Medicare Reimbursement for Total Joint Arthroplasty: The Driving Forces.

BACKGROUND: Total joint arthroplasty is a large and growing part of the U.S. Medicare budget, drawing attention to how much providers are paid for their services. The purpose of this study was to examine the variables that affect total joint arthroplasty reimbursement. Along with standard economic variables, we include unique health-care variables. Given the focus on value in the Affordable Care Act, the model examines the relationship of the quality of care to total joint arthroplasty reimbursement. We hoped to find that reimbursement patterns reward quality and reflect standard economic principles. METHODS: Multivariable regression was performed to identify variables that correlate with Medicare reimbursement for total joint arthroplasty. Inpatient charge or reimbursement data on Medicare reimbursements were available for 2,750 hospitals with at least 10 discharges for uncomplicated total joint arthroplasty from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for fiscal year 2011. Reimbursement variability was examined by using the Dartmouth Atlas to group institutions into hospital referral regions and hospital service areas. Independent variables were taken from the Dartmouth Atlas, CMS, the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho) Rural Health Research Center, and the United States Census. RESULTS: There were 427,207 total joint arthroplasties identified, with a weighted mean reimbursement of $14,324.84 (range,$9,103 to $38,686). Nationally, the coefficient of variation for reimbursements was 0.19. The regression model accounted for 52.5% of reimbursement variation among providers. The total joint arthroplasty provider volume (p \u3c 0.001) and patient satisfaction (p \u3c 0.001) were negatively correlated with reimbursement. Government ownership of a hospital (p \u3c 0.001) and higher Medicare costs (p \u3c 0.001) correlated positively with reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare reimbursements for total joint arthroplasty are highly variable. Greater reimbursement was associated with lower patient volume, lower patient satisfaction, a healthier patient population, and government ownership of a hospital. As value-based reimbursement provisions of the Affordable Care Act are implemented, there will be dramatic changes in total joint arthroplasty reimbursements. To meet these changes, providers should expect qualities such as high patient volume, willingness to care for sicker patient populations, patient satisfaction, safe outcomes, and procedural demand to correlate with their reimbursement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Practicing orthopaedic surgeons and hospital administrators should be aware of discrepancies in inpatient reimbursement for total joint arthroplasty from Medicare. Furthermore, these discrepancies are not associated with typical economic factors. These findings warrant further investigation and collaboration between policymakers and providers to develop value-based reimbursement

Management of periprosthetic joint infection: the current knowledge: AAOS exhibit selection.

Periprosthetic joint infection continues to frustrate the medical community. Although the demand for total joint arthroplasty is increasing, the burden of such infections is increasing even more rapidly, and they pose a unique challenge because their accurate diagnosis and eradication can prove elusive. This review describes the current knowledge regarding diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. A number of tools are available to aid in establishing a diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. These include the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum C-reactive protein concentration, synovial white blood-cell count and differential, imaging studies, tissue specimen culturing, and histological analysis. Multiple definitions of periprosthetic joint infection have been proposed but there is no consensus. Tools under investigation to diagnose such infections include the C-reactive protein concentration in the joint fluid, point-of-care strip tests for the leukocyte esterase concentration in the joint fluid, and other molecular markers of periprosthetic joint infection. Treatment options include irrigation and debridement with prosthesis retention, one-stage prosthesis exchange, two-stage prosthesis exchange with intervening placement of an antibiotic-loaded spacer, and salvage treatments such as joint arthrodesis and amputation. Treatment selection is dependent on multiple factors including the timing of the symptom onset, patient health, the infecting organism, and a history of infection in the joint. Although prosthesis retention has the theoretical advantages of decreased morbidity and improved return to function, two-stage exchange provides a lower rate of recurrent infection. As the burden of periprosthetic joint infection increases, the orthopaedic and medical community should become more familiar with the disease. It is hoped that the tools currently under investigation will aid clinicians in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection in an accurate and timely fashion to allow appropriate treatment. Given the current knowledge and planned future research, the medical community should be prepared to effectively manage this increasingly prevalent disease

Does international normalized ratio level predict pulmonary embolism?

BACKGROUND: Preventing pulmonary embolism is a priority after major musculoskeletal surgery. The literature contains discrepant data regarding the influence of anticoagulation on the incidence of pulmonary embolism after joint arthroplasty. The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend administration of oral anticoagulants (warfarin), aiming for an international normalized ratio (INR) level between 2 and 3. However, recent studies show aggressive anticoagulation (INR \u3e 2) can lead to hematoma formation and increased risk of subsequent infection. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether an INR greater than 2 protects against pulmonary embolism. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 9112 patients with 10,122 admissions for joint arthroplasty between 2004 and 2008. All patients received warfarin for prophylaxis, aiming for an INR level of 2 or lower. We assessed 609 of 10,122 admissions (6%) for pulmonary embolism using CT, ventilation/perfusion scan, or pulmonary angiography, and 163 of 10,122 admissions (1.6%) had a proven pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Fifteen of 163 admissions (9%) had an INR greater than 2 before or on the day of workup compared to 35 of 446 admissions (8%) who were negative. We observed no difference between the INR values in patients with or without pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: We found no clinically relevant difference in the INR values of patients who did or did not develop pulmonary embolism. The risk of bleeding should be weighed against the risk of pulmonary embolism when determining an appropriate target INR for each patient, as an INR less than 2 may reduce the risk of bleeding while still protecting against pulmonary embolism. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Unplanned readmission after total joint arthroplasty: rates, reasons, and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: There has been a major and alarming increase in readmission rates following total joint arthroplasty. With proposed changes in reimbursement policy, increased rates of unplanned readmission following arthroplasty will penalize providers. In particular, it has been proposed that specific complications-so-called zero-tolerance complications-are unacceptable and that their treatment will not qualify for reimbursement. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence, causes, and risk factors for readmission following total joint arthroplasty. METHODS: An institutional arthroplasty database was utilized to identify those patients undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty from January 2004 through December 2008. A total of 10,633 admissions for primary arthroplasty (5207 knees and 5426 hips) were identified. The same database was used to identify patients requiring an unplanned readmission within ninety days of discharge. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine the independent predictors of readmission within ninety days. RESULTS: There were 591 unplanned readmissions within ninety days of discharge following 564 (5.3%) of the 10,633 admissions for total joint arthroplasty. The most common cause of readmission was joint-related infection, followed by stiffness. Black race, male sex, discharge to inpatient rehabilitation, increased duration of hospital stay, unilateral replacement, decreased age, decreased distance between home and the hospital, and total knee replacement were independent predictors of readmission within ninety days. CONCLUSIONS: The high incidence of readmissions secondary to potential zero-tolerance events suggests that these are not easily preventable complications. In addition, longer hospitalization and discharge to an inpatient continued-care facility increased the risk of readmission. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Periprosthetic joint infection: are patients with multiple prosthetic joints at risk?

Patients who present with a periprosthetic joint infection in a single joint may have multiple prosthetic joints. The risk of these patients developing a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint is unknown. Our purposes were (1) to identify the risk of developing a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint and (2) to describe the time span and organism profile to the second prosthetic infection. We retrospectively identified 55 patients with periprosthetic joint infection who had another prosthetic joint in place at the time of presentation. Of the 55 patients, 11 (20%) developed a periprosthetic joint infection in a second joint. The type of organism was the same as the first infection in 4 (36%) of 11 patients. The time to developing a second infection averaged 2.0 years (range, 0-6.9 years)

Periprosthetic joint infection increases the risk of one-year mortality.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection continues to potentially complicate an otherwise successful joint replacement. The treatment of this infection often requires multiple surgical procedures associated with increased complications and morbidity. This study examined the relationship between periprosthetic joint infection and mortality and aimed to determine the effect of periprosthetic joint infection on mortality and any predictors of mortality in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. METHODS: Four hundred and thirty-six patients with at least one surgical intervention secondary to confirmed periprosthetic joint infection were compared with 2342 patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for aseptic failure. The incidence of mortality at thirty days, ninety days, one year, two years, and five years after surgery was assessed. Multivariate analysis was used to assess periprosthetic joint infection as an independent predictor of mortality. In the periprosthetic joint infection population, variables investigated as potential risk factors for mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Mortality was significantly greater (p \u3c 0.001) in patients with periprosthetic joint infection compared with those undergoing aseptic revision arthroplasty at ninety days (3.7% versus 0.8%), one year (10.6% versus 2.0%), two years (13.6% versus 3.9%), and five years (25.9% versus 12.9%). After controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, number of procedures, involved joint, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection was associated with a fivefold increase in mortality compared with revision arthroplasty for aseptic failures. In the periprosthetic joint infection population, independent predictors of mortality included increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, history of stroke, polymicrobial infections, and cardiac disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is well known that periprosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication that severely limits joint function and is consistently difficult to eradicate, surgeons must also be cognizant of the systemic impact of periprosthetic joint infection and its major influence on fatal outcome in patients

High Variability in Outcomes of Two-Stage Exchange to Treat Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Introduction: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging condition to manage with sobering morbidity and mortality.1,2 Treatment options range from simple irrigation and debridement with prosthetic retention to explantation and placement of a temporary cement spacer. Indictations for each option are unclear and non-uniform despite signi­cant efforts to understand the management outcomes. Until recently, a uniform de­nition of success was unavailable, thus clouding the discussion of treatment options. Two-stage exchange is currently considered the “gold-standard” in North America, yet an appropriate understanding of the actual success and ancillary effects of treatment is needed. With the advantage of an expert opinion de­ning success, this study was designed to understand the status of the current literature and the guidance it provides regarding two-stage exchange arthroplasty

Red Cell Distribution Width: an Unacknowledged Predictor of Mortality and Length of Stay following Revision Arthroplasty

Introduction Red blood cell distribution width (RDW), a measure of variability in size of circulating erythrocytes, is routinely reported in complete blood cell analysis, and together with mean cell volume (MCV) has conventionally been used to distinguish the cause of anemia. It is calculated by (Standard deviation of MCV÷ mean MCV) x 100, with normal range being 11.5%-14.5%. Several recent publications have described RDW as an independent predictor of adverse outcome and mortality in patients with different underlying medical conditions such as acute and chronic heart failure, peripheral artery disease, chronic pulmonary disease and acute kidney injury1. The purposes of this study were 1) to investigate possible relationship between RDW levels and length of stay (LOS) and mortality following revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA), and if that correlation existed, 2) to develop predictive models for LOS and mortality based on preoperative patient-related factors including RDW values

The rate and predictors of healing of repaired lesser tuberosity osteotomy in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Evidence is building that a functional subscapularis improves function-specifically internal rotation tasks-following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). However, the optimal method for subscapularis repair during rTSA remains unknown with variable healing rates reported. This study aims to investigate the rate of and predictors for healing a lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO) following rTSA. METHODS: Following local institutional review board approval, patients with at least one-year follow-up for rTSA managed with an LTO and subsequent repair between March, 2017 and March, 2020 were retrospectively identified. Shoulders were selected for LTO repair based upon preoperative imaging and intraoperative assessment of subscapularis quality. All patients were implanted with a system consisting of a 150° or 155° (constrained) humeral neck-shaft angle and 2.5 to 4.5 millimeters (mm) of glenoid lateralization (Trabecular Metal Reverse Shoulder System; Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA). At a minimum of six months, radiographs were reviewed for an assessment of LTO healing by three independent reviewers. Healing was classified as displaced, fibrous union, or ossified union. For assessing predictors, the repair was considered intact if the LTO fragment was not displaced (fibrous union or ossified union). RESULTS: Sixty-five rTSA with LTO repair were performed in 64 patients. These patients had an average age of 67.2 years (range, 31-81) and 36 (55.4%; 36/65) were female. At an average follow-up of 15.2 months (range, 8-38), 50 cases (76.9%; 50/65) were classified as having an ossified union. The radiographic healing could not be assessed in a single case. Of the 14 cases without ossific union, 8 (12.3%; 8/65) were displaced and 6 (9.2%; 6/65) were classified as a fibrous union. In logistic regression, only combined humeral liner height predicted LTO displacement (odds ratio = 1.4 [95% confidence interval = 1.1-1.8]; CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that radiographic healing of LTO repair is more favorable than published rates of healing after subscapularis tenotomy or peel in the setting of rTSA. Subscapularis management with LTO provides the ability to monitor repair integrity with plain radiographs and a predictable radiographic healing rate. The integrity of subscapularis repair may be influenced by the use of thicker humeral liners. Further investigation is needed to determine the functional impact of a healed subscapularis following rTSA