Hip & pelvis

The Korean Hip Society (대한고관절학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of the Cost Effectiveness of Routine Histopathologic Femoral Head Analysis in Hip Arthroplasty

  • Zoe Brown (Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine) ;
  • Michael Perry (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Clinic) ;
  • Cameron Killen (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation) ;
  • Daniel Schmitt (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Loyola University Health System) ;
  • Michael Wesolowski (Loyola University Chicago Clinical Research Office Biostatistics Core) ;
  • Nicholas M. Brown (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Loyola University Health System)
  • Received : 2021.06.22
  • Accepted : 2021.11.05
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Histopathologic analysis of femoral head specimens following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a routine practice that represents a significant use of health care resources. However, it occasionally results in discovery of undiagnosed hematopoietic malignancy and other discrepant diagnoses such as avascular necrosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of discordant and discrepant diagnoses discovered from routine histopathological evaluation of femoral heads following THA and perform a cost analysis of this practice. Materials and Methods: A review of patients undergoing primary THA between 2004-2017 was conducted. A comparison of the surgeon's preoperative and postoperative diagnosis, and the histopathologic diagnosis was performed. In cases where the clinical and histopathology differed, a review determined whether this resulted in a change in clinical management. Medicare reimbursement and previously published cost data corrected for inflation were utilized for cost calculations. Results: A review of 2,134 procedures was performed. The pathologic diagnosis matched the postoperative diagnosis in 96.0% of cases. Eighty-three cases (4.0%) had a discrepant diagnosis where treatment was not substantially altered. There was one case of discordant diagnosis where lymphoma was diagnosed and subsequently treated. The cost per discrepant diagnosis was $141,880 and per discordant diagnosis was $1,669 when using 100% Medicare reimbursement and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code combination 88304+88311. Conclusion: Histopathologic analysis of femoral head specimens in THAs showed an association with high costs given the rarity of discordant diagnoses. Routine use of the practice should be at the discretion of individual hospitals with consideration for cost and utility thresholds.

Keywords

References

  1. Robboy SJ, Gupta S, Crawford JM, et al. The pathologist workforce in the United States: II. An interactive modeling tool for analyzing future qualitative and quantitative staffing demands for services. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:1413-30. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0559-OA
  2. Campbell ML, Gregory AM, Mauerhan DR. Collection of surgical specimens in total joint arthroplasty. Is routine pathology cost effective? J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:60-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(97)90048-6
  3. Lauder AJ, Cheatham SA, Garvin KL. Unsuspected non-Hodgkin's lymphoma discovered with routine histopathology after elective total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:1055-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.03.029
  4. Bond JS, Black CC, Kantor SR, Ornstein DL. Unexpected finding in a femoral head specimen after elective total hip arthroplasty. Pathol Int. 2014;64:585-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/pin.12210
  5. Mackie KE, Zhou Z, Robbins P, Bulsara M, Zheng MH. Histopathology of femoral head donations: a retrospective review of 6161 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1500-9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00133
  6. Besser MI. Total knee replacement in unsuspected tuberculosis of the joint. Br Med J. 1980;280:1434.
  7. DiCarlo EF, Bullough PG, Steiner G, Bansal M, Kambolis C. Pathological examination of the femoral head. Mod Pathol. 1994;7:6A.
  8. Layfield LJ, Crim JR, Oserowsky A, Schmidt RL. Pathology assessment of femoral head resection specimens: an important quality assurance procedure. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144:580-5. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2019-0128-OA
  9. Lin MM, Goldsmith JD, Resch SC, DeAngelis JP, Ramappa AJ. Histologic examinations of arthroplasty specimens are not cost-effective: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1452-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2149-7
  10. Rubin G, Krasnyansky S, Gavish I, Elmalah I, Ben-Lulu O, Rozen N. Meta-analysis of unexpected findings in routine histopathology during total joint replacement. Isr Med Assoc J. 2011;13:80-3.
  11. Lawrence T, Moskal JT, Diduch DR. Analysis of routine histological evaluation of tissues removed during primary hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:926-31. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199907000-00004
  12. Meding JB, Ritter MA, Jones NL, Keating EM, Faris PM. Determining the necessity for routine pathologic examinations in uncomplicated total hip and total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:69-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(00)91233-6
  13. Kocher MS, Erens G, Thornhill TS, Ready JE. Cost and effectiveness of routine pathological examination of operative specimens obtained during primary total hip and knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1531-5. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200011000-00002
  14. Wang T, Vajpeyi R. Hernia sacs: is histological examination necessary? J Clin Pathol. 2013;66:1084-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2013-201734
  15. Benkhadoura M, Elshaikhy A, Eldruki S, Elfaedy O. Routine histopathological examination of gallbladder specimens after cholecystectomy: is it time to change the current practice? Turk J Surg. 2018;35:86-90. https://doi.org/10.5578/turkjsurg.4126
  16. Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, Kahn JG, Rosen S. Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:118-24. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.14.138206
  17. Jakubiak-Lasocka J, Jakubczyk M. Cost-effectiveness versus cost-utility analyses: what are the motives behind using each and how do their results differ?- a Polish example. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;4:66-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2014.06.008
  18. Liow MHL, Agrawal K, Anderson DW, Freiberg AA, Rubash HE, Kwon YM. Unsuspected malignancies in routine femoral head histopathologic examination during primary total hip arthroplasty: cost-effectiveness analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:735-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.017