Hospital Financial Burden of Surgical Procedures for Periprosthetic Total Hip Arthroplasty Infection

IF 2.1 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Arthroplasty Today Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.artd.2024.101609
Jesus M. Villa MD, Tejbir S. Pannu MD, MS, Robert B. Eysler BA, Vivek Singh MD, MPH, Alison K. Klika MS, Carlos A. Higuera MD
{"title":"Hospital Financial Burden of Surgical Procedures for Periprosthetic Total Hip Arthroplasty Infection","authors":"Jesus M. Villa MD,&nbsp;Tejbir S. Pannu MD, MS,&nbsp;Robert B. Eysler BA,&nbsp;Vivek Singh MD, MPH,&nbsp;Alison K. Klika MS,&nbsp;Carlos A. Higuera MD","doi":"10.1016/j.artd.2024.101609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>For reimbursement purposes, current coding fails to reflect the true complexity and resource utilization of hospital encounters for surgeries performed to treat periprosthetic total hip arthroplasty (THA) infection. Therefore, when compared to aseptic revisions, we sought to determine (1) Is length of stay (LOS) longer for septic surgeries? (2) Are septic procedures more expensive? and (3) How do different surgical procedures for infection compare with aseptic revisions on hospital LOS and charges?</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Retrospective chart review of 596 unilateral THA reoperations (473 patients) performed at a single institution (January 2015 to November 2020). Demographics, professional (ie, physicians), and technical (ie, room, implants) hospital charges per case were compared between 6 different surgery types: (1) aseptic revision (control; n = 364); (2) debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (n = 11); (3) explantation (n = 145); (4) spacer exchange (n = 7); (5) 2-stage reimplantation (n = 59); and (6) 1-stage reimplantation (n = 10).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, septic surgeries (n = 232) had longer LOS (mean 6.3 vs 3.3 days, <em>P</em> &lt; .001) and 43% higher total charges (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), vs aseptic revisions. Particularly, explantations had longer LOS (7.1 vs 3.3 days) and 56% higher total charges (both <em>P</em> &lt; .001). When compared to aseptic revisions, proportional total charges for septic procedures were debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention +29%, <em>P</em> = .4; explantation +56%, <em>P</em> &lt; .001; spacer exchange +69%, <em>P</em> = .008; 2-stage reimplantation +11%, <em>P</em> = .659; and 1-stage reimplantation +46%, <em>P</em> = .06.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Some surgical procedures performed to treat periprosthetic THA infection are associated with longer LOS and significantly higher hospital charges when compared to aseptic revisions. Reimbursement adjustment is needed as current coding for septic reoperations does not reflect actual hospital resource consumption and this situation may limit access to patient care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37940,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty Today","volume":"31 ","pages":"Article 101609"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11780107/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124002942","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

For reimbursement purposes, current coding fails to reflect the true complexity and resource utilization of hospital encounters for surgeries performed to treat periprosthetic total hip arthroplasty (THA) infection. Therefore, when compared to aseptic revisions, we sought to determine (1) Is length of stay (LOS) longer for septic surgeries? (2) Are septic procedures more expensive? and (3) How do different surgical procedures for infection compare with aseptic revisions on hospital LOS and charges?

Methods

Retrospective chart review of 596 unilateral THA reoperations (473 patients) performed at a single institution (January 2015 to November 2020). Demographics, professional (ie, physicians), and technical (ie, room, implants) hospital charges per case were compared between 6 different surgery types: (1) aseptic revision (control; n = 364); (2) debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (n = 11); (3) explantation (n = 145); (4) spacer exchange (n = 7); (5) 2-stage reimplantation (n = 59); and (6) 1-stage reimplantation (n = 10).

Results

Overall, septic surgeries (n = 232) had longer LOS (mean 6.3 vs 3.3 days, P < .001) and 43% higher total charges (P < .001), vs aseptic revisions. Particularly, explantations had longer LOS (7.1 vs 3.3 days) and 56% higher total charges (both P < .001). When compared to aseptic revisions, proportional total charges for septic procedures were debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention +29%, P = .4; explantation +56%, P < .001; spacer exchange +69%, P = .008; 2-stage reimplantation +11%, P = .659; and 1-stage reimplantation +46%, P = .06.

Conclusions

Some surgical procedures performed to treat periprosthetic THA infection are associated with longer LOS and significantly higher hospital charges when compared to aseptic revisions. Reimbursement adjustment is needed as current coding for septic reoperations does not reflect actual hospital resource consumption and this situation may limit access to patient care.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全髋关节置换术周围感染手术的医院经济负担。
背景:出于报销目的,目前的编码未能反映治疗假体周围全髋关节置换术(THA)感染的医院遭遇手术的真实复杂性和资源利用。因此,与无菌手术相比,我们试图确定(1)脓毒症手术的住院时间(LOS)是否更长?(2)化粪池手术是否更昂贵?(3)不同的感染手术方式与医院LOS和收费的无菌修订有何比较?方法:回顾性回顾2015年1月至2020年11月在同一机构进行的596例单侧THA再手术(473例患者)。比较6种不同手术类型的人口统计学、专业(即医生)和技术(即房间、植入物)医院收费情况:(1)无菌修改(对照;N = 364);(2)清创、抗生素和种植体保留(n = 11);(3)外植体(n = 145);(4)垫片交换(n = 7);(5) 2期再植(n = 59);(6)一期再植(n = 10)。结果:总体而言,脓毒症手术(n = 232)的LOS较长(平均6.3天vs 3.3天,P < 0.001),总费用比无菌手术高43% (P < 0.001)。特别是,解释的LOS较长(7.1天vs 3.3天),总费用高出56% (P均< 0.001)。与无菌修复相比,脓毒症手术的比例总费用为清创、抗生素和植入物保留+29%,P = 0.4;外植体+56%,P < 0.001;垫片交换+69%,P = 0.008;2期再植+11%,P = 0.659;一期再植+46%,P = 0.06。结论:与无菌修复术相比,一些用于治疗假体周围THA感染的外科手术与更长的LOS和更高的医院费用相关。由于目前脓毒性再手术的编码不能反映医院的实际资源消耗,这种情况可能会限制对患者的护理,因此需要调整报销。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Arthroplasty Today
Arthroplasty Today Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
258
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: Arthroplasty Today is a companion journal to the Journal of Arthroplasty. The journal Arthroplasty Today brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement of the hip and knee in an open-access, online format. Arthroplasty Today solicits manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas of scientific endeavor that relate to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with patient outcomes, economic and policy issues, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, and biologic response to arthroplasty. The journal focuses on case reports. It is the purpose of Arthroplasty Today to present material to practicing orthopaedic surgeons that will keep them abreast of developments in the field, prove useful in the care of patients, and aid in understanding the scientific foundation of this subspecialty area of joint replacement. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal''s area of interest. Their participation ensures that each issue of Arthroplasty Today provides the reader with timely, peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality.
期刊最新文献
Does Race Affect Utilization of Unicompartmental vs Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Matched Cohort Study Within a Universal Health System. Comparison of High-tensile Suture and 16-gauge Wire for Prophylactic Fixation in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Study. Three-Dimensional Pelvic Kinematics During Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty on an Orthopaedic Table. Popliteal Artery Injury Risk in Total Knee Arthroplasty Related to Anatomic Variations: A Scoping Review. Increasing Patient Age and General Anesthesia are Risk Factors for Readmission after Same-Day Discharge in Total Hip Arthroplasty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1