Preoperative Shoulder Injections Are Associated With Increased Risk of Revision Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to determine whether the timing of preoperative shoulder injections is associated with an increased risk of revision rotator cuff repair following primary rotator cuff repair (RCR). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of claims data of privately insured subjects from the MarketScan database for the years 2010 to 2014 was conducted. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare the odds of reoperation between groups. Laterality for the injection, index procedure, and subsequent surgery were verified for all subjects. RESULTS: A total of 4,959 subjects with an arthroscopic RCR were identified, 392 of whom required revision RCR within the following 3 years. Patients who had an injection within 6 months preceding the index surgery were at a much higher risk of undergoing reoperation for revision RCR: 0 to 3 months prior, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.375 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.027-1.840); 3 to 6 months prior, AOR 1.822 (95% CI, 1.290-2.573); and 6 to 12 months prior, AOR 1.237 (95% CI, 0.787-1.943). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had received an injection within 6 months prior to RCR were much more likely to undergo a revision cuff repair within the following 3 years. The risk of reoperation significantly declines if there is more than 6 months between injection and RCR. Consideration should be given to minimizing preoperative injections in patients requiring RCR or delaying primary RCR for 6 months following injection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Current Trends in the Use of Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has become increasingly popular since its introduction to the United States. The purpose of this study was to assess the current trends and use of rTSA, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), and hemiarthroplasty (HA) from 2011 to 2014. Shoulder arthroplasty data from the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample database were analyzed for the years 2011 to 2014 using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. For each procedure, use and patient and hospital characteristics were identified. Shoulder arthroplasties increased by 24% between 2011 and 2014, to 79,105 procedures. The proportion of arthroplasties that were aTSA did not change substantially (44% for both years; P=.0585), while the proportion that were rTSA surpassed aTSA in 2014, increasing from 33% to 46% (P<.0001). Use of rTSA topped use of aTSA by 2013 for Medicare patients. The proportion that were HA procedures declined from 23% to 11% (P<.0001). The use of rTSA for fracture increased from 26% to 58% (P<.0001) of all arthroplasties for this indication, while the use of HA for fracture decreased from 69% to 40% (P<.0001). Orthopedists performed rTSA more often than aTSA for Medicare patients by 2013 and the general population by 2014. The use of rTSA for fracture has grown significantly, with rTSA being performed more frequently than HA for this indication. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(3):e416-e423.].

The Cost of Joint Replacement: Comparing Two Approaches to Evaluating Costs of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In an era of mandatory bundled payments for total joint replacement, accurate analysis of the cost of procedures is essential for orthopaedic surgeons and their institutions to maintain viable practices. The purpose of this study was to compare traditional accounting and time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methods for estimating the total costs of total hip and knee arthroplasty care cycles. METHODS: We calculated the overall costs of elective primary total hip and total knee replacement care cycles at our academic medical center using traditional and TDABC accounting methods. We compared the methods with respect to the overall costs of hip and knee replacement and the costs for each major cost category. RESULTS: The traditional accounting method resulted in higher cost estimates. The total cost per hip replacement was $22,076 (2014 USD) using traditional accounting and was $12,957 using TDABC. The total cost per knee replacement was $29,488 using traditional accounting and was $16,981 using TDABC. With respect to cost categories, estimates using traditional accounting were greater for hip and knee replacement, respectively, by $3,432 and $5,486 for personnel, by $3,398 and $3,664 for space and equipment, and by $2,289 and $3,357 for indirect costs. Implants and consumables were derived from the actual hospital purchase price; accordingly, both methods produced equivalent results. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial cost differences exist between accounting methods. The focus of TDABC only on resources used directly by the patient contrasts with the allocation of all operating costs, including all indirect costs and unused capacity, with traditional accounting. We expect that the true costs of hip and knee replacement care cycles are likely somewhere between estimates derived from traditional accounting methods and TDABC. TDABC offers patient-level granular cost information that better serves in the redesign of care pathways and may lead to more strategic resource-allocation decisions to optimize actual operating margins.