6885-£112,327). Patients with type C fractures had the highest mean length of stay at 53 days and mean cost of £33,417. Including rehabilitation costs, our study illustrated a mean cost of £31,370, roughly four times the current basic NHS tariff of £8552. Although implant costs are greater, treatment with revision where appropriate allows earlier weight bearing, reduced length of stay and lower overall cost.

Comparative Epidemiology of Revision Arthroplasty: Failed THA Poses Greater Clinical and Economic Burdens Than Failed TKA.

BACKGROUND: Revision THA and TKA are growing and important clinical and economic challenges. Healthcare systems tend to combine revision joint replacement procedures into a single service line, and differences between revision THA and revision TKA remain incompletely characterized. These differences carry implications for guiding care and resource allocation. We therefore evaluated epidemiologic trends associated with revision THAs and TKAs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to determine differences in (1) the number of patients undergoing revision TKA and THA and respective demographic trends; (2) differences in the indications for and types of revision TKA and THA; (3) differences in patient severity of illness scoring between THA and TKA; and (4) differences in resource utilization (including cost and length of stay [LOS]) between revision THA and TKA. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to evaluate 235,857 revision THAs and 301,718 revision TKAs between October 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010. Patient characteristics, procedure information, and resource utilization were compared across revision THAs and TKAs. A revision burden (ratio of number of revisions to total number of revision and primary surgeries) was calculated for hip and knee procedures. Severity of illness scoring and cost calculations were derived from the NIS. As our study was principally descriptive, statistical analyses generally were not performed; however, owing to the large sample size available to us through this NIS analysis, even small observed differences presented are likely to be highly statistically significant. RESULTS: Revision TKAs increased by 39% (revision burden, 9.1%-9.6%) and THAs increased by 23% (revision burden, 15.4%-14.6%). Revision THAs were performed more often in older patients compared with revision TKAs. Periprosthetic joint infection (25%) and mechanical loosening (19%) were the most common reasons for revision TKA compared with dislocation (22%) and mechanical loosening (20%) for revision THA. Full (all-component) revision was more common in revision THAs (43%) than in TKAs (37%). Patients who underwent revision THA generally were sicker (> 50% major severity of illness score) than patients who underwent revision TKA (65% moderate severity of illness score). Mean LOS was longer for revision THAs than for TKAs. Mean hospitalization costs were slightly higher for revision THA (USD 24,697 +/- USD 40,489 [SD]) than revision TKA (USD 23,130 +/- USD 36,643 [SD]). Periprosthetic joint infection and periprosthetic fracture were associated with the greatest LOS and costs for revision THAs and TKAs. CONCLUSIONS: These data could prove important for healthcare systems to appropriately allocate resources to hip and knee procedures: the revision burden for THA is 52% greater than for TKA, but revision TKAs are increasing at a faster rate. Likewise, the treating clinician should understand that while both revision THAs and TKAs bear significant clinical and economic costs, patients undergoing revision THA tend to be older, sicker, and have greater costs of care.

Where do knee revisions for infection, fracture, and other revisions get treated?

Complicated knee revision procedures require specific expertise that may not be available across the healthcare network. Teaching hospitals appear to perform more knee revisions overall than urban or rural hospitals. We examined the location of care and payer status for all knee revisions including complex revisions (infection, periprosthetic fracture). Although only 39.7% of all primary total knee cases were performed in teaching hospitals, over half of all knee revisions were performed in teaching hospitals. Knee revision procedures, including treatment of periprosthetic infections and fractures are performed more often in teaching hospitals than in urban and rural settings combined. Reimbursement that does not match the cost of care for complex revision and infection cases may have a disproportionate impact on teaching hospitals.

A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty: the economic burden in relation to the national tariff.

Revision arthroplasty of the hip is expensive owing to the increased cost of pre-operative investigations, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay and drugs. We compared the costs of performing this surgery for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1999 and 2008. The mean total costs for revision surgery in aseptic cases (n = 194) were £11 897 (sd 4629), for septic revision (n = 76) £21 937 (sd 10 965), for peri-prosthetic fracture (n = 24) £18 185 (sd 9124), and for dislocation (n = 11) £10 893 (sd 5476). Surgery for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with longer operating times, increased blood loss and an increase in complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly longer on average (p < 0.001). Financial costs vary significantly by indication, which is not reflected in current National Health Service tariffs.

The suitability of an uncemented hydroxyapatite coated (HAC) hip hemiarthroplasty stem for intra-capsular femoral neck fractures in osteoporotic elderly patients: the Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal Index, a solution to preventing intra-operative periprosthetic fracture.

This study will seek to identify a measurable radiographic index, the Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal Index (MDI) score to determine whether intra-operative fracture in osteoporotic bone can be predicted.A 5 year prospective cohort of 560 consecutive patients, undergoing hemiarthroplasty (cemented or uncemented), was evaluated. A nested case-control study to determine risk factors affecting intra-operative fracture was carried out. The Vancouver Classification was used to classify periprosthetic fracture. The MDI score was calculated using radiographs from the uncemented group. As a control (gold standard), Yeung et al's Canal Bone Ratio (CBR) score was also calculated. From this, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was formulated for both scores and area under the curve (AUC) compared. Intra and inter-observer correlations were determined. Cost analysis was also worked out for adverse outcomes. Four hundred and seven uncemented and one hundred and fifty-three cemented stems were implanted. The use of uncemented implants was the main risk factor for intra-operative periprosthetic fracture. Sixty-two periprosthetic fractures occurred in the uncemented group (15.2%), nine occurred in the cemented group (5.9%), P < 0.001. The revision rate for sustaining a periprosthetic fracture (uncemented group) was 17.7%, P < 0.001 and 90 day mortality 19.7%, P < 0.03. MDI's AUC was 0.985 compared to CBR's 0.948, P < 0.001. The MDI score cut-off to predict fracture was 21, sensitivity 98.3%, specificity 99.8%, positive predictive value 90.5% and negative predictive value 98%. Multivariate regression analysis ruled out any other confounding factors as being significant. The intra and inter-observer Pearson correlation scores were r = 0.99, P < 0.001. JRI uncemented hemiarthroplasty has a significantly higher intra-operative fracture rate. We recommend cemented arthroplasty for hip fractures. We propose a radiographic system that may allow surgeons to select patients who are good candidates for uncemented arthroplasty, but it needs prospective validation.

What is the financial cost of treating periprosthetic hip fractures?

A total of 146 patients were identified from a prospective database of all hip fractures over a 10-year period at a United Kingdom teaching hospital. The financial costs were calculated and analysed and then compared with the money recovered through the tariff produced by Payment by Results.A total of 62% of the study group were female; mean age of 79 years; mean length of stay of 39 days.Fractures occurred around total hip replacement (THR) in 63 cases, revision THR in 27 cases and hemiarthroplasty in 56 cases. Fixation of the fracture was performed in 61 cases, revision arthroplasty in 62 cases and 23 were treated non-operatively.The mean cost of treatment was £23,469 per patient (range £615­£223,000; median £18,031). Ward costs were responsible for 80.3%, theatre costs 5.7%, implants 6.7% and investigations 7.3%. The difference in cost was statistically significant when further surgery was required (p = 0.01) and length of stay was greater than 30 days (p < 0.0001), and when compared with the money recovered by the Trust(mean £3702; p < 0.0001). These results reveal the significant economic impact of treating this group of patients at specialist centres.