Hannah L Simmons, Alison K Klika, Ignacio Pasqualini, Pedro J Rullán, Robert M Molloy, Matthew E Deren, Joshua L Tidd, Nicolas S Piuzzi
{"title":"What Drives the Material Costs of Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Operating Room?","authors":"Hannah L Simmons, Alison K Klika, Ignacio Pasqualini, Pedro J Rullán, Robert M Molloy, Matthew E Deren, Joshua L Tidd, Nicolas S Piuzzi","doi":"10.52198/23.STI.43.OS1703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Approximately one-third of US healthcare spending is related to surgical care. Optimizing operating room (OR) spending is crucial, specifically for high-volume procedures like total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Therefore, the primary objective was to identify leading material drivers of cost for TKA procedures within the OR.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients who underwent a primary, elective TKA from 2018 to 2019 were included (n=8,672). Intraoperative cost details for each TKA patient were captured from the Vizient Clinical Database Resource Manager (CDB/RM) data. Each cost type was categorized into (1) implant, (2) disposables, (3) wound care, and (4) miscellaneous.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>7,124 patients undergoing primary TKA were included. Implant-related costs accounted for 87.3% of cost, disposable materials covered 10.7%, and wound care products took 2%. The leading subcategories of implant costs were primary prosthetics (85.1%), revision prosthetics (9.9%), cement (2.8%), and implant instruments (1.7%). Within disposables, surgical products accounted for 81.3% of the cost, patient care products for 8.9%, medical apparel for 7.9%, and electrolytes for 1.8%. For an average individual TKA procedure, 86.4% (±4.4) of total cost went towards the implant, 10.7% (±3.4) towards disposable materials, and 1.6% (±1.4) to wound care products. Within the implant category, 92.5% (± 12.8) of costs were associated with primary implants, 13.3% (± 6.9) with instruments, and 2.5% (± 2.8) with cement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The primary operative material expense category was costs associated with the TKA prosthesis and its fixation followed by disposable materials. A large amount of variation exists in the percent of the total cost for a given TKA procedure that can be attributed to each category.</p>","PeriodicalId":22194,"journal":{"name":"Surgical technology international","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical technology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52198/23.STI.43.OS1703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Approximately one-third of US healthcare spending is related to surgical care. Optimizing operating room (OR) spending is crucial, specifically for high-volume procedures like total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Therefore, the primary objective was to identify leading material drivers of cost for TKA procedures within the OR.
Materials and methods: Patients who underwent a primary, elective TKA from 2018 to 2019 were included (n=8,672). Intraoperative cost details for each TKA patient were captured from the Vizient Clinical Database Resource Manager (CDB/RM) data. Each cost type was categorized into (1) implant, (2) disposables, (3) wound care, and (4) miscellaneous.
Results: 7,124 patients undergoing primary TKA were included. Implant-related costs accounted for 87.3% of cost, disposable materials covered 10.7%, and wound care products took 2%. The leading subcategories of implant costs were primary prosthetics (85.1%), revision prosthetics (9.9%), cement (2.8%), and implant instruments (1.7%). Within disposables, surgical products accounted for 81.3% of the cost, patient care products for 8.9%, medical apparel for 7.9%, and electrolytes for 1.8%. For an average individual TKA procedure, 86.4% (±4.4) of total cost went towards the implant, 10.7% (±3.4) towards disposable materials, and 1.6% (±1.4) to wound care products. Within the implant category, 92.5% (± 12.8) of costs were associated with primary implants, 13.3% (± 6.9) with instruments, and 2.5% (± 2.8) with cement.
Conclusions: The primary operative material expense category was costs associated with the TKA prosthesis and its fixation followed by disposable materials. A large amount of variation exists in the percent of the total cost for a given TKA procedure that can be attributed to each category.