Dataset Information

The Cost-Effectiveness of Normal-Saline Pulsed Lavage for Infection Prophylaxis in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a well-described complication after total joint arthroplasty which imposes a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality on the individual, as well as cost to the health-care system. This study used a break-even analysis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pulsed saline lavage (PSL) for PJI prophylaxis after a primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

An established model was used to calculate the minimum cost-effective absolute risk reduction of PSL for infection prophylaxis after a total joint arthroplasty. Baseline infection rates of TKA and THA and the cost of a revision surgery for PJI were derived from the literature while the cost of PSL implementation was obtained from institutional data.

Results

PSL is cost-effective at an initial infection rate of 1.10%, revision costs of $32,132 for TKA PJI, and a protocol cost of $38.28 if it reduces infection rates by 0.12% or prevents infection in 1 out of 839 patients. PSL is cost-effective at an initial infection rate of 1.63% and a revision cost of $39,713 for THA PJI if it reduces infection rates by 0.10% or prevents infection in 1 out of 1037 patients. The absolute risk reduction needed for economic viability did not change with varying baseline infection rates and did not exceed 0.38% for infection treatment costs as low as $10,000 and remained less than 0.47% even if PSL cost was as high as $150.

Conclusions

The use of PSL is a cost-effective protocol for PJI prophylaxis after TKAs and THAs.

SUBMITTER: Luck T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9593269 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Cost-Effectiveness of Normal-Saline Pulsed Lavage for Infection Prophylaxis in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Luck Trevor T Zaki Peter P Michels Ryan R Slotkin Eric M EM

Arthroplasty today 20221022

<h4>Background</h4>Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a well-described complication after total joint arthroplasty which imposes a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality on the individual, as well as cost to the health-care system. This study used a break-even analysis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pulsed saline lavage (PSL) for PJI prophylaxis after a primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA).<h4>Methods</h4>An established model was used to calcul ...[more]

PMID: 36304695

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely recognized as an effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). Compared with conventional TKA, robotic-arm assisted TKA may improve patients’ functionality and resulting quality of life by more accurate and precise component placement. Currently, the literature on cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA in the US is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA relative to TKA in the Medicare-aged population including exploring the impact of hospital volume on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Methods We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the costs, health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of robotic-arm assisted TKA vs TKA in Medicare population with OA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We sourced costs from the literature including episode-of-care (EOC) costs from a Medicare study. We assessed cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA by hospital procedure volume and conducted deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Results For the average patient treated in a hospital with an annual volume of 50 procedures, robotic-arm assisted TKA resulted in a total QALY of 6.18 relative to 6.17 under conventional TKA. Total discounted costs per patient were $32,535 and $31,917 for robotic-arm assisted TKA and conventional TKA, respectively. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective in the base case with an ICER of $41,331/QALY. In univariate DSA, cost-effectiveness outcomes were most sensitive to the annual hospital procedure volume. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a WTP of $50,000/QALY only when hospital volume exceeded 49 procedures per year. In PSA, robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a $50,000/QALY WTP threshold in 50.4% of 10,000 simulations. Conclusions Despite high robotic purchase costs, robotic-arm assisted TKA is likely to be cost-effective relative to TKA in the Medicare population with knee OA in high-volume hospitals through lowering revision rates and decreasing post-acute care costs. Higher-volume hospitals may deliver higher value in performing in robotic-arm assisted TKA.

Project description:BackgroundTotal joint arthroplasty (TJA), although considered to be highly beneficial, is associated with substantial costs to the US healthcare system. Cost utility analysis has become an increasingly important means to objectively evaluate the value of a healthcare intervention from the perspective of both extending the quantity and improving the quality of life. Relatively little is known about the overall cost utility analysis evidence base in TJA.Questions/purposesThe goals of this review were to (1) determine the cost utility of TJA interventions; (2) critically assess the quality of published US-based cost utility analyses using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument; and (3) determine what characteristics were common among studies receiving a high quality score.MethodsA systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile findings and critically appraise US-based cost utility analysis studies for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Based on review of 676 identified articles, 23 studies were included. We used the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess study quality and one-sided Fisher's exact tests were applied to analyze the predictors of high-quality cost utility analysis.ResultsVery few studies compare the cost utility of TJA versus nonoperative intervention; however, the available evidence suggests that TJA can be cost-saving and is highly cost-effective compared with conservative management of end-stage arthritis. The majority of identified studies are focused on the cost utility of new implant technologies or comparisons among surgical alternatives. These studies suggest that the upfront costs associated with new technologies are cost-effective when there is a major reduction in a future cost. The quality of identified studies is quite high (Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument score: mean 86.5; range, 63-100). National funding source (p = 0.095) and lifetime horizon for analysis (p = 0.07) correlate with high-quality evidence but do not reach significance.ConclusionsOver the past 15 years, there has been a major increase in the volume of cost utility analyses published in total hip and knee arthroplasty. The quality of cost utility analyses published during that period is good. As increasing attention is paid to value in US health care, more attention should be paid to understanding the cost utility of TJA compared with nonoperative treatment modalities. Future studies may also look to incorporate patient willingness to pay.

Project description:BackgroundMost patients who report a penicillin allergy can tolerate cefazolin, the preferred prophylaxis in a total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Regardless, patients with a reported penicillin allergy are less likely to receive first-line perioperative antibiotics as a result of inaccurate penicillin allergy documentation and misconceptions regarding cross-reactivity between penicillin and cephalosporins. The over-reporting of penicillin allergies and the safety of cephalosporins in patients with reported penicillin allergies have been well established throughout the evidence [13].Questions/purposesThe study sought to answer two questions: (1) Do antibiotic stewardship interventions improve adherence to appropriate prophylactic antibiotic usage in patients with a documented penicillin allergy undergoing primary TJA? (2) What is the risk of allergic or adverse reactions secondary to cefazolin use in patients with a documented penicillin allergy?MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective study of orthopaedic patients older than 18 years who underwent a primary elective TJA at a 261-bed community hospital. The study had two periods: the preintervention period ran from March 1, 2017 to August 30, 2017 and the postintervention period was from March 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019. A total of 396 patients with a history of a documented penicillin allergy underwent a THA or TKA during the study periods. After reviewing every fourth patient with a history of a documented penicillin allergy who met study inclusion criteria and excluding those patients who had a codocumented cephalosporin allergy, a total of 180 patients with a documented penicillin allergy were evaluated (90 patients in the preintervention group and 90 patients in the postintervention group). To answer our first study question, regarding whether antibiotic stewardship interventions improve adherence to appropriate prophylactic antibiotic usage in patients with a documented penicillin allergy undergoing primary TJA, we evaluated appropriate antibiotic usage pre- and postintervention. To answer our second study question, concerning the risk of allergic or adverse reactions secondary to cefazolin use in patients with a documented penicillin allergy, we reviewed signs of allergic reactions in patients who received cefazolin for a primary TJA and had a documented penicillin allergy.ResultsPostintervention antibiotic use was more appropriate (91% [82 of 90] versus 54% [49 of 90], risk ratio 1.67 [95% confidence interval 1.37 to 2.04]; p < 0.01), particularly in patients with nonsevere allergy (preintervention: 47% [36 of 76] versus postintervention: 96% [76 of 79]; p < 0.01). No patients had signs of an allergic reaction related to cefazolin, including eight patients with severe penicillin allergy.ConclusionA multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention increased the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective primary TJA. Patients with nonsevere penicillin allergies, even those reporting hives or local swelling, tolerated cefazolin. Antibiotic stewardship interventions can be implemented across institutions to expand cephalosporin use in patients with a reported penicillin allergy within orthopaedic TJA patients.Level of evidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.

Dataset Information

The Cost-Effectiveness of Normal-Saline Pulsed Lavage for Infection Prophylaxis in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The Cost-Effectiveness of Normal-Saline Pulsed Lavage for Infection Prophylaxis in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets