Adam J. Rana

Interventions to improve osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture. A prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND Treatment of osteoporosis following a hip fracture has been notoriously poor. Many efforts have been made to improve treatment rates. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a perioperative inpatient intervention program, involving patient education and providing a list of questions for the primary care physician, increased the percentage of patients in whom osteoporosis was addressed following a hip fracture. METHODS A prospective, randomized trial involving eighty patients who had been admitted to an academic medical center with a low-energy hip fracture was conducted. During their hospitalization, the study group patients were engaged in a fifteen-minute discussion regarding the association between osteoporosis and hip fractures, the efficacy of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans in the diagnosis of osteoporosis and of bisphosphonates in its treatment, and the importance of medical follow-up for osteoporosis management. These patients were also provided with five questions regarding osteoporosis treatment to be given to their primary medical physician, and they were reminded about the questions during a follow-up telephone call six weeks later. The patients in the control group received a brochure describing methods for preventing falls. Both groups were contacted by telephone at six months after discharge to determine whether osteoporosis had been addressed. Positive indicators of intervention included assessment of bone mineral density with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and initiation of antiresorptive therapy. RESULTS The average age in each group was eighty-two years, and 78% of the patients were female. Four patients in each group did not survive through the six-month follow-up period and were excluded from the trial. Fifteen (42%) of the thirty-six patients who had been randomized to the study group, compared with only seven (19%) of the thirty-six patients in the control group, had their osteoporosis addressed by their primary physician. This difference between the groups was significant (p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS Patients who were provided with information and questions for their primary care physician about osteoporosis were more likely to receive appropriate therapeutic intervention than were patients who had not received the information and questions. Orthopaedic surgeons have a unique opportunity to improve the rate of osteoporosis treatment in the perioperative period following a hip fracture by educating patients and directing them toward channels for long-term osteoporosis management.

Bundled payments for care improvement initiative: the next evolution of payment formulations: AAHKS Bundled Payment Task Force.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contains a number of provision for improving the delivery of healthcare in the United States, among the most impactful of which may be the call for modifications in the packaging of and payment for care that is bundled into episodes. The move away from fee for service payment models to payment for coordinated care delivered as comprehensive episodes is heralded as having great potential to enhance quality and reduce cost, thereby increasing the value of the care delivered. This effort builds on the prior experience around delivering care for arthroplasty under the Acute Care Episode Project and offers extensions and opportunities to modify the experience moving forward. Total hip and knee arthroplasties are viewed as ideal treatments to test the effectiveness of this payment model. Providers must learn the nuances of these modified care delivery concepts and evaluate whether their environment is conducive to success in this arena. This fundamental shift in payment for care offers both considerable risk and tremendous opportunity for physicians. Acquiring an understanding of the recent experience and the determinants of future success will best position orthopaedic surgeons to thrive in this new environment. Although this will remain a dynamic exercise for some time, early experience may enhance the chances for long term success, and physicians can rightfully lead the care delivery redesign process.

The John Charnley Award: heritable thrombophilia and development of thromboembolic disease after total hip arthroplasty.

We retrospectively assessed whether heritable thrombophilia-hypofibrinolysis was more common in patients developing venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement than among control patients who did not develop venous thromboembolism, as an approach to better identify causes of venous thromboembolism after total hip arthroplasty. Twenty patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis after THA and 23 patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism were compared with 43 control patients who did not have postoperative venous thromboembolism. Five of 42 patients with venous thromboembolism (12%) and 0 of 43 control patients (0%) had antithrombin III deficiency (< 75%). Nine of 42 patients with venous thromboembolism (21%) and 2 of 43 control patients (4.7%) had protein C deficiency (< 70%). Ten of 43 patients with venous thromboembolism (9 heterozygous, 1 homozygous; 23%) and 1 of 43 control patients (heterozygous; 2%) had the prothrombin gene mutation. Patients who had venous thromboembolism after total hip arthroplasty were more likely than matched control patients to have heritable thrombophilia with antithrombin III or protein C deficiency, or homo-heterozygosity for the prothrombin gene mutation. Screening for these three tests of heritable thrombophilia before total hip arthroplasty should improve the identification of patients with a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism who may need only mild thromboprophylaxis, and of those patients with heritable thrombophilia in whom prophylaxis should be more aggressive. Level of Evidence: Prognostic study, Level II-1 (lesser-quality RCT). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Hospital economics of primary THA decreasing reimbursement and increasing cost, 1990 to 2008.

BackgroundThe introduction of new technology has increased the hospital cost of THA. Considering the impending epidemic of hip osteoarthritis in the United States, the projections of THA prevalence, and national cost-containment initiatives, we are concerned about the decreasing economic feasibility of hospitals providing THA.Questions/purposesWe compared the hospital cost, reimbursement, and profit/loss of THA over the 1990 to 2008 time period.MethodsWe reviewed the hospital accounting records of 104 patients in 1990 and 269 patients in 2008 who underwent a unilateral primary THA. Hospital revenue, hospital expenses, and hospital profit (loss) for THA were evaluated and compared in 1990, 1995, and 2008.ResultsFrom 1990 to 2008, hospital payment for primary THA increased 29% in actual dollars, whereas inflation increased 58%. Lahey Clinic converted a

Bundled Payments in Orthopaedics

3848 loss per case on Medicare fee for service, primary THA in 1990 to a

Operative treatment of tibial plateau fractures in patients older than 55 years.

2486 profit per case in 1995 to a

Metallic shedding, surface finish changes, and extensive femoral osteolysis in the loose Spectron EF stem.

2359 profit per case in 2008. This improvement was associated with a decrease in inflation-adjusted revenue from 1995 to 2008 and implementation of cost control programs that reduced hospital expenses. Reduction of length of stay and implant costs were the most important drivers of expense reduction. In addition, the managed Medicare patient subgroup reported a per case profit of only

Backside wear is low in retrieved modern, modular, and nonmodular acetabular liners.

650 in 2008.ConclusionsIf hospital revenue for THA decreases to managed Medicare levels, it will be difficult to make a profit on THA. The use of technologic enhancements for THA add to the cost problem in this era of healthcare reform. Hospitals and surgeons should collaborate to deliver THA at a profit so it will be available to all patients. Government healthcare administrators and health insurance payers should provide adequate reimbursement for hospitals and surgeons to continue delivery of high-quality THAs.Level of EvidenceLevel III, economic and decision analysis. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prevention and Treatment of Thromboembolic Disease: An Overview

Healthcare spending currently accounts for approximately 18% of the Gross Domestic Product in the United States, up from 13% in 2000. Hospital reimbursement for total joint replacement (Diagnosis Related Group 470) represented the largest Diagnosis Related Group payment by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to hospitals in 2008, accounting for 4.6% of payments [1]. In light of the billions of dollars CMS pays each year for joint replacement surgery, and the volume of procedures performed, CMS has begun to study different payment models to better control costs and incentivize higher quality care delivery. The current fee-for-service payment model has been scrutinized because it incentivizes increased utilization of services, and costs to the healthcare system, while providing few incentives to improve quality or reduce cost. Modification in the packaging of and payment for care into bundles has been identified as a possible strategy to align the incentives of healthcare stakeholders around value instead of volume.

Building a Patient-Reported Outcome Metric Database: One Hospital's Experience

Surgical treatment of tibial plateau fractures in the older patient poses an additional challenge because of the underlying condition of the bone and articular surface. We sought to identify risk factors for poorer outcomes in the operative treatment of displaced tibial plateau fractures in older patients. Thirty-nine displaced tibial plateau fractures in patients 55 years and older were treated operatively. Patients were evaluated objectively with Rasmussen clinical and radiologic scoring techniques, and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment and the Short-Form 36 self-assessment instruments. The Rasmussen clinical and radiologic scoring systems, used on average 2.54 years postoperatively, found acceptable results in 87.2% and 82.1% of patients, respectively. The fracture classification of Schatzker was not predictive of results. External fixation was associated with significantly poorer results. Increasing age was associated with poorer clinical and self-assessment scores, although preexisting degenerative joint disease was not. The results from the Short-Form 36 indices were not significantly worse for our study patients. The average Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment score of our study patients indicated poorer function for mobility than a normative group. Operative treatment of this injury in this population can result in favorable outcomes as evaluated by clinical, radiographic, and self-assessment criteria.