RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Although two-stage exchange has been the standard of care for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States, single-stage exchange is emerging as an option in select patients. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing single-stage and two-stage exchange using strict surgical indications. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 196 patients with diagnosed PJI undergoing revision total knee and hip arthroplasty from 2017 to 2021. Patients were excluded if they had PJI history, plastic surgery coverage, or extensive bone loss requiring endoprosthesis. We compared the number of patients PJI-free at 1-year follow-up using MusculoSkeletal Infection Society criteria and patients requiring re-revision between the single-stage and two-stage groups. RESULTS: In total, 126 patients met inclusion criteria. Of 61 knee patients (48.4%), 22 underwent single-stage (36%) and 39 underwent two-stage (63.9%). Of 65 hip patients (51.6%), 38 underwent single-stage (58.5%) and 27 underwent two-stage (41.5%). At a mean follow-up of 1.95 ± 0.88 years, a higher rate of knee patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (77.3% versus 69.2%, P = 0.501), however with comparable septic failure rates (18.1% single-stage versus 17.9% two-stage; P = 0.982). At a mean follow-up of 1.81 ± 0.9 years, a higher rate of hip patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (94.7% versus 81.5%, P = 0.089), and more patients had septic failures in the two-stage group (18.5% versus 5.3%; P = 0.089). No differences were observed in the microorganism profile. More total complications (P = 0.021) and mortalities were found in the single-stage knee cohort than in the two-stage cohort (22.7% versus 2.6%; P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Single-stage arthroplasty is a viable alternative to standard two-stage exchange in patients with PJI without a history of infection and with no bone or soft-tissue compromise. Additional studies with longer term follow-up are needed to evaluate its efficacy.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Although several studies identify risk factors for high-cost patients in an episode of care for total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA), few have looked at cost outliers from a facility perspective. The purpose of this study was to use time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to identify characteristics of high-cost patients. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of primary THA and TKA patients by 22 different surgeons at two hospitals between 2015 and 2020. Facility costs were calculated using a TDABC algorithm for their entire hospital stay. Patients in the top decile of costs were considered to be high-cost patients. Multivariate regression was done to identify independent patient factors that predicted high costs. RESULTS: Of the 8,647 patients we identified, 60.5% underwent THA and 39.5% underwent TKA. Implant purchase price accounted for 49.5% of total inpatient costs (mean $2,880), followed by intraoperative (15.9%, mean $925) and postoperative personnel costs (16.8%, mean $980). Implant price demonstrated the highest variation between high-cost and low-cost groups (4.4 times). Patient-related factors associated with high costs were female sex (OR = 1.332), Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 1.409), American Society of Anesthesiology score (OR = 1.658), need for transfusion (OR = 2.008), and lower preoperative HOOS/KOOS Jr (OR = 1.009). CONCLUSION: This study identifies several variables for patients at risk to have high facility costs after primary THA and TKA. From the hospital's perspective, efforts to reduce implant purchase prices may translate into substantial cost savings. At the patient level, multidisciplinary initiatives to optimize medical comorbidities, decrease transfusion risk, and control medication expenses in high-risk patients may narrow the existing variation in costs.