The Journal of Hip Surgery 2019; 03(03): 113-117
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688505
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Body Mass Index to Age Ratio: A Cost Effective Implant Selection Guideline for Total Hip Arthroplasty

Nicholas Bolz
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York
,
Khalid Odeh
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York
,
Feroz Osmani
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York
,
Craig Bearison
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York
,
Ran Schwarzkopf
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York
,
Richard Iorio
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

08 October 2018

19 February 2019

Publication Date:
17 May 2019 (online)

Abstract

The incidence of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is dramatically increasing, placing a financial burden on the health care system as a whole. These economic challenges have inspired innovation in health care and spurred the implementation of value-based-care models. In this new health care environment, it is imperative to develop strategies that reduce cost while maintaining quality. The authors developed an implant selection guideline system for THA based upon a ratio of patient body mass index (BMI) to age. Patients are divided into either a high, medium, or standard demand category based on a BMI/age ratio of > 0.60, 0.60–0.41, and < 0.40, respectively. Retrospectively, the authors reviewed surgical reports of 1,990 patients who underwent primary THA at their institution from January 2012 to March 2014 to identify the type of implants utilized and analyze the potential cost impact of implementing this standardization system into clinical practice. Of 701 standard demand patients, 31.2% received higher cost implants than their demand necessitates under their model. A 16.5% of the 892 medium demand patients received high demand implants. High and medium demand implants cost 21.1 and 10.5% more than standard demand, respectively. Collectively, application of the BMI/age ratio would have resulted in a 2.2% reduction in overall THA implant cost and 15% if high demand implants had been used in every patient. Implementation of a BMI/age ratio for THA implant selection will reduce costs. This strategy may allow hospitals to more accurately predict and control future costs which is of growing importance in today's bundled payment and value-based-care environment.

 
  • References

  • 1 Lehil MS, Bozic KJ. Trends in total hip arthroplasty implant utilization in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (10) 1915-1918
  • 2 Zywiel MG, Sayeed SA, Johnson AJ, Schmalzried TP, Mont MA. State of the art in hard-on-hard bearings: how did we get here and what have we achieved?. Expert Rev Med Devices 2011; 8 (02) 187-207
  • 3 Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2606-2612
  • 4 Haidukewych GJ, Petrie J. Bearing surface considerations for total hip arthroplasty in young patients. Orthop Clin North Am 2012; 43 (03) 395-402
  • 5 Urban JA, Garvin KL, Boese CK. , et al. Ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Seventeen to twenty-one-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A (11) 1688-1694
  • 6 Mutimer J, Devane PA, Adams K, Horne JG. Highly crosslinked polyethylene reduces wear in total hip arthroplasty at 5 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (12) 3228-3233
  • 7 Schmalzried TP, Shepherd EF, Dorey FJ. , et al. The John Charnley Award. Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; (381) 36-46
  • 8 Battenberg AK, Hopkins JS, Kupiec AD, Schmalzried TP. The 2012 Frank Stinchfield Award: Decreasing patient activity with aging: implications for crosslinked polyethylene wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (02) 386-392
  • 9 Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, Morrey BF. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (02) 171-177
  • 10 Iorio R, Healy WL, Appleby D. Preoperative demand matching is a valid indicator of patient activity after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (07) 825-828
  • 11 Leahy M. Managing implant distribution and costs. Available at: http://www.aaos.org/AAOSNow/2010/Sep/managing/managing3/?ssopc=1.Accessed April 8, 2019
  • 12 Streit JJ, Youssef A, Coale RM, Carpenter JE, Marcus RE. Orthopaedic surgeons frequently underestimate the cost of orthopaedic implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (06) 1744-1749
  • 13 Okike K, O'Toole RV, Pollak AN. , et al. Survey finds few orthopedic surgeons know the costs of the devices they implant. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014; 33 (01) 103-109
  • 14 Luft HS. Economic incentives to promote innovation in healthcare delivery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2497-2505
  • 15 Bolz NJ, Iorio R. Bundled Payments: Our Experience at an Academic Medical Center. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (05) 932-935
  • 16 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Comprehensive care for joint replacement model. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/ccjr/ . Accessed April 8, 2019
  • 17 Barber TC, Healy WL. The hospital cost of total hip arthroplasty. A comparison between 1981 and 1990. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75 (03) 321-325
  • 18 Mendenhall Associates. Hip and knee implant prices rise 6.3%. Orthopedic Network News 2006; 17: 1
  • 19 Mendenhall Associates. Hospital resources and implant cost management – a 2005 update. Orthopedic Network News 2006; 17: 9
  • 20 Mendenhall S. Hip and knee implant review. Orthopedic Network News 2003; 25: 1-16
  • 21 Robinson JC, Pozen A, Tseng S, Bozic KJ. Variability in costs associated with total hip and knee replacement implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (18) 1693-1698
  • 22 Containing the cost of orthopaedic implants. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, IL, May 1992. Available at https://aaos.org/uploadedFiles/PreProduction/About/Opinion_Statements/position/1104%20Value%20Driven%20Use%20of%20Orthopaedic%20Implants(1).pdf
  • 23 Barrack RL. Implant matching has no clinical or scientific basis. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11 (08) 969-971 , discussion 971–972
  • 24 Bosco JA, Alvarado CM, Slover JD, Iorio R, Hutzler LH. Decreasing total joint implant costs and physician specific cost variation through negotiation. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (04) 678-680
  • 25 Healy WL, Ayers ME, Iorio R, Patch DA, Appleby D, Pfeifer BA. Impact of a clinical pathway and implant standardization on total hip arthroplasty: a clinical and economic study of short-term patient outcome. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (03) 266-276
  • 26 Healy WL. Economic considerations in total hip arthroplasty and implant standardization. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; (311) 102-108
  • 27 Healy WL, Kirven FM, Iorio R, Patch DA, Pfeifer BA. Implant standardization for total hip arthroplasty. An implant selection and a cost reduction program. J Arthroplasty 1995; 10 (02) 177-183
  • 28 Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (08) 890-895
  • 29 Bozic KJ, Morshed S, Silverstein MD, Rubash HE, Kahn JG. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate new technologies in orthopaedics. The case of alternative bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (04) 706-714