The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative has identified pathways for improving the value of care. However, patient-specific modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors may increase costs beyond the target payment. We sought to identify risk factors for exceeding our institution’s target payment, the so-called ‘bundle busters’. Using our data warehouse and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data we identified all 412 patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty and qualified for our institution’s BPCI model, between July 2015 and May 2017. Episodes where CMS payments exceeded the target payment were considered ‘busters’ (n = 123). Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using a modified Poisson regression analysis.Aims
Patients and Methods
The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological measurements, and total hip arthroplasty (THA)-free survival in patients who underwent periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for mild, moderate, or severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. We performed a retrospective study involving 336 patients (420 hips) who underwent PAO by a single surgeon at an academic centre. After exclusions, 124 patients (149 hips) were included. The preoperative lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) was used to classify the severity of dysplasia: 18° to 25° was considered mild (n = 20), 10° to 17° moderate (n = 66), and < 10° severe (n = 63). There was no difference in patient characteristics between the groups (all, p > 0.05). Pre- and postoperative radiological measurements were made. The National Institute of Health’s Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) outcome measures (physical function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT), Global Physical and Mental Health Scores) were collected. Failure was defined as conversion to THA or PF CAT scores < 40, and was assessed with Kaplan–Meier analysis. The mean follow-up was five years (2 to 10) ending in either failure or the latest contact with the patient.Aims
Patients and Methods
The aim of this study was to compare patient reported outcomes, radiographic measurements, and survival free from total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients who underwent periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for mild, moderate, or severe developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). We performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients (n=223, n=274 hips) who underwent a PAO procedure between May 1996 and May 2016, by a single surgeon at one academic center. Cases with a history of retroversion (n=64), Perthes (n=5), and those with <2 years of follow-up (n=63) were excluded. Patients were evaluated based on severity of dysplasia using the preoperative lateral center edge angle (LCEA): 18° – 25° was considered mild dysplasia (n=19), 10° – 17° moderate (n=62), and <10° severe (n=61). There was no difference in patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, or ASA score) between then cohorts (all, p>0.05). NIH PROMIS outcome measures included the physical function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT) and the Global 10 health assessment. Generalized estimating equations were used for all comparisons and missing data was imputed using the multivariate imputation by chained equations method. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess survival. Failure was defined as conversion to THA and follow-up was ended at time of failure or at the time of last follow-up. Mean follow-up was five years (1 – 19).Introduction
Methods
For this retrospective cohort study, patients aged ≤ 30 years
(very young) who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared
with patients aged ≥ 60 years (elderly) to evaluate the rate of
revision arthroplasty, implant survival, the indications for revision,
the complications, and the patient-reported outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary
THA between January 2000 and May 2015 from our institutional database.
A total of 145 very young and 1359 elderly patients were reviewed.
The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (1 to 18). Logistic generalized
estimating equations were used to compare characteristics and the revision
rate. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier curves and hazard
rates were created using Cox regression.Aims
Patients and Methods
