Perioperative population management for primary hip arthroplasty reduces hospital and postacute care utilization while maintaining or improving care quality

Consensus-Building Processes for Implementing Perioperative Care Pathways in Common Elective Surgeries: A Systematic Review

AIMS

To identify and understand the different approaches to local consensus discussions that have been used to implement perioperative pathways for common elective surgeries.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) were searched electronically for literature published between 1 January 2000 and 6 April 2023.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and assessed quality. Data were extracted using a structured extraction tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify and categorise the core elements of local consensus discussions reported. Data were synthesised into process models for undertaking local consensus discussions.

RESULTS

The initial search returned 1159 articles after duplicates were removed. Following title and abstract screening, 135 articles underwent full-text review. A total of 63 articles met the inclusion criteria. Reporting of local consensus discussions varied substantially across the included studies. Four elements were consistently reported, which together define a structured process for undertaking local consensus discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Local consensus discussions are a common implementation strategy used to reduce unwarranted clinical variation in surgical care. Several models for undertaking local consensus discussions and their implementation are presented.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Advancing our understanding of consensus building processes in perioperative pathway development could be significantly improved by refining reporting standards to include criteria for achieving consensus and assessing implementation fidelity, alongside advocating for a systematic approach to employing consensus discussions in hospitals.

IMPACT

These findings contribute to recognised gaps in the literature, including how decisions are commonly made in the design and implementation of perioperative pathways, furthering our understanding of the meaning of consensus processes that can be used by clinicians undertaking improvement initiatives.

REPORTING METHOD

This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. No patient or public contribution.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42023413817.

Incremental Societal Costs of Perioperative Complications Following Adult Elective Inpatient Major Therapeutic Surgery in the State of Florida: A Seven-Year Retrospective Epidemiological Analysis

Introduction There is an expanding role for anesthesiologists in the preoperative optimization and postoperative management of patients, often in the context of a so-called perioperative surgical home. Such efforts typically include enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols and often an anesthesiologist-led team for perioperative management. Studies of the cost-effectiveness of such approaches have generally been conducted at single institutions, with most patients cared for by small numbers of surgeons. This limitation creates generalizability issues as to whether improvement was related mostly to organizational culture or the studied surgeons' practices (non-generalizable) versus the procedures (generalizable). We studied whether other organizations can rely on achieving similar benefits following the adoption of a studied process improvement strategy at a single institution. Methods All patients undergoing elective major therapeutic inpatient surgery discharged between October 2015 and June 2022 at non-federal hospitals in the state of Florida were included. For each discharge, the United States Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-DRG) weighting factor (i.e., the multiplier for the hospital's base rate for admissions that determines reimbursement) and the Clinical Classification Software Refined (CCSR) code for the principal procedure were determined at admission and discharge from the state's inpatient healthcare database based on the diagnoses present at those time points. An increase in the weighting factor from admission to discharge represents societal costs from perioperative complications. Statewide, by hospital, and by surgeon, we calculated the total increase for each CCSR's weighting factor. Our primary hypothesis was that surgeon variability would be statistically greater than CCSR variability but that the incremental effect would be <5%. If CCSR and surgeon variability were comparable, this would be supportive of generalizability. In contrast, if there were a predominant effect related to the surgeon, results from one institution might not be applicable to others. Results Among the 1,482,344 discharges studied, the pooled (N=7 years) contributions to MS-DRG weighting factor increases from the upper 20% of surgeons were 2.8% more than from the upper 20% of CCSRs (95% CI 1.9%-3.9%, p=0.0006). Those CCSRs accounted for 85.5% (95% CI 79.4%-91.7%, p<0.0001) of the total increase in the MS-DRG weighting factor. The average contribution of the top two surgeons at each hospital to that hospital's increase in the weighting factor ranged among CCSRs from 68% to 97%. The median and 75th percentile of surgeons performing at least 10% of the total number of cases at each hospital was similar to those values for the contributions to the increases in the MS-DRG weighting factor, median 2.0 to 3.0, and 75th percentile 1.75 to 4.0. Conclusions Because variability among surgeons in their contributions to increases in the MS-DRG weighting factor only slightly exceeded the variability among CCSR surgical categories, perioperative surgical home and ERAS study research results involving single institutions and a small number of surgeons would likely be generalizable to other hospitals and healthcare systems. Funding agencies should not be hesitant to fund single-center perioperative surgical home studies and ERAS interventions based on concerns related to lack of generalizability.

Routine Pathologic Examination of the Femoral Head in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Survey Study of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons

Background

Current literature does not provide conclusive evidence on whether routine pathologic examination of femoral heads from total hip arthroplasty is indicated or cost-effective. As a result, there is substantial variation in opinion among surgeons related to this issue. Our study aim was to determine factors that impact surgeon propensity to order pathologic examination of femoral heads.

Methods

A 12-question survey was created to evaluate surgeon practices, indications, and patient care implications surrounding routine pathologic examination of femoral heads. The email survey was distributed to all members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (n = 2598).

Results

There were 572 survey respondents. Out of all respondents, 28.4% always send femoral heads to pathology, and 27.6% reported an institutional requirement to do so. Of the 572 surgeons, 73.6% report femoral head pathology has never resulted in a change in patient disease course. Factors that increase the likelihood of surgeons ordering femoral head pathologic examination include institutional requirements, medicolegal concern, and prior experience with femoral head pathologic examination changing patients' disease course (P < .001). Cost concern decreases the likelihood of surgeons ordering femoral head pathologic examination (P = .0012).

Conclusions

A minority of surgeons routinely send femoral heads from total hip arthroplasty for pathologic examination, mostly because of institutional requirement. The majority of surgeons feel that femoral head pathologic examination never changes patient management, although others have infrequently detected malignancy and infection. Institutional policy, concern for litigation, and prior experience with discordant pathologic diagnoses increase femoral head pathologic examinations, while cost concern decreases them.

Comparison of Utilization and Short-term Complications Between Technology-assisted and Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Although technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty (TA-THA) may improve implant positioning, it remains unknown whether TA-THA confers improved clinical outcomes. We sought to examine national TA-THA utilization trends and compare clinical outcomes between TA-THA and unassisted THA (U-THA).

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary, elective THA from 2010 to 2018 were identified using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Demographic, perioperative, and 30-day outcomes were queried and collected. Patients were stratified based on whether they underwent TA-THA, which included computer navigation or robotics, and U-THA. Propensity score matching paired patients undergoing TA-THA or U-THA on a 1:1 basis.

RESULTS

Of the 238,755 THA patients, 3,149 cases (1.3%) were done using TA-THA. Comparing the unmatched TA-THA and U-THA groups, race distribution (P < 0.001) and baseline functional status (P < 0.001) differed. Propensity score matching yielded 2,335 TA-THA and U-THA pairs. Perioperatively, the TA-THA cohort had longer mean surgical times (101.0 ± 34.0 versus 91.9 ± 38.8 minutes, P < 0.001), but lower transfusion rates (5.7% versus 7.8%, P = 0.005). As compared with the U-THA group, the TA-THA group had a shorter mean hospital length of stay (2.0 ± 1.1 versus 2.5 ± 2.0 days, P < 0.001) and a higher proportion of patients discharged home (85.8% versus 75.7%, P < 0.001). Notably, the TA-THA cohort had higher readmission rates (3.8% versus 2.4%, P < 0.001). Major complication and revision surgery rates did not markedly differ between groups.

DISCUSSION

TA-THA utilization rates remain low among orthopaedic surgeons. As compared with U-THA, TA-THA yield mixed perioperative and 30-day outcomes. Surgeons must consider the clinical benefits and drawbacks of TA-THA when determining the proper surgical technique and technology for each patient. Clinical trials assessing long-term functional and clinical outcomes between U-THA and TA-THA are required to further elucidate the utility of assistive technologies in THA.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective Cohort Study.