Search

Arthroplasty procedures are commonly performed and contribute to healthcare expenditures seen in the United States. Surgical team members may make selections among implants and materials without always knowing their relative cost. The current study reports on a survey aimed to investigate the perceptions of an academic group about the relative cost and value of commonly used operating room implants and materials related to joint arthroplasty cases using 10 matched pairs of items. Of the 124 persons eligible to take the survey, 102 responded (response rate of 82.3%) including attendings, fellows, residents, physician assistants (PAs), advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and registered nurses (RNs). On average for the ten pairs of items, the more expensive items were correctly selected by 90.2+/-13.9% (mean+/- standard deviation) of respondents with a range from 54.9% to 100%. Of note, the cost differences were significantly overestimated for 8/10 item pairs. The majority of respondents perceived the more expensive item as the item with the higher clinical value for 9/10 item pairs. Most arthroplasty attendings (91.3%) indicated willingness to use the less expensive item of two similar items. Nonetheless, 17.9% of fellows, residents, PAs, APRNs and RNs indicated that they would not feel comfortable suggesting using the less expensive item. Although attending arthroplasty surgeons stated a desire to consider costs, a knowledge deficit with regards to identifying the extent of cost differences was identified, and a significant portion of the surgical support team reported being hesitant to suggest less expensive options.

Introduction American orthopaedists are increasingly seeking fellowship sub-specialization. One proposed benefit of fellowship training is decrease in complications, however, few studies have investigated the rates of medical and surgical complications for hip fracture patients between orthopedists from different fellowship backgrounds. This study aims to investigate the effect of fellowship training and case volume on medical and surgical outcomes of patient following hip fracture surgical intervention. Methods 1999–2016 American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) Part II Examination Case List data were used to assess patients treated by trauma or adult reconstruction fellowship-trained orthopedists versus all-other orthopaedists. Rates of surgeon-reported medical and surgical adverse events were compared between the three surgeon cohorts. Using binary multivariate logistic regression to control of demographic factors, independent factors were evaluated for their effect on surgical complications. Results Data from 73,427 patients were assessed. An increasing number of hip fractures are being treated by trauma fellowship trained surgeons (9.43% in 1999–2004 to 60.92% in 2011–2016). In multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in type of fellowship, however, surgeons with increased case volume saw significantly decreased odds of complications (16–30 cases: OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85–0.97; p = 0.003; 31+ cases: OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.61–0.76; p Discussion Despite minor differences in incidence of surgical complications between different fellowship trained orthopaedists, there is no major difference in overall risk of surgical complications for hip fracture patients based on fellowship status of early orthopaedic surgeons. However, case volume does significantly decrease the risk of surgical complications among these patients and may stand as a proxy for fellowship training. Fellows required to take hip fracture call as part of their training regardless of fellowship status exhibited decreased complication risk for hip fracture patients, thus highlighting the importance of additional training.