Comparative Analysis of Direct Hospital Care Costs between Aseptic and Two-Stage Septic Knee Revision.

BACKGROUND: The most common intermediate and long-term complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) include aseptic and septic failure of prosthetic joints. These complications cause suffering, and their management is expensive. In the future the number of revision TKA will increase, which involves a greater financial burden. Little concrete data about direct costs for aseptic and two-stage septic knee revisions with an in depth-analysis of septic explantation and implantation is available. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: A retrospective consecutive analysis of the major partial costs involved in revision TKA for aseptic and septic failure was undertaken to compare 1) demographic and clinical characteristics, and 2) variable direct costs (from a hospital department's perspective) between patients who underwent single-stage aseptic and two-stage septic revision of TKA in a hospital providing maximum care. We separately analyze the explantation and implantation procedures in septic revision cases and identify the major cost drivers of knee revision operations. METHODS: A total of 106 consecutive patients (71 aseptic and 35 septic) was included. All direct costs of diagnosis, surgery, and treatment from the hospital department's perspective were calculated as real purchase prices. Personnel involvement was calculated in units of minutes. RESULTS: Aseptic versus septic revisions differed significantly in terms of length of hospital stay (15.2 vs. 39.9 days), number of reported secondary diagnoses (6.3 vs. 9.8) and incision-suture time (108.3 min vs. 193.2 min). The management of septic revision TKA was significantly more expensive than that of aseptic failure ($12,223.79 vs. $6,749.43) (p <.001). On the level of the separate hospitalizations the mean direct costs of explantation stage ($4,540.46) were lower than aseptic revision TKA ($6,749.43) which were again lower than those of the septic implantation stage ($7,683.33). All mean costs of stays were not comparable as they differ significantly (p <.001). Major cost drivers were the cost of the implant and general staff. The septic implantation part was on average $3,142.87 more expensive than septic explantations (p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study for the first time provides a detailed analysis of the major direct case costs of aseptic and septic revision TKA from the hospital-department's perspective which is the basis for long-term orientated decision making. In the future, our cost analysis has to be interpreted in relation to reimbursement estimates. This is important to check whether revision TKA lead to a financial loss for the operating department.

Comparison of health care costs between aseptic and two stage septic hip revision.

The number of septic and aseptic total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions will increase, which involves a greater financial burden. We here provide a retrospective consecutive analysis of the major variable direct costs involved in revision THA for aseptic and septic failure. A total of 144 patients (30 septic, 114 aseptic) treated between January 1, 2009 and March 31, 2012 was included. The management of septic THA loosening is much more expensive than that of aseptic loosening ($14,379.8 vs. $5,487.4). This difference is mainly attributable to the two-stage exchange technique used for septic failure (hospital stay: 40.2 vs. 15.6 days) and significantly higher implant costs ($3,930.9 vs. $2,298.2). The septic implantation part is on average $3,384.6 more expensive than aseptic procedures (P < .001).

Medication management for people with dementia in primary care: description of implementation in the DelpHi study.

BACKGROUND: As the population ages, the relative and absolute number of age-associated diseases such as dementia will increase. Evaluation of the suitability and intake of medication and pharmacological treatment is an important aspect of care for people with dementia, especially if they live at home. Regular medication reviews and systematic cooperation between physicians and pharmacists are not common in routine care. Medication management (MM), based on such a comprehensive home medication review could help to reduce drug-related problems and costs. The present article presents a medication management specifically for the application in the ambulatory setting and describes its implementation as part of a larger trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A home medication review (HMR) and MM is implemented as part of the DelpHi study, a population based prospective, cluster-randomized controlled intervention study to test the efficacy and efficiency of the implementation of a collaborative care model in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: people with dementia (PWD) and their caregivers are recruited by the patient's general practitioner. Inclusion criteria are a positive screening result for dementia, living at home and regular intake of drugs. PWD are asked to specify their regular pharmacy which is asked to participate in the study, too. INTERVENTION: a comprehensive HMR is conducted as computer-assisted personal interview by specifically qualified Dementia Care Manager (DCM) at the people's home. It includes detailed information about drugs taken, their storage, administration, adherence and adverse events. The MM is conducted in cooperation between DCM, pharmacist and general practitioner and consists of a pharmaceutical evaluation, pharmaceutical recommendations and their application. Pharmacists are trained and provided with regularly updated information. The MM is designed to give information and recommendations concerning antidementia drugs, occurrence of drug related problems, intake of anticholinergic drugs, potentially clinically relevant drug-drug-interactions, adverse drug events and medication adherence. DISCUSSION: The DelpHi-approach for medication management employs comprehensive instruments and procedures in the primary care setting under routine care conditions, and this approach should be useful in improving pharmacotherapy as part of the comprehensive treatment and care for people with dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01401582.