Implant Standardization for Hemiarthroplasty: Implementation of a Pricing Matrix System at a Level II Community Based Trauma System

Abstract Our purpose was to perform a clinical and financial analysis of a pricing matrix system on operative hip fracture care concerning hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly low demand patients. Data analysis on 81 pre-matrix and 88 post-matrix patients demonstrated no...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2014-04, Vol.29 (4), p.781-785
Main Authors: Althausen, Peter L., MD, MBA, Lu, Minggen, PhD, Thomas, Kenneth C., MD, Shannon, Steven F., BS, Biagi, Brian N., BS, Boyden, Eric M., MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - economics
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - standards
Female
femoral neck fractures
Femoral Neck Fractures - surgery
Hemiarthroplasty - economics
Hemiarthroplasty - standards
hip hemiarthroplasty
Hip Prosthesis - economics
Hip Prosthesis - standards
Hospitals, Community - economics
Humans
implant costs
implant standardization
Male
matrix system
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Our purpose was to perform a clinical and financial analysis of a pricing matrix system on operative hip fracture care concerning hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly low demand patients. Data analysis on 81 pre-matrix and 88 post-matrix patients demonstrated no significant differences in age, sex, ASA or fracture pattern between the two groups. No difference in surgical approach, cement use, prosthesis choice, operative time, estimated blood loss, or intra-operative complication rate was observed. No radiographic difference in subsidence or loosening was demonstrated. Readmission form cardiac, UTI, PE or DVT rates were similar between groups and no increase in revision surgery or mortality was observed. Overall, our hospital realized a 37% reduction in implant costs, resulting in $165,500 savings for the calendar year.
ISSN:0883-5403
1532-8406
DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.006