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 Follower
  • [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; 180(9). DOI:10.1093/aje/kwu206 · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background A number of factors have been identified as influencing total knee arthroplasty outcomes, including patient factors such as gender and medical comorbidity, technical factors such as alignment of the prosthesis, and provider factors such as hospital and surgeon procedure volumes. Recently, strategies aimed at optimizing provider factors have been proposed, including regionalization of total joint arthroplasty to higher volume centers, and adoption of volume standards. To contribute to the discussions concerning the optimization of provider factors and proposals to regionalize total knee arthroplasty practices, we undertook a systematic review to investigate the association between surgeon volume and primary total knee arthroplasty outcomes. Methods We performed a systematic review examining the association between surgeon volume and primary knee arthroplasty outcomes. To be included in the review, the study population had to include patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Studies had to report on the association between surgeon volume and primary total knee arthroplasty outcomes, including perioperative mortality and morbidity, patient-reported outcomes, or total knee arthroplasty implant survivorship. There were no restrictions placed on study design or language. Results Studies were variable in defining surgeon volume (‘low’: <3 to <52 total knee arthroplasty per year; ‘high’: >5 to >70 total knee arthroplasty per year). Mortality rate, survivorship and thromboembolic events were not found to be associated with surgeon volume. We found a significant association between low surgeon volume and higher rate of infection (0.26% - 2.8% higher), procedure time (165 min versus 135 min), longer length of stay (0.4 - 2.13 days longer), transfusion rate (13% versus 4%), and worse patient reported outcomes. Conclusions Findings suggest a trend towards better outcomes for higher volume surgeons, but results must be interpreted with caution.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12/2012; 13(1):250. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-13-250 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the trends in discharge patterns and the prevalence and cost of post-discharge PT. The 5% Medicare database (1997-2010) was used to identify 50,886 primary THA and 107,675 TKA patients. More than 50% of patients were discharged from hospital to an inpatient facility. There were an increase in discharges to skilled nursing units and a reduced rate to rehabilitation facilities. In contrast to hospital, surgeon reimbursement, and implant costs, the average annual PT cost per patient rose through the study period. Approximately 25% of PT costs were used on less common modalities. PT costs more than $648 million a year. With the increased pressure to control costs for primary TJA, these patterns may change unless PT effectiveness can be demonstrated. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    The Journal of Arthroplasty 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.030 · 2.37 Impact Factor


Available from