Costs Versus Benefits of Routine Histopathological Examination in Total Ankle Replacement.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine histopathological examination has previously been scrutinized as a source of extraneous cost in orthopedic foot and ankle care. As an increasingly prevalent joint replacement operation, total ankle replacement poses a notable cost to the health care market in an era of cost containment. The purpose of this study was to compare the costs and benefits of routine histopathological examination of specimens removed during total ankle replacement. We hypothesized that a new diagnosis would rarely be found and such examination would seldom alter patient care. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all total ankle replacement operations between 2006 and July 2014 at the investigators' institution. Medical records for 90 patients, undergoing a total of 95 total ankle replacement operations, were reviewed to determine the clinical and pathological diagnoses for each operation and, subsequently, the rates of discrepancy and discordance. Professional charges were determined using estimated reimbursement rates for the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes billed: 88304 (level III microscopic examination), 88305 (level IV microscopic examination), and 88311 (decalcification). RESULTS: Degenerative joint disease was diagnosed by the pathologist in 93.7% of cases (89/95), pseudogout in 4.2% (4/95), and rheumatoid arthritis in 2.1% (2/95). The 4 diagnoses of pseudogout were the only cases of new diagnoses based on pathological review. A total of $16,536.81 was spent for examination of all specimens, for an estimated $4,134.20 spent per discrepant diagnosis. Patient care was unaffected by pathological examination. CONCLUSION: A new diagnosis was rarely found by histopathological examination, and patient care remained unaltered in all cases. The costs of routine histopathological examination of tissue specimens removed during total ankle replacement, therefore, outweigh clinical benefits, and such examination should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.
