Horst, Patrick K.

Background: Patient-level value analysis (PLVA) has been applied to several orthopaedic procedures but has not yet been utilized to assess the value of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 1-year episode of care for TKA with use of PLVA to identify characteristics that influence value at both the patient and surgeon level. Methods: The institutional patient-reported outcome (PRO) database was queried for all patients who underwent TKA from 2020 to 2022. Patients were excluded on the basis of an index revision procedure, a pathology other than primary osteoarthritis, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, robotic-assisted TKA, incomplete baseline or 1-year PROs, concomitant procedures (i.e., bilateral TKA or hardware removal), complications requiring readmission or reoperation, TKA without patellar resurfacing, the use of constrained implants, incomplete cost information, or other hip or knee arthroplasty procedure during the 1-year episode of care. PROs of interest included preoperative and 1-year postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) scores. Episode-of-care costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing. The 1-year value quotient (V KOOS ) was calculated for each patient as the ratio of the 1-year change in KOOS-JR score to the total episode-of-care cost. Results: A total of 684 patients (62% female; mean age, 68 ± 8 years) met the inclusion criteria. The mean KOOS-JR score significantly increased from baseline (53 ± 11) to 1 year (79 ± 14; p < 0.001), with a mean improvement of 26 ± 16. The mean total episode-of-care cost was $9,563 ± $2,370. There was no significant correlation between episode-of-care costs and the change in KOOS-JR score (r = 0.02; p = 0.581). Surgery performed at an ambulatory surgery center (p < 0.001) and as an outpatient procedure (p = 0.036) were predictive of lower costs. Patient-specific instrumentation (p < 0.001) and a tibial stem extension (p < 0.001) were predictive of higher costs. Older age (p = 0.023) and male sex (p = 0.007) were predictive of less improvement in KOOS-JR scores from baseline to 1 year. Conclusions: Our study identified patient and surgical characteristics that drive costs and PROs in TKA. PLVA can be used to identify “bright spots” in orthopaedic procedures to optimize care delivery. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Value is defined as the ratio of patient outcomes to the cost of care. One method to assess value is through patient-level value analysis (PLVA). To our knowledge, this tool has not previously been implemented in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purposes of this study were to perform PLVA for a 1-year episode of care among patients undergoing primary THA and to identify characteristics that affect value in a metropolitan health-care system. Methods: The patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure database of the institution was queried for all primary THAs from 2018 to 2019. The PRO measure that was utilized was the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR). Cost was evaluated with use of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for a 1-year episode of care (consisting of the day of surgery, inpatient stay, discharge facility, postoperative appointments, and physical therapy). The primary outcome was the 1-year value quotient, or the ratio of the 1-year change in HOOS-JR to the cost of the episode of care (V HOOS ). The value quotient was compared among all included patients and evaluated for variables that may affect the overall value of the episode of care. Results: In total, 480 patients were included in the analysis. The mean improvement in the HOOS-JR was +34.9 ± 16.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.5, 36.3). The mean cost was $13,835 ± $3,471 (95% CI: $13,524, $14,146). The largest contributor to cost was implants (39.0%), followed by post-recovery care (i.e., inpatient stay and specialized nursing facilities; 24.1%). Change in the HOOS-JR was poorly correlated with the cost of care (r = −0.06; p = 0.19). THAs performed at an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) with discharge to home demonstrated higher value (V HOOS = 0.42) than THAs performed at a hospital with discharge to a rehabilitation facility (V HOOS = 0.15; analysis of variance F-test, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Our study found that PROs did not correlate with costs in the setting of primary THA. Implants were the largest cost driver. Surgical setting (an ASC versus a hospital) and discharge destination influenced value as well. PLVA is a value measurement tool that can be utilized to optimize components of the care delivery pathway. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.