Article

Economic burden of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in Medicare enrollees.

Exponent Inc, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.88). 06/2006; 446:22-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000214439.95268.59
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The economic burden to Medicare due to revision arthroplasty procedures has not yet been studied systematically. The economic burden of revisions was calculated as annual reimbursements for revision arthroplasties relative to the sum total reimbursements of primary and revision arthroplasties. We evaluated this revision burden for total hip and knee arthroplasties through investigation of trends in charges and reimbursements in the Medicare population (Parts A and B claims from 1997-2003), while taking into account age and gender effects. Mean annual economic revision burdens were 18.8% (range, 17.4-20.2%) and 8.2% (range, 7.5-9.2%) for total hip arthroplasties and total knee arthroplasties, respectively. Procedural charges increased while reimbursements decreased over the study period, with higher charges observed for revisions than primary arthroplasties. Reimbursements per procedure were 62% to 68% less than associated charges for primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasties. The effect of age and gender on reimbursements varied by procedure type. Unless some limiting mechanism is implemented to reduce the incidence of revision surgeries, the diverging trends in reimbursements and charges for total hip and knee arthroplasties indicate that the economic impact to the Medicare population and healthcare system will continue to increase. Level of Evidence: Prognostic study, level II-1 (retrospective study). See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

1 Bookmark
 · 
59 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Revision total hip arthroplasty (reTHA) for peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF) is increasingly performed but still ranks fourth among reasons for reTHA in registries. In France, no specific registry is available and the frequency of PPF among reasons for THA revision is therefore unknown. Here, our objectives were to determine the relative frequency of PPF as a reason for reTHA, to identify patient-related and primary-THA-related factors associated with reTHA for PPF, to describe reTHA modalities for PPF, and to determine the morbidity and mortality associated with reTHA for PPF. Hypothesis PPF is the second most common reason for reTHA, after loosening. Methods Consecutive reTHA procedures performed in 30 French centres over a 2-year period were collected prospectively. Repeat revisions and revisions of hemi-arthroplasties were excluded. The epidemiological, clinical, and surgical data needed to answer the questions of the study were collected. Results PPF was the second leading reason for reTHA (249/2107, 11.8%). Vancouver type B2 fractures were the most common (n = 127 [51.5%]). Compared to patients who underwent reTHA for reasons other than PPF, those with reTHA for PPF were older at primary THA (67.9 years versus 57.7 years) and more often had intra-operative complications (16.9% versus 11.6%); furthermore, the primary THA was more often cementless (62.7% versus 42.7%) with a dual-mobility cup (20.6% versus 11.1%). At reTHA, the patients with PPF were older (77.6 years versus 69.2 years), had worst medical condition (mean ASA score, 2.4 versus 2.1) and less physically active (mean Devane score, 2.1 versus 2.4). The patients with reTHA for PPF had a shorter time to revision (9.8 years versus 11.4 years), a longer operative time (144 minutes versus 128 minutes), and more frequent use of the posterior approach (77% versus 67%) with a cementless dual-mobility cup (78% versus 60%) and a cementless revision femoral stem (72% versus 50%). Morbidity and mortality rates were high (5.9% operative complication rate and 12% of surgical complications with 4.8% mortality within the first 3 months) however, these results were similar to those in the rest of the cohort. Discussion and conclusion PPF is the second most common reason for reTHA, a result that is at variance with data in national registries. Level of evidence Level IV, prospective observational cohort study.
    Orthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research 10/2014; · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 06/2014; 96(11):956-965. · 4.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction La reprise des prothèses totales de hanche (rePTH) pour fracture péri-prothétique (FPP) est de plus en plus fréquente, mais elle demeure la quatrième cause de révision dans les registres et sa place par rapport aux autres indications de révision n’est pas connue en France du fait de l’absence de registre. Les objectifs de ce travail étaient de préciser : (1) la fréquence relative de cette cause de reprise ; (2) le terrain de survenue et le type de PTH primaire ; (3) les modalités de révision ; (4) la morbi-mortalité de ces interventions. Hypothèse Les révisions pour FPP représentent la deuxième cause de révision après le descellement. Méthodes Toutes les rePTH de 30 centres français ont été prospectivement collectées sur une période de 2 ans : les reprises itératives et d’hémi-arthroplastie étaient exclues. Les données épidémiologiques, cliniques et chirurgicales étaient notées, permettant de répondre aux questions posées. Résultats Les FPP représentaient la seconde cause de rePTH (249/2107, 11,8 %). Les fractures étaient essentiellement fémorales de stade B2 de Vancouver (51,5 %). Les comparaisons ont été faites par rapport au reste de la cohorte : (1) lors de la PTH primaire les patients repris pour FPP étaient plus âgés (67,9 versus 57,7 ans), les complications peropératoires plus fréquentes (16,9 % versus 11,6 %) ; (2) les PTH initiales étaient majoritairement non cimentées (62,7 % versus 42,7 %) avec plus de cupules à double mobilité (20,6 % versus 11,1 %) ; (3) à la révision, les patients étaient plus âgés (77,6 versus 69,2 ans), plus fragiles (score ASA moyen 2,4 versus 2,1) et plus sédentaires (score Devane moyen 2,1 versus 2,4) ; (4) les RePTH pour FPP étaient révisées plus précocement (9,8 versus 11,4 ans), avec un temps opératoire était plus long (144 versus 128 minutes), plus souvent par voie postérieure (77 % versus 67 %), avec une cupule sans ciment à double mobilité (78 % versus 60 %) et une tige fémorale de reprise majoritairement non cimentée (72 % versus 50 %). La morbi-mortalité était importante (5,9 % de complications opératoires et 12 % de complications chirurgicales dont 4,8 % de décès au cours des trois premiers mois) mais comparable au reste de la cohorte. Discussion – conclusion Les FPP occupaient la seconde place des causes de rePTH ce qui diffère des registres nationaux. Niveau de preuve Étude prospective de type IV, étude de cohorte.
    Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique 10/2014; 100(6):485–490.