Case mix and outcomes of total knee replacement in orthopaedic specialty hospitals.

Immunology, and Allergy, Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Medical Care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 05/2008; 46(5):476-80. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31816c43c8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine patient characteristics and outcomes of total knee replacement (TKR) in orthopaedic specialty hospitals.
We performed a retrospective cohort study in the US Medicare population. We defined specialty hospitals for TKR as centers: (1) that performed >75 TKRs in Medicare recipients in 2000; (2) in which TKR accounted for >7% of all Medicare discharges; and (3) that had <300 beds. We divided specialty hospitals into those with <or=100 beds and those with 101-299 beds. We compared preoperative characteristics and complications among patients undergoing TKR in specialty and nonspecialty centers. We stratified patients according to risk of complications and performed stratum-specific analyses.
A total of 2,417 patients received TKA in 19 specialty hospitals, accounting for 3% of all TKRs in 2000. The specialty hospitals had fewer patients with poverty level income. The smaller "boutique" specialty hospitals had lower complication rates than the larger specialty hospitals and the nonspecialty centers (P value for trend = 0.001). In analyses that adjusted for patient age and sex, low-risk patients had similar outcomes across all hospital categories. However, high-risk patients had statistically significantly greater benefit from treatment in smaller specialty hospitals, with the risk of any adverse event ranging from 1.4% (95% CI, 0%-3.5%) in smaller specialty hospitals to 4.9% (95% CI, 4.4%-5.5%) in low-volume centers.
Smaller specialty hospitals have low complication rates and are especially beneficial for high-risk patients. Further work should address functional outcomes, costs, and satisfaction in these specialty centers, and evaluate strategies to manage more high-risk patients in specialty centers.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: Medicare and private plans are encouraging individuals to seek care at hospitals that are designated as centers of excellence. Few evaluations of such programs have been conducted. This study examines a large national initiative that designated hospitals as centers of excellence for knee and hip replacement. OBJECTIVE:: Comparison of outcomes and costs associated with knee and hip replacement at designated hospitals and other hospitals. RESEARCH DESIGN:: Retrospective claims analysis of approximately 54 million enrollees. STUDY POPULATION:: Individuals with insurance from one of the sponsors of this centers of excellence program who underwent a primary knee or hip replacement in 2007-2009. OUTCOMES:: Primary outcomes were any complication within 30 days of discharge and costs within 90 days after the procedure. RESULTS:: A total of 80,931 patients had a knee replacement and 39,532 patients had a hip replacement of which 52.2% and 56.5%, respectively, were performed at a designated hospital. Designated hospitals had a larger number of beds and were more likely to be an academic center. Patients with a knee replacement at designated hospitals did not have a statistically significantly lower overall complication rate with an odds ratio of 0.90 (P=0.08). Patients with hip replacement treated at designated hospitals had a statistically significant lower risk of complications with an odds ratio of 0.80 (P=0.002). There was no significant difference in 90-day costs for either procedure. CONCLUSIONS:: Hospitals designated as joint replacement centers of excellence had lower rates of complications for hip replacement, but there was no statistically significant difference for knee replacement. It is important to validate the criteria used to designate centers of excellence.
    Medical care 01/2013; 51(1):28-36. · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medical devices play a vital role in diagnosing, treating, and preventing diseases and are an integral part of the health-care system. Many devices, including implantable medical devices, enter the market through a regulatory pathway that was not designed to assure safety and effectiveness. Several recent studies and high-profile device recalls have demonstrated the need for well-designed, valid postmarketing studies of medical devices. Medical device epidemiology is a relatively new field compared with pharmacoepidemiology, which for decades has been developed to assess the safety and effectiveness of medications. Many methodological considerations in pharmacoepidemiology apply to medical device epidemiology. Fundamental differences in mechanisms of action and use and in how exposure data are captured mean that comparative effectiveness studies of medical devices often necessitate additional and different considerations. In this paper, we discuss some of the most salient issues encountered in conducting comparative effectiveness research on implantable devices. We discuss special methodological considerations regarding the use of data sources, exposure and outcome definitions, timing of exposure, and sources of bias.
    American Journal of Epidemiology 09/2014; · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine outcomes of Medicare enrollees who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in top-ranked orthopedic hospitals identified through the U.S. News & World Report hospital rankings and 2 comparison groups of hospitals. We used Medicare Part A data to identify patients who underwent primary TKA between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006, in 3 groups of hospitals: (1) top-ranked according to U.S. News & World Report rankings; (2) not top-ranked, but eligible for ranking; and (3) not eligible for ranking by U.S. News & World Report. We compared the demographics and comorbidity of patients treated in the 3 hospital groups. We examined rates of postoperative adverse outcomes--a composite consisting of hemorrhage, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, wound infection, myocardial infarction, or mortality within 30 days of surgery. We also compared 30-day all-cause readmission rates and hospital length of stay (LOS) across groups. Our cohort consisted of 48 top-ranked hospitals (performing 10,477 primary TKAs), 288 eligible non-top-ranked hospitals (28,938 TKAs), and 481 hospitals not eligible for ranking (25,297 TKAs). Unadjusted rates of the composite outcome were modestly higher for top-ranked hospitals (4.3%, 455 patients) as compared with non-top-ranked hospitals (4.1%, 1191 patients) and hospitals ineligible for ranking (3.3%, 843 patients) (P<.001), but these differences were no longer significant after accounting for differences in patient complexity. Likewise, there were no significant differences in readmission rates or LOS across groups. Rates of postoperative complications and readmission and hospital LOS were similar for Medicare patients who underwent primary TKA in top-ranked and non-top-ranked hospitals.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 04/2012; 87(4):341-8. · 5.79 Impact Factor


Available from