How to Develop a Fair Revision Arthroplasty Bundle? Using Perioperative Complications and Readmissions to Investigate.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: The next frontier for value-based health care in total joint arthroplasty is revision surgery. Although the disparity in health care utilization between revision procedures compared with primary total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) procedures is recognized, no agreement regarding the risk adjustment necessary to make revision bundles fair to both payors and providers exists. The purpose of this study is to use the risk of perioperative complications and readmissions of patients undergoing revision THA/TKA to establish the foundations of a fair revision arthroplasty bundle. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of 484 aseptic THA/TKA revisions performed at our institution over a 12-month period and compared complications, length of stay, reoperations, and 90-day readmissions to a group of 802 consecutive patients undergoing primary THA/TKA. RESULTS: 169 (34.9%) patients experienced major complications after revision THA/TKA compared with 176 (21.9%) patients undergoing primary THA/TKA (P < .001), (OR 1.91 CI 1.49-2.45, P < .001). Patients undergoing revision TKA were 3.64 times more likely to require hospitalization greater than 3 days (OR 2.59-5.12, CI 95%, P < .001), whereas patients undergoing revision THA were 4.46 times more likely to require hospitalization greater than 3 days (OR 2.89-6.87, CI 95%, P < .001). Revision patients were 3X more likely to have a 90-day readmission and 4X more likely to have a reoperation. CONCLUSION: For a revision bundle to be fair and widely adopted, either significant financial incentive must be instituted or the latitude given to exclude outliers from the final reconciliation. This must be adjusted to not disincentivize institutions from providing care for failed hip and knee arthroplasties.
