Dean, Michael C.

Background: Understanding drivers of supply and labor cost variation in orthopaedic surgery is crucial to provide value-based care. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is a more accurate methodology for capturing costs of care than traditional methods. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the most performed outpatient procedures within orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to characterize the cost composition of ACLR and identify factors that drive cost variation. Methods: Cost data for supplies and time-based personnel usage were extracted from electronic health records and were used to calculate costs using TDABC. TDABC methodology was applied to calculate the cost of personnel usage by multiplying the duration and associated cost per minute. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effects modeling were used to determine cost drivers. Results: This study included 861 patients who underwent ACLR at 8 hospitals. The mean patient age (and standard deviation) was 31.1 ± 11.6 years. Of the 861 patients, 350 were male and 511 were female; 85.6% of patients were White, 8.1% were Asian, and 3.4% were Black. There was 3.2-fold variation in supply costs ($2,950) and 1.6-fold variation in labor costs ($940) between the 10th and 90th percentiles. Overall, supply costs accounted for 58.2% of total costs, whereas labor costs comprised the remaining 41.8%. The intraoperative phase was the greatest generator of total cost (89.7%). After adjusting for surgeon and hospital variability, variation in total cost was most effectively explained by graft type, primary surgery status, and meniscal repair (conditional R 2 = 0.84; marginal R 2 = 0.27). On subanalysis, patients undergoing allograft ACLR had significantly higher total costs, implant costs, and age compared with those undergoing ACLR with any autograft type (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: The most notable drivers of labor and supply cost variation were graft type, surgeon, surgery center, primary surgery status, and concomitant meniscal repair. Understanding modifiable cost drivers may aid health systems in designing value-based pathways, implant formularies, and surgeon education programs. Future studies may integrate cost with outcome measures for a more holistic view of value. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Amid mounting pressure to reduce health care spending, strategies for identifying and eliminating unwarranted variation in costs have garnered significant attention. Previous studies have characterized intersurgeon variation in costs for common orthopaedic procedures, but such variation remains unexplored in the context of hip arthroscopic surgery. Purpose: To (1) characterize variation in the cost of hip arthroscopic surgery between surgeons using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and (2) identify patient characteristics, intraoperative findings, and operative procedures underlying such intersurgeon variation in costs. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Employing TDABC, the authors determined the intraoperative cost of 890 outpatient hip arthroscopic surgery cases performed by 5 surgeons at 4 surgery centers from 2015 to 2022. All costs were calculated in United States dollars. Costs were normalized to protect the confidentiality of internal hospital cost data. Surgeon-specific mean costs were calculated with and without adjustment for patient characteristics, surgical personnel, operative factors, and surgery center. Finally, to elucidate the sources of surgeon-driven cost variation, the authors estimated the proportion of variation attributable to different cost subcategories, including labor, implant/allograft, and other supply costs. Results: The intraoperative cost per patient ranged from 38.2 to 212.8 normalized cost units (mean, 100.0 ± 26.5), with a 1.6-fold variation in the mean cost between the highest and lowest cost surgeons. Operating surgeon alone explained 53.4% of the observed variation in costs. Controlling for case-specific features significantly improved the explanatory power to 91.8% ( P < .001), but the adjusted variation in costs between surgeons remained essentially unchanged (decreased by <3%). Each of the 5 surgeons generated costs that deviated significantly from those predicted based on case-specific factors, with mean surgeon deviations ranging from −5.0% to 21.8% ( P < .001 for all). Drivers of cost variation differed substantially between surgeons but generally stemmed from labor or other supply costs rather than implant/allograft costs. Conclusion: The cost of outpatient hip arthroscopic surgery varied widely between surgeons; the cause of this deviation was multifactorial and surgeon specific. While within-surgeon cost variation was effectively explained by patient and operative characteristics, most between-surgeon variability remained unexplained by observable factors. These insights may support individual surgeons in cost reduction efforts and, more importantly, may enable the alignment of reimbursement rates with costs.

Purpose To characterize variation in the value of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and explore associations between value and patient‐specific demographic characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), and intraoperative variables. Methods We included all patients aged 18 years or older who underwent primary arthroscopic acetabular labral repair or debridement between 2015 and 2020 with minimum 2‐year follow‐up. The exclusion criteria were hip dysplasia, advanced hip osteoarthritis (TÖnnis grade >1), or unreconcilable documenting errors. Value was calculated by dividing 2‐year postoperative International Hip Outcome Tool 33 scores by time‐driven activity‐based costs. To protect the confidentiality of internal hospital cost data, the study average for value was normalized to 100. Multivariable linear mixed‐effects models were used to identify factors underlying variation in value. Results This study included 161 patients. There were 76 women (47.2%) and 85 men, with a mean age of 36.0 years (standard deviation [SD], 10.9 years) and mean body mass index (BMI) of 25.8 (SD, 4.3). Most patients were white (92.5%), were not Hispanic (93.8%), and were commercially insured (92.5%). Preoperatively, 57.1% of hips were classified as Tönnis grade 1 (57.1%) whereas the remainder were grade 0. The normalized value of hip arthroscopy ranged from 25.4 to 216.4 (mean ± SD, 100 ± 38.4), with a 3.0‐fold variation between patients in the 10th and 90th percentiles. Higher value was significantly associated with Tönnis grade 0 (12.2‐point increase, P = .025), no prior contralateral hip arthroscopy (17.3‐point increase, P = .039), higher preoperative PROMs (0.52‐point increase per 1‐unit increase, P < .001), and no bone marrow aspirate concentrate or microfracture (33.8‐point increase, P < .001). Value was also significantly associated with osteoplasty type and labral treatment technique ( P < .05 for both). In contrast, operative year, age, sex, BMI, race, ethnicity, Outerbridge grade, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were not independently associated with value. A model incorporating these factors as fixed effects and the surgery center as a random effect explained 42.3% of the observed variation in value. Sensitivity analyses revealed that value drivers may vary slightly across PROMs. Conclusions This study revealed wide variation in the value of hip arthroscopy that was most strongly explained by osteoplasty type, labral management technique, and preoperative PROMs. In contrast, patient demographic characteristics such as age, sex, and BMI contributed minimal independent variability. Level of Evidence Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this article is to explore the potential of digital twin technologies in orthopaedics and to evaluate how their integration with artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning (DL) can improve orthopaedic evaluation and treatment. This review addresses key applications of digital twins, including surgical planning, patient‐specific outcome prediction, augmented reality‐assisted surgery and simulation‐based surgical training. Methods Existing studies on digital twins in various domains, including engineering, biomedical and orthopaedics are reviewed. We also reviewed advancements in AI and DL relevant to digital twins. We focused on identifying key benefits, challenges and future directions for the implementation of digital twins in orthopaedic practice. Results The review highlights that digital twins offer significant potential to revolutionise orthopaedic care by enabling precise surgical planning, real‐time outcome prediction and enhanced training. Digital twins can model patient‐specific anatomy using advanced imaging techniques and dynamically update with real‐time data, providing valuable insights during surgery and postoperative care. However, challenges such as the need for large‐scale data sets, technological limitations and integration issues must be addressed to fully realise these benefits. Conclusion Digital twins represent a promising frontier in orthopaedic research and practice, with the potential to improve patient outcomes and enhance surgical precision. To enable widespread adoption, future research must focus on overcoming current challenges and further refining the integration of digital twins with AI and DL technologies. Level of Evidence Level V.

Purpose To evaluate the available literature on the relationship between knee bony morphology and medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) to determine which tibiofemoral morphologic risk factors may predispose the development of MMPRTs. Methods Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were searched to identify all relevant human clinical studies investigating knee morphologic features and MMPRTs. Shape features were compared between control groups and patients with MMPRTs. The methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) instrument was utilized to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Results Thirteen level III evidence studies and 1 level IV evidence study were included in this review (n = 2,181), with 895 patients in the MMPRT group and 1,286 in the control group. Tibial morphology features associated with an increased risk for MMPRTs included an increased medial tibial slope (6 studies), increased tibial torsion (1 study), increased medial meniscal slope (1 study), and shallower medial tibial plateau concavity (1 study). Varus mechanical alignment was found to increase the risk for MMPRTs (4 studies). Femoral morphology features associated with an increased risk for MMPRTs included an A‐type intercondylar notch (1 study), increased medial femoral condyle (MFC) angle (1 study), narrower intercondylar distance (1 study), narrower intercondylar notch width (1 study), shorter MFC distal offset distance (1 study), increased MFC width (1 study), increased MFC to medial tibial condyle width ratio (1 study), greater distance between the medial tibial eminence and MFC (1 study), and smaller femoral offset ratios of both the medial and lateral condyles (1 study). Conclusions Multiple tibiofemoral shape features, including a steeper slope of the medial tibial plateau, greater varus alignment, and a narrower intercondylar distance and notch width, were found to be predictive factors for MMPRTs. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Background: Despite growing interest in delivering high-value orthopaedic care, the costs associated with hip arthroscopy remain poorly understood. By employing time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), we aimed to characterize the cost composition of hip arthroscopy for labral pathological conditions and to identify factors that drive variation in cost. Methods: Using TDABC, we measured the costs of 890 outpatient hip arthroscopy procedures for labral pathological conditions across 5 surgeons at 4 surgery centers from 2015 to 2022. All patients were ≥18 years old and were treated by surgeons who each performed ≥20 surgeries during the study period. Costs were normalized to protect the confidentiality of internal hospital cost data. Descriptive analyses and multivariable linear regression were performed to identify factors underlying cost variation. Results: The study sample consisted of 515 women (57.9%) and 375 men (42.1%), with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 37.1 ± 12.7 years. Most of the procedures were performed in patients who were White (90.6%) or not Hispanic (93.4%). The normalized total cost of hip arthroscopy per procedure ranged from 43.4 to 203.7 (mean, 100 ± 24.2). Of the 3 phases of the care cycle, the intraoperative phase was identified as the largest generator of cost (>90%). On average, supply costs accounted for 48.8% of total costs, whereas labor costs accounted for 51.2%. A 2.5-fold variation between the 10th and 90th percentiles for total cost was attributed to supplies, which was greater than the 1.8-fold variation attributed to labor. Variation in total costs was most effectively explained by the labral management method (partial R 2 = 0.332), operating surgeon (partial R 2 = 0.326), osteoplasty type (partial R 2 = 0.087), and surgery center (partial R 2 = 0.086). Male gender (p < 0.001) and younger age (p = 0.032) were also associated with significantly increased costs. Finally, data trends revealed a shift toward labral preservation techniques over debridement during the study period (with the rate of such techniques increasing from 77.8% to 93.2%; P trend = 0.0039) and a strong correlation between later operative year and increased supply costs, labor costs, and operative time (p < 0.001 for each). Conclusions: By applying TDABC to outpatient hip arthroscopy, we identified wide patient-to-patient cost variation that was most effectively explained by the method of labral management, the operating surgeon, the osteoplasty type, and the surgery center. Given current procedural coding trends, declining reimbursements, and rising health-care costs, these insights may enable stakeholders to design bundled payment structures that better align reimbursements with costs. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.