The American Journal of Orthopedics

Medical economics has been a major sociopolitical issue in the United States for the past 20 years, with concerns focused on increasing medical spending. These costs are projected to continue to rise, from 15.3% of gross domestic product in 2002 to 19.6% in 2017.¹

Multiple steps have been taken to help reduce the cost of health care, many of which center on physician reimbursement. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 worked to control Medicare spending by increasing reimbursement for clinic visits by setting reductions for procedural reimbursements. This specifically affects orthopedic surgeons, who between 1991 and 2002 experienced a 28% reduction in reimbursement, after inflation, for commonly performed orthopedic procedures, including hip and knee arthroplasty.² Unfortunately, this system does not take into account the value of services as perceived by patients.

Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are well-established surgical treatments for advanced osteoarthritis of the hip and knee, respectively. Much research has been done on patient satisfaction with these procedures and on their long-term results and cost-effectiveness. These procedures rank among the highest in patient satisfaction, and improvements in technique and technology have steadily improved long-term results. THA and TKA have proved to be cost-effective in appropriately indicated patients.

The demand for THA and TKA is projected to increase by 174% and 673%, respectively, from 2005 to 2030.³ Legislators, payers, health care providers, and patients are understandably concerned about the rising cost of health care and the implications for access to elective surgical procedures. In a recent study by Foran and colleagues,⁴ surveyed postoperative patients indicated that Medicare reimbursement was “much lower” for arthroplasty than it should be. In addition, they overestimated (compared with national averages) what Medicare reimburses for hip and knee arthroplasty. Many raised concerns that orthopedic surgeons might drop Medicare entirely.⁴

These misconceptions about reimbursement may stem partly from the inaccessibility of health care cost information. Rosenthal and colleagues⁵ recently queried a random selection of US hospitals and demonstrated the difficulty in obtaining THA pricing information.

In a system in which consumers and payers are often not one and the same, it is unclear if consumers understand the cost of their health care. We conducted a study to assess patients’ perceptions of the cost of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and gain insight into their understanding of health care costs and their sense of the value of this elective surgical procedure.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining institutional review board approval and informed consent for this study, we surveyed 284 consecutive patients who underwent THA or TKA at an academic medical center. Patients had either primary or revision surgery performed (by Dr. Hallstrom or Dr. Urquhart) and were surveyed during their first (2-week) postoperative visit, between March 1, 2012 and December 20, 2012.

Surveys were labeled with patient identifiers to facilitate abstraction of data from electronic medical records. Operative reports and discharge summaries were reviewed for data that included sex, age, diagnosis, procedure, surgeon, implant, admission date, and length of stay.

The survey asked for demographic information, including level of education, insurance coverage, and annual household income, and included a question to verify the surgical procedure and a question to determine if the patient had reviewed a hospital billing statement pertaining to the patient’s admission. The survey also included these questions about reimbursement and cost:

• How much do you feel your orthopedic surgeon was reimbursed for your surgery? (EXCLUDING payments to the hospital)

• How much do you think your surgeon gets reimbursed to see you IN THE HOSPITAL after surgery?

• How much do you think your surgeon gets reimbursed per visit to see you IN CLINIC for follow-up during the first 3 months after surgery?

• How much do you think the implant used in your surgery cost?

• How much do you think the hospital was reimbursed for your surgery and admission to the hospital after surgery? (EXCLUDING payments to the surgeon)

• How much do you think it cost the hospital to provide your surgery and admission to the hospital after surgery?

Responses were limited to numeric currency format using a response area as shown in Figure 1. Overall patient satisfaction was elicited with use of a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Regarding type of implant used, patients could select from 6 prominent vendors or indicate “other” or “don’t know.” They were also asked which of several factors should primarily determine surgeon reimbursement: overall patient satisfaction, technical difficulty, amount of risk/possible harm, duration/amount of time, and rate of complications. A free-response comments section was provided at the end of the survey.

Data from the survey and the electronic medical records were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap; Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee). Statistical analysis was performed with SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Data were screened before further analysis. Patients who provided nonnumeric responses in numeric response fields were excluded from further analysis. Numeric ranges were applied in subsequent analysis using the mean of the range. Implausible responses resulted in the removal of the entire encounter from subsequent analysis.

Demographic data used to define categories for further subgroup analysis are presented as percentages of the group. Medians, means, and interquartile ranges were calculated for all responses regarding reimbursement and cost. Differences in perceptions of reimbursement and cost based on subgroups, including procedure type, diagnosis, education level, and satisfaction, were calculated. Independent-samples Student t tests were used to determine the statistical significance of the differences detected.

Results

Of the 400 eligible patients seen at the first postoperative follow-up, 284 (71%) were enrolled in the study. Mean (SD) age was 62.6 (12.6) years. Of the 284 patients enrolled, 154 (54%) were female. Of the participants who reported their education and income, 125 (44%) had a bachelor’s degree or higher degree, and 68 (23.9%) reported income of more than $100,000 per year. The largest payers reported by patients were private insurance (80%) and Medicare (46%). Additional demographic details are listed in Table 1.

Of the 284 patients enrolled in the study, 159 (56%) had THA, and 88 (31%) had TKA (Table 2). Thirty-seven patients (13%) underwent revision procedures. Only 5 patients (2%) indicated they had reviewed their hospital billing statement from their most recent admission. Two hundred forty-two patients (85%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their procedure.

Regarding the implant used in their surgery, 216 patients (76%) indicated they did not know which company manufactured it. Of the 68 patients (24%) who named a manufacturer, 53 (78%) were correct in their selection (intraoperative records were checked). Patients indicated they thought the implant used in their surgery cost $6447 on average (95% CI, $5581-$7312).

On average, patients thought their surgeon was reimbursed $12,014 (95% CI, $10,845-$13,183) for their procedure, and they estimated that the hospital was reimbursed $28,392 (95% CI, $25,271-$31,512) for their perioperative care and that it cost the hospital $24,389 (95% CI, $21,612-$27,165) to provide it. Means, confidence intervals, medians, and interquartile ranges for parameters of reimbursement and cost are listed in Table 3. Seventy-one patients (25%) thought on average that the hospital took a net loss for each TJA performed, and 146 patients (51%) thought on average that the hospital generated a net profit for each TJA.

On average, patients thought surgeons were reimbursed $11,872 for a THA and $12,263 for a TKA. Patients also estimated a higher hospital cost (THA, $22,981; TKA, $26,998) and reimbursement (THA, $27,366; TKA, $30,230) after TKA than THA. These differences in perceptions of cost and reimbursement for THA and TKA appear in Table 4 and Figure 2.

Statistically significant differences were also found in perceptions of cost and reimbursement based on level of education and overall patient satisfaction. Patients with a bachelor’s degree or higher estimated physician reimbursement at $11,006, whereas patients with a lower level of education estimated reimbursement at $12,890. In addition, patients with a lower level of education gave estimates of hospital cost and reimbursement that were $7698 and $10,799 higher, respectively, than the estimates given by patients with a higher level of education (Table 5, Figure 3). Patients who were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall TJA experience estimated surgeon reimbursement at $11,673. Patients who indicated they were unsatisfied, very unsatisfied, or neutral regarding their overall experience gave a higher estimate of surgeon reimbursement: $14,317 (Table 6, Figure 4).

Because of the small number of enrolled patients who had revision surgery and the high variability in patient responses, there were no meaningful or statistically significant differences in perceptions of cost and reimbursement based on revision or primary surgery.

Patients also estimated substantial additional reimbursements to physicians for services included at no additional charge with the global surgical package. Median estimates were $300 for reimbursement to a physician making rounds in the hospital and $250 for reimbursement for an outpatient follow-up. Only 47 patients (17%) and 35 patients (12%) correctly indicated there is no additional payment for making rounds and outpatient follow-up, respectively. Estimates of these reimbursements varied by education level, procedure, and overall satisfaction (Tables 4–6).

Discussion

The sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, was constructed to manage health care costs in the context of overall economic growth. By 2001, Medicare health care expenditures had begun to outpace economic growth, and the SGR formula dictated a reduction in reimbursement to physicians. Each year over the past decade, Congress has passed legislation providing a temporary reprieve, staving off a drastic reduction of as much as 25% in 2010.⁶ Despite these adjustments, reimbursement continues to decrease because of overall inflation.

More worrisome is that “more than half of the nearly trillion dollar price tag for expanding coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be paid by decreasing spending for the more than 46.3 million individuals covered by Medicare.”⁷ ACA provisions will also create an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to oversee health care costs and reduce Medicare spending when it is expected to exceed target levels.⁸ As IPAB cannot recommend increasing revenues or changing benefits, and because it is initially prohibited from recommending decreasing payments to hospitals, the decreases will likely have the greatest impact on physician reimbursement.^7-9

Health care policy has been a major campaign issue during recent US elections. The public and popular media remain engaged in this important discussion. Although patients, policymakers, and physicians are understandably concerned about cost and access to health care, it is unclear if patients understand the distribution of health care cost and reimbursement.

Other authors have studied patients’ perceptions of physician reimbursement for TJA. Hayden and colleagues¹⁰ surveyed 1000 residents of a Texas city. The 121 who responded to the survey thought that fair compensation for performing a TKA was $5080, on average.¹⁰ Although this was significantly higher than the actual Medicare reimbursement at the time, a later study, by Foran and colleagues,⁴ found patients’ estimates of both fair reimbursement and Medicare reimbursement for TJA to be even higher. Foran and colleagues⁴ surveyed 1120 patients who thought surgeons deserved to be paid $14,358 for THA and $13,322 for TKA, on average. These reimbursement values are nearly an order of magnitude higher than actual reimbursements. For Medicare payments, patients lowered their estimates to $8212 for THA and $7196 for TKA.⁴

To our knowledge, the present study is the first to use a “postconsumer” survey to assess patients’ perceptions of THA and TKA costs. Our results confirmed that patients substantially overestimated reimbursement for THA and TKA at $11,872 and $12,263, respectively, relative to the average Medicare reimbursements of $1467 and $1530, respectively.¹¹ We also found that patients overestimated both hospital cost and reimbursement for THA at $22,981 and $27,366, respectively, relative to recently published hospital economic analyses showing THA cost and reimbursement to be $11,688 and $15,789, respectively.¹² Few patients enrolled in our study demonstrated an understanding of the services included in the global surgical package. Only about 12% of patients correctly indicated there was no additional payment to the physician for initial follow-up appointments. However, patients were fairly accurate in their estimates of implant cost. On average, patients who underwent THA priced their implant at $6823, which is only about 9% higher than the reported median cost of $6072 to $6400.^13,14

We also found significant differences in perceptions of cost based on level of education, joint replaced, and overall level of satisfaction. On average, patients with a bachelor’s degree or higher gave estimates of cost and reimbursement that were lower than those given by patients with a lower level of education. Estimates of physician reimbursement and hospital reimbursement and cost were higher from patients who had TKA than from patients who had THA.

Comparing perceptions of reimbursement for appendectomy and coronary artery bypass with perceptions for TJA, Foran and colleagues⁴ found that patients understood the relative complexity of each procedure, as evidenced by their estimates of fair reimbursement for each. However, in comparing patient estimates for the different components of cost and reimbursement for TJA, we found great variability in understanding. Patients in our study overestimated payments to the hospital by 73% but overestimated the cost of the THA implant by only 9%. However, the same patients overestimated physician reimbursement for THA by about 800%. If these patients’ estimates of reimbursement are considered surrogates for relative value, then physicians, based on actual payments, are grossly undervalued relative to implant manufacturers.

Our study had several limitations. First, the enrolled patients were all seen at one medical center, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and our results may not be generalizable outside the region. Second, the survey respondents were postoperative patients who had an established relationship with the study’s principal investigators—a relationship that may have been a source of bias in the consideration of reimbursement as a function of value. Third, despite our efforts to carefully design a survey with open-ended responses, the order in which the survey questions were presented may have influenced patient responses. Fourth, the open-ended question design may have had an impact on responses where the correct answer would have required entering 0.00.

Despite these limitations, our study results demonstrated general public misconceptions about cost and reimbursement for common orthopedic procedures. Although more transparency in health care cost information may not immediately result in a more well-informed population,¹⁵ our patients, given the opportunity to develop an understanding of the economics of their own medical treatment, may become better prepared to make informed choices regarding changes in health care policy.

Medical economics has been a major sociopolitical issue in the United States for the past 20 years, with concerns focused on increasing medical spending. These costs are projected to continue to rise, from 15.3% of gross domestic product in 2002 to 19.6% in 2017.¹

Multiple steps have been taken to help reduce the cost of health care, many of which center on physician reimbursement. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 worked to control Medicare spending by increasing reimbursement for clinic visits by setting reductions for procedural reimbursements. This specifically affects orthopedic surgeons, who between 1991 and 2002 experienced a 28% reduction in reimbursement, after inflation, for commonly performed orthopedic procedures, including hip and knee arthroplasty.² Unfortunately, this system does not take into account the value of services as perceived by patients.

Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are well-established surgical treatments for advanced osteoarthritis of the hip and knee, respectively. Much research has been done on patient satisfaction with these procedures and on their long-term results and cost-effectiveness. These procedures rank among the highest in patient satisfaction, and improvements in technique and technology have steadily improved long-term results. THA and TKA have proved to be cost-effective in appropriately indicated patients.

The demand for THA and TKA is projected to increase by 174% and 673%, respectively, from 2005 to 2030.³ Legislators, payers, health care providers, and patients are understandably concerned about the rising cost of health care and the implications for access to elective surgical procedures. In a recent study by Foran and colleagues,⁴ surveyed postoperative patients indicated that Medicare reimbursement was “much lower” for arthroplasty than it should be. In addition, they overestimated (compared with national averages) what Medicare reimburses for hip and knee arthroplasty. Many raised concerns that orthopedic surgeons might drop Medicare entirely.⁴

These misconceptions about reimbursement may stem partly from the inaccessibility of health care cost information. Rosenthal and colleagues⁵ recently queried a random selection of US hospitals and demonstrated the difficulty in obtaining THA pricing information.

In a system in which consumers and payers are often not one and the same, it is unclear if consumers understand the cost of their health care. We conducted a study to assess patients’ perceptions of the cost of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and gain insight into their understanding of health care costs and their sense of the value of this elective surgical procedure.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining institutional review board approval and informed consent for this study, we surveyed 284 consecutive patients who underwent THA or TKA at an academic medical center. Patients had either primary or revision surgery performed (by Dr. Hallstrom or Dr. Urquhart) and were surveyed during their first (2-week) postoperative visit, between March 1, 2012 and December 20, 2012.

Surveys were labeled with patient identifiers to facilitate abstraction of data from electronic medical records. Operative reports and discharge summaries were reviewed for data that included sex, age, diagnosis, procedure, surgeon, implant, admission date, and length of stay.

The survey asked for demographic information, including level of education, insurance coverage, and annual household income, and included a question to verify the surgical procedure and a question to determine if the patient had reviewed a hospital billing statement pertaining to the patient’s admission. The survey also included these questions about reimbursement and cost:

• How much do you feel your orthopedic surgeon was reimbursed for your surgery? (EXCLUDING payments to the hospital)

• How much do you think your surgeon gets reimbursed to see you IN THE HOSPITAL after surgery?

• How much do you think your surgeon gets reimbursed per visit to see you IN CLINIC for follow-up during the first 3 months after surgery?

• How much do you think the implant used in your surgery cost?

• How much do you think the hospital was reimbursed for your surgery and admission to the hospital after surgery? (EXCLUDING payments to the surgeon)

• How much do you think it cost the hospital to provide your surgery and admission to the hospital after surgery?

Responses were limited to numeric currency format using a response area as shown in Figure 1. Overall patient satisfaction was elicited with use of a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Regarding type of implant used, patients could select from 6 prominent vendors or indicate “other” or “don’t know.” They were also asked which of several factors should primarily determine surgeon reimbursement: overall patient satisfaction, technical difficulty, amount of risk/possible harm, duration/amount of time, and rate of complications. A free-response comments section was provided at the end of the survey.

Data from the survey and the electronic medical records were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap; Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee). Statistical analysis was performed with SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Data were screened before further analysis. Patients who provided nonnumeric responses in numeric response fields were excluded from further analysis. Numeric ranges were applied in subsequent analysis using the mean of the range. Implausible responses resulted in the removal of the entire encounter from subsequent analysis.

Demographic data used to define categories for further subgroup analysis are presented as percentages of the group. Medians, means, and interquartile ranges were calculated for all responses regarding reimbursement and cost. Differences in perceptions of reimbursement and cost based on subgroups, including procedure type, diagnosis, education level, and satisfaction, were calculated. Independent-samples Student t tests were used to determine the statistical significance of the differences detected.

Results

Of the 400 eligible patients seen at the first postoperative follow-up, 284 (71%) were enrolled in the study. Mean (SD) age was 62.6 (12.6) years. Of the 284 patients enrolled, 154 (54%) were female. Of the participants who reported their education and income, 125 (44%) had a bachelor’s degree or higher degree, and 68 (23.9%) reported income of more than $100,000 per year. The largest payers reported by patients were private insurance (80%) and Medicare (46%). Additional demographic details are listed in Table 1.

Of the 284 patients enrolled in the study, 159 (56%) had THA, and 88 (31%) had TKA (Table 2). Thirty-seven patients (13%) underwent revision procedures. Only 5 patients (2%) indicated they had reviewed their hospital billing statement from their most recent admission. Two hundred forty-two patients (85%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their procedure.

Regarding the implant used in their surgery, 216 patients (76%) indicated they did not know which company manufactured it. Of the 68 patients (24%) who named a manufacturer, 53 (78%) were correct in their selection (intraoperative records were checked). Patients indicated they thought the implant used in their surgery cost $6447 on average (95% CI, $5581-$7312).

On average, patients thought their surgeon was reimbursed $12,014 (95% CI, $10,845-$13,183) for their procedure, and they estimated that the hospital was reimbursed $28,392 (95% CI, $25,271-$31,512) for their perioperative care and that it cost the hospital $24,389 (95% CI, $21,612-$27,165) to provide it. Means, confidence intervals, medians, and interquartile ranges for parameters of reimbursement and cost are listed in Table 3. Seventy-one patients (25%) thought on average that the hospital took a net loss for each TJA performed, and 146 patients (51%) thought on average that the hospital generated a net profit for each TJA.

On average, patients thought surgeons were reimbursed $11,872 for a THA and $12,263 for a TKA. Patients also estimated a higher hospital cost (THA, $22,981; TKA, $26,998) and reimbursement (THA, $27,366; TKA, $30,230) after TKA than THA. These differences in perceptions of cost and reimbursement for THA and TKA appear in Table 4 and Figure 2.

Statistically significant differences were also found in perceptions of cost and reimbursement based on level of education and overall patient satisfaction. Patients with a bachelor’s degree or higher estimated physician reimbursement at $11,006, whereas patients with a lower level of education estimated reimbursement at $12,890. In addition, patients with a lower level of education gave estimates of hospital cost and reimbursement that were $7698 and $10,799 higher, respectively, than the estimates given by patients with a higher level of education (Table 5, Figure 3). Patients who were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall TJA experience estimated surgeon reimbursement at $11,673. Patients who indicated they were unsatisfied, very unsatisfied, or neutral regarding their overall experience gave a higher estimate of surgeon reimbursement: $14,317 (Table 6, Figure 4).

Because of the small number of enrolled patients who had revision surgery and the high variability in patient responses, there were no meaningful or statistically significant differences in perceptions of cost and reimbursement based on revision or primary surgery.

Patients also estimated substantial additional reimbursements to physicians for services included at no additional charge with the global surgical package. Median estimates were $300 for reimbursement to a physician making rounds in the hospital and $250 for reimbursement for an outpatient follow-up. Only 47 patients (17%) and 35 patients (12%) correctly indicated there is no additional payment for making rounds and outpatient follow-up, respectively. Estimates of these reimbursements varied by education level, procedure, and overall satisfaction (Tables 4–6).

Discussion

The sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, was constructed to manage health care costs in the context of overall economic growth. By 2001, Medicare health care expenditures had begun to outpace economic growth, and the SGR formula dictated a reduction in reimbursement to physicians. Each year over the past decade, Congress has passed legislation providing a temporary reprieve, staving off a drastic reduction of as much as 25% in 2010.⁶ Despite these adjustments, reimbursement continues to decrease because of overall inflation.

More worrisome is that “more than half of the nearly trillion dollar price tag for expanding coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be paid by decreasing spending for the more than 46.3 million individuals covered by Medicare.”⁷ ACA provisions will also create an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to oversee health care costs and reduce Medicare spending when it is expected to exceed target levels.⁸ As IPAB cannot recommend increasing revenues or changing benefits, and because it is initially prohibited from recommending decreasing payments to hospitals, the decreases will likely have the greatest impact on physician reimbursement.^7-9

Health care policy has been a major campaign issue during recent US elections. The public and popular media remain engaged in this important discussion. Although patients, policymakers, and physicians are understandably concerned about cost and access to health care, it is unclear if patients understand the distribution of health care cost and reimbursement.

Other authors have studied patients’ perceptions of physician reimbursement for TJA. Hayden and colleagues¹⁰ surveyed 1000 residents of a Texas city. The 121 who responded to the survey thought that fair compensation for performing a TKA was $5080, on average.¹⁰ Although this was significantly higher than the actual Medicare reimbursement at the time, a later study, by Foran and colleagues,⁴ found patients’ estimates of both fair reimbursement and Medicare reimbursement for TJA to be even higher. Foran and colleagues⁴ surveyed 1120 patients who thought surgeons deserved to be paid $14,358 for THA and $13,322 for TKA, on average. These reimbursement values are nearly an order of magnitude higher than actual reimbursements. For Medicare payments, patients lowered their estimates to $8212 for THA and $7196 for TKA.⁴

To our knowledge, the present study is the first to use a “postconsumer” survey to assess patients’ perceptions of THA and TKA costs. Our results confirmed that patients substantially overestimated reimbursement for THA and TKA at $11,872 and $12,263, respectively, relative to the average Medicare reimbursements of $1467 and $1530, respectively.¹¹ We also found that patients overestimated both hospital cost and reimbursement for THA at $22,981 and $27,366, respectively, relative to recently published hospital economic analyses showing THA cost and reimbursement to be $11,688 and $15,789, respectively.¹² Few patients enrolled in our study demonstrated an understanding of the services included in the global surgical package. Only about 12% of patients correctly indicated there was no additional payment to the physician for initial follow-up appointments. However, patients were fairly accurate in their estimates of implant cost. On average, patients who underwent THA priced their implant at $6823, which is only about 9% higher than the reported median cost of $6072 to $6400.^13,14

We also found significant differences in perceptions of cost based on level of education, joint replaced, and overall level of satisfaction. On average, patients with a bachelor’s degree or higher gave estimates of cost and reimbursement that were lower than those given by patients with a lower level of education. Estimates of physician reimbursement and hospital reimbursement and cost were higher from patients who had TKA than from patients who had THA.

Comparing perceptions of reimbursement for appendectomy and coronary artery bypass with perceptions for TJA, Foran and colleagues⁴ found that patients understood the relative complexity of each procedure, as evidenced by their estimates of fair reimbursement for each. However, in comparing patient estimates for the different components of cost and reimbursement for TJA, we found great variability in understanding. Patients in our study overestimated payments to the hospital by 73% but overestimated the cost of the THA implant by only 9%. However, the same patients overestimated physician reimbursement for THA by about 800%. If these patients’ estimates of reimbursement are considered surrogates for relative value, then physicians, based on actual payments, are grossly undervalued relative to implant manufacturers.

Our study had several limitations. First, the enrolled patients were all seen at one medical center, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and our results may not be generalizable outside the region. Second, the survey respondents were postoperative patients who had an established relationship with the study’s principal investigators—a relationship that may have been a source of bias in the consideration of reimbursement as a function of value. Third, despite our efforts to carefully design a survey with open-ended responses, the order in which the survey questions were presented may have influenced patient responses. Fourth, the open-ended question design may have had an impact on responses where the correct answer would have required entering 0.00.

Despite these limitations, our study results demonstrated general public misconceptions about cost and reimbursement for common orthopedic procedures. Although more transparency in health care cost information may not immediately result in a more well-informed population,¹⁵ our patients, given the opportunity to develop an understanding of the economics of their own medical treatment, may become better prepared to make informed choices regarding changes in health care policy.

Medical economics has been a major sociopolitical issue in the United States for the past 20 years, with concerns focused on increasing medical spending. These costs are projected to continue to rise, from 15.3% of gross domestic product in 2002 to 19.6% in 2017.¹

Multiple steps have been taken to help reduce the cost of health care, many of which center on physician reimbursement. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 worked to control Medicare spending by increasing reimbursement for clinic visits by setting reductions for procedural reimbursements. This specifically affects orthopedic surgeons, who between 1991 and 2002 experienced a 28% reduction in reimbursement, after inflation, for commonly performed orthopedic procedures, including hip and knee arthroplasty.² Unfortunately, this system does not take into account the value of services as perceived by patients.

Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are well-established surgical treatments for advanced osteoarthritis of the hip and knee, respectively. Much research has been done on patient satisfaction with these procedures and on their long-term results and cost-effectiveness. These procedures rank among the highest in patient satisfaction, and improvements in technique and technology have steadily improved long-term results. THA and TKA have proved to be cost-effective in appropriately indicated patients.

The demand for THA and TKA is projected to increase by 174% and 673%, respectively, from 2005 to 2030.³ Legislators, payers, health care providers, and patients are understandably concerned about the rising cost of health care and the implications for access to elective surgical procedures. In a recent study by Foran and colleagues,⁴ surveyed postoperative patients indicated that Medicare reimbursement was “much lower” for arthroplasty than it should be. In addition, they overestimated (compared with national averages) what Medicare reimburses for hip and knee arthroplasty. Many raised concerns that orthopedic surgeons might drop Medicare entirely.⁴

These misconceptions about reimbursement may stem partly from the inaccessibility of health care cost information. Rosenthal and colleagues⁵ recently queried a random selection of US hospitals and demonstrated the difficulty in obtaining THA pricing information.

In a system in which consumers and payers are often not one and the same, it is unclear if consumers understand the cost of their health care. We conducted a study to assess patients’ perceptions of the cost of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and gain insight into their understanding of health care costs and their sense of the value of this elective surgical procedure.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining institutional review board approval and informed consent for this study, we surveyed 284 consecutive patients who underwent THA or TKA at an academic medical center. Patients had either primary or revision surgery performed (by Dr. Hallstrom or Dr. Urquhart) and were surveyed during their first (2-week) postoperative visit, between March 1, 2012 and December 20, 2012.

Surveys were labeled with patient identifiers to facilitate abstraction of data from electronic medical records. Operative reports and discharge summaries were reviewed for data that included sex, age, diagnosis, procedure, surgeon, implant, admission date, and length of stay.

The survey asked for demographic information, including level of education, insurance coverage, and annual household income, and included a question to verify the surgical procedure and a question to determine if the patient had reviewed a hospital billing statement pertaining to the patient’s admission. The survey also included these questions about reimbursement and cost:

• How much do you feel your orthopedic surgeon was reimbursed for your surgery? (EXCLUDING payments to the hospital)

• How much do you think your surgeon gets reimbursed to see you IN THE HOSPITAL after surgery?

• How much do you think your surgeon gets reimbursed per visit to see you IN CLINIC for follow-up during the first 3 months after surgery?

• How much do you think the implant used in your surgery cost?

• How much do you think the hospital was reimbursed for your surgery and admission to the hospital after surgery? (EXCLUDING payments to the surgeon)

• How much do you think it cost the hospital to provide your surgery and admission to the hospital after surgery?

Responses were limited to numeric currency format using a response area as shown in Figure 1. Overall patient satisfaction was elicited with use of a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Regarding type of implant used, patients could select from 6 prominent vendors or indicate “other” or “don’t know.” They were also asked which of several factors should primarily determine surgeon reimbursement: overall patient satisfaction, technical difficulty, amount of risk/possible harm, duration/amount of time, and rate of complications. A free-response comments section was provided at the end of the survey.

Data from the survey and the electronic medical records were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap; Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee). Statistical analysis was performed with SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Data were screened before further analysis. Patients who provided nonnumeric responses in numeric response fields were excluded from further analysis. Numeric ranges were applied in subsequent analysis using the mean of the range. Implausible responses resulted in the removal of the entire encounter from subsequent analysis.

Demographic data used to define categories for further subgroup analysis are presented as percentages of the group. Medians, means, and interquartile ranges were calculated for all responses regarding reimbursement and cost. Differences in perceptions of reimbursement and cost based on subgroups, including procedure type, diagnosis, education level, and satisfaction, were calculated. Independent-samples Student t tests were used to determine the statistical significance of the differences detected.

Results

Of the 400 eligible patients seen at the first postoperative follow-up, 284 (71%) were enrolled in the study. Mean (SD) age was 62.6 (12.6) years. Of the 284 patients enrolled, 154 (54%) were female. Of the participants who reported their education and income, 125 (44%) had a bachelor’s degree or higher degree, and 68 (23.9%) reported income of more than $100,000 per year. The largest payers reported by patients were private insurance (80%) and Medicare (46%). Additional demographic details are listed in Table 1.

Of the 284 patients enrolled in the study, 159 (56%) had THA, and 88 (31%) had TKA (Table 2). Thirty-seven patients (13%) underwent revision procedures. Only 5 patients (2%) indicated they had reviewed their hospital billing statement from their most recent admission. Two hundred forty-two patients (85%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their procedure.

Regarding the implant used in their surgery, 216 patients (76%) indicated they did not know which company manufactured it. Of the 68 patients (24%) who named a manufacturer, 53 (78%) were correct in their selection (intraoperative records were checked). Patients indicated they thought the implant used in their surgery cost $6447 on average (95% CI, $5581-$7312).

On average, patients thought their surgeon was reimbursed $12,014 (95% CI, $10,845-$13,183) for their procedure, and they estimated that the hospital was reimbursed $28,392 (95% CI, $25,271-$31,512) for their perioperative care and that it cost the hospital $24,389 (95% CI, $21,612-$27,165) to provide it. Means, confidence intervals, medians, and interquartile ranges for parameters of reimbursement and cost are listed in Table 3. Seventy-one patients (25%) thought on average that the hospital took a net loss for each TJA performed, and 146 patients (51%) thought on average that the hospital generated a net profit for each TJA.

On average, patients thought surgeons were reimbursed $11,872 for a THA and $12,263 for a TKA. Patients also estimated a higher hospital cost (THA, $22,981; TKA, $26,998) and reimbursement (THA, $27,366; TKA, $30,230) after TKA than THA. These differences in perceptions of cost and reimbursement for THA and TKA appear in Table 4 and Figure 2.

Statistically significant differences were also found in perceptions of cost and reimbursement based on level of education and overall patient satisfaction. Patients with a bachelor’s degree or higher estimated physician reimbursement at $11,006, whereas patients with a lower level of education estimated reimbursement at $12,890. In addition, patients with a lower level of education gave estimates of hospital cost and reimbursement that were $7698 and $10,799 higher, respectively, than the estimates given by patients with a higher level of education (Table 5, Figure 3). Patients who were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall TJA experience estimated surgeon reimbursement at $11,673. Patients who indicated they were unsatisfied, very unsatisfied, or neutral regarding their overall experience gave a higher estimate of surgeon reimbursement: $14,317 (Table 6, Figure 4).

Because of the small number of enrolled patients who had revision surgery and the high variability in patient responses, there were no meaningful or statistically significant differences in perceptions of cost and reimbursement based on revision or primary surgery.

Patients also estimated substantial additional reimbursements to physicians for services included at no additional charge with the global surgical package. Median estimates were $300 for reimbursement to a physician making rounds in the hospital and $250 for reimbursement for an outpatient follow-up. Only 47 patients (17%) and 35 patients (12%) correctly indicated there is no additional payment for making rounds and outpatient follow-up, respectively. Estimates of these reimbursements varied by education level, procedure, and overall satisfaction (Tables 4–6).

Discussion

The sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, was constructed to manage health care costs in the context of overall economic growth. By 2001, Medicare health care expenditures had begun to outpace economic growth, and the SGR formula dictated a reduction in reimbursement to physicians. Each year over the past decade, Congress has passed legislation providing a temporary reprieve, staving off a drastic reduction of as much as 25% in 2010.⁶ Despite these adjustments, reimbursement continues to decrease because of overall inflation.

More worrisome is that “more than half of the nearly trillion dollar price tag for expanding coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be paid by decreasing spending for the more than 46.3 million individuals covered by Medicare.”⁷ ACA provisions will also create an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to oversee health care costs and reduce Medicare spending when it is expected to exceed target levels.⁸ As IPAB cannot recommend increasing revenues or changing benefits, and because it is initially prohibited from recommending decreasing payments to hospitals, the decreases will likely have the greatest impact on physician reimbursement.^7-9

Health care policy has been a major campaign issue during recent US elections. The public and popular media remain engaged in this important discussion. Although patients, policymakers, and physicians are understandably concerned about cost and access to health care, it is unclear if patients understand the distribution of health care cost and reimbursement.

Other authors have studied patients’ perceptions of physician reimbursement for TJA. Hayden and colleagues¹⁰ surveyed 1000 residents of a Texas city. The 121 who responded to the survey thought that fair compensation for performing a TKA was $5080, on average.¹⁰ Although this was significantly higher than the actual Medicare reimbursement at the time, a later study, by Foran and colleagues,⁴ found patients’ estimates of both fair reimbursement and Medicare reimbursement for TJA to be even higher. Foran and colleagues⁴ surveyed 1120 patients who thought surgeons deserved to be paid $14,358 for THA and $13,322 for TKA, on average. These reimbursement values are nearly an order of magnitude higher than actual reimbursements. For Medicare payments, patients lowered their estimates to $8212 for THA and $7196 for TKA.⁴

To our knowledge, the present study is the first to use a “postconsumer” survey to assess patients’ perceptions of THA and TKA costs. Our results confirmed that patients substantially overestimated reimbursement for THA and TKA at $11,872 and $12,263, respectively, relative to the average Medicare reimbursements of $1467 and $1530, respectively.¹¹ We also found that patients overestimated both hospital cost and reimbursement for THA at $22,981 and $27,366, respectively, relative to recently published hospital economic analyses showing THA cost and reimbursement to be $11,688 and $15,789, respectively.¹² Few patients enrolled in our study demonstrated an understanding of the services included in the global surgical package. Only about 12% of patients correctly indicated there was no additional payment to the physician for initial follow-up appointments. However, patients were fairly accurate in their estimates of implant cost. On average, patients who underwent THA priced their implant at $6823, which is only about 9% higher than the reported median cost of $6072 to $6400.^13,14

We also found significant differences in perceptions of cost based on level of education, joint replaced, and overall level of satisfaction. On average, patients with a bachelor’s degree or higher gave estimates of cost and reimbursement that were lower than those given by patients with a lower level of education. Estimates of physician reimbursement and hospital reimbursement and cost were higher from patients who had TKA than from patients who had THA.

Comparing perceptions of reimbursement for appendectomy and coronary artery bypass with perceptions for TJA, Foran and colleagues⁴ found that patients understood the relative complexity of each procedure, as evidenced by their estimates of fair reimbursement for each. However, in comparing patient estimates for the different components of cost and reimbursement for TJA, we found great variability in understanding. Patients in our study overestimated payments to the hospital by 73% but overestimated the cost of the THA implant by only 9%. However, the same patients overestimated physician reimbursement for THA by about 800%. If these patients’ estimates of reimbursement are considered surrogates for relative value, then physicians, based on actual payments, are grossly undervalued relative to implant manufacturers.

Our study had several limitations. First, the enrolled patients were all seen at one medical center, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and our results may not be generalizable outside the region. Second, the survey respondents were postoperative patients who had an established relationship with the study’s principal investigators—a relationship that may have been a source of bias in the consideration of reimbursement as a function of value. Third, despite our efforts to carefully design a survey with open-ended responses, the order in which the survey questions were presented may have influenced patient responses. Fourth, the open-ended question design may have had an impact on responses where the correct answer would have required entering 0.00.

Despite these limitations, our study results demonstrated general public misconceptions about cost and reimbursement for common orthopedic procedures. Although more transparency in health care cost information may not immediately result in a more well-informed population,¹⁵ our patients, given the opportunity to develop an understanding of the economics of their own medical treatment, may become better prepared to make informed choices regarding changes in health care policy.

Polydactyly is the presence of extra digits. Its incidence is likely underestimated because many practitioners treat simple “nubbins” without referring them to orthopedic specialists.^1-3 Polydactyly can be detected by ultrasound as early as 14 weeks’ gestational age, with partial autoamputation seen in most isolated polydactylies.⁴ The thumb, responsible for 40% of hand function, must be able to oppose the other digits with a stable pinch.⁵ Polydactyly encumbers this motion when the duplicated digits deviate from normal alignment. Ezaki⁶ noted that the anatomy is better described as “split” than “duplicated.” There are many dichotomous ways to classify polydactyly: preaxial (radial) versus postaxial (ulnar), thumb versus triphalangeal, simple versus complex (Figure 1). Mixed polydactyly is defined as the presence of preaxial and postaxial polydactyly.⁷ Surgical management seeks to allow normal hand function and to restore cosmesis.

Epidemiology

Sun and colleagues⁸ reported the overall polydactyly incidence as 2 per 1000 live births in China from 1998 to 2009, with a slight male predominance; polydactyly was also 3 times more common than syndactyly in this population. Ivy,⁹ in a 5-year audit of Pennsylvania Department of Health records, found polydactyly to be the fourth most common congenital anomaly after clubfoot, cleft lip/palate, and spina bifida. Thumb duplication occurs in 0.08 to 1.4 per 1000 live births and is more common in American Indians and Asians than in other races.^5,10 It occurs in a male-to-female ratio of 2.5 to 1 and is most often unilateral.⁵ Postaxial polydactyly is predominant in black infants; it is most often inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion, if isolated, or in an autosomal recessive pattern, if syndromic.¹ A prospective San Diego study of 11,161 newborns found postaxial type B polydactyly in 1 per 531 live births (1 per 143 black infants, 1 per 1339 white infants); 76% of cases were bilateral, and 86% had a positive family history.³ In patients of non-African descent, it is associated with anomalies in other organs. Central duplication is rare and often autosomal dominant.^5,10

Genetics and Development

As early as 1896, the heritability of polydactyly was noted.¹¹ As of 2010, polydactyly has been associated with 310 diseases.¹² Ninety-nine genes, most involved in regulation of anterior-posterior formation of the limb bud, have been implicated.^12,13

The upper limb begins to form at day 26 in utero.¹⁴ Apoptosis in the interdigital necrotic zones results in the formation of individual digits. It is presumed that, in polydactyly, the involved tissue is hypoplastic because of an abnormal interaction between mesoderm and ectoderm.⁵ Presence of an apical ectodermal ridge determines the formation of a limb bud, and on it the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA) dictates preaxial and postaxial alignment.^14,15 The ZPA is located on the posterior zone of the developing limb bud. The levels of GLI3, a zinc finger-containing DNA-binding protein, are highest in the anterior area, and HAND2, a basic helix-loop-helix DNA-binding protein, is found in the ZPA. This polarity promotes sonic hedgehog (Shh) gene expression in the posterior region, which in turn prevents GLI3 cleavage into its repressed form. GLI3R (repressed) and GLI3A (active) concentrations are highest, therefore, in the anterior and posterior portions of the bud, respectively. The GLI3A:GLI3R ratio is responsible for the identity and number of digits in the hand (ie, the thumb develops in regions of high GLI3R). GLI and Shh mutations lead to polydactylous hands with absent thumbs (Figure 2).¹⁶

Ciliopathies have also been shown to cause postaxial polydactyly, possibly because of the role that nonmotile cilia play in hedgehog signaling.¹⁷ Mutations in Shh genomic regulators cause preaxial polydactyly.¹⁸ HoxD activates Shh in the ZPA; HoxD13 mutations are associated with synpolydactyly.^16,19 In each of these mutations, Shh production is altered, and some form of polydactyly results.

Associations

Many syndromes have been associated with polydactyly. Not all polydactyly is associated with other disorders, but the more complex the polydactyly, the more likely that other anomalies are present. Every patient who presents with polydactyly should have a full history taken and a physical examination performed (Figure 3). Any patient with syndromic findings or atypical presentations (eg, triphalangism, postaxial polydactyly in a patient of non-African descent, central and index polydactyly) should be referred to a geneticist.

Classifications

The Wassel²⁰ classification describes the anatomical presentation of thumb duplication on the basis of 70 cases in Iowa (Figures 4, 5; Table 1). Because some duplications fall outside the Wassel classification, many researchers have proposed modifications (Figure 6).^21-25

The Temtamy and McKusick¹⁰ classification, which is the product of geneticists, classifies duplications by grouping genetically related presentations (Table 2). It provides the most commonly used postaxial classification, with type A being a fully developed digit and type B a rudimentary and pedunculated digit, informally referred to as a nubbin. Type B is more common than type A. Given inheritance patterns, it is assumed that type A is likely multifactorial and type B autosomal dominant.¹⁰ Thumb polydactyly inheritance is still unclear. The other types of preaxial polydactyly and high degrees of polydactyly are rare but seem to be passed on in an autosomal dominant fashion on pedigree analysis.¹⁰

The Stelling and Turek classification presents the duplication from a tissue perspective: Type I duplication is a rudimentary mass devoid of other tissue elements; type II is a subtotal duplication with some normal structures; and type III is a duplication of the entire “osteoarticular column,” including the metacarpal.¹ It is interesting to note that histology of type I duplications shows neuroma-like tissue.^26-28 Again, normal is a relative term because, in polydactyly, the duplications are hypoplastic and deviated, with anomalous anatomy.

The Rayan classification describes ulnar polydactyly and was derived from a case study series of 148 patients in Oklahoma (Table 3).²⁹

There are also some complex polydactylies that are not easily classified: ulnar dimelia, cleft hand, pentadactyly, and hyperphalangism. Ulnar dimelia, also known as “mirror hand,” is typically 7 digits with no thumb, but other variations are seen. The radius is often absent, and the elbow is abnormal. There is some debate about whether it is a fusion of 2 hands. Pentadactyly, or the 5-fingered hand, appears as 5 triphalangeal digits with no thumb (Figure 7).

Isolated thumb triphalangism might appear similar to pentadactyly. Miura^30,31 pointed out that the radial digit in the pentadactylous hand may be opposable (thumb-like) or nonopposable; in his studies, the patients with the opposable thumb had a metacarpal with a proximal epiphysis (Figure 8). Consequently, the triphalangeal thumb metacarpal with a distal epiphysis is true pentadactyly, whereas that with a proximal epiphysis is hyperphalangism (Figure 9). Treatment of these complex polydactylies involves the same underlying principles as for preaxial and postaxial polydactyly, albeit with additional proximal upper extremity considerations.

When to Operate (Timing)

Ezaki⁶ recommended surgical intervention at age 6 to 9 months, before fine motor skills have developed with the abnormal anatomy. Cortical learning occurs as the child begins prehensile activities before 6 months, but the risks of anesthesia outweigh functional benefits until the child is older. Waiting until 1 year of age is not uncommon, though surgery at an earlier age may be beneficial if the polydactyly affects hand function.³² It is not uncommon to wait with the more balanced thumb polydactylies to assess thumb function. Hypoplasia might also delay surgical intervention until there is enough tissue inventory for reconstruction. Wassel²⁰ noted that surgical intervention ideally occurs before the supernumerary elements displace the normal elements, as tends to happen with growth. Suture ligation is an option in the neonatal unit for some pedunculated digits.³³ Studies have shown satisfactory results in adults treated for polydactyly, if the patient presents later than expected.³⁴

Surgical Considerations

Knavel recommended simple excision, stating that “ablation requires no ingenuity and creates no problems.”⁵ This belief, though true for some duplications, will not lead to the best outcome for more complex polydactylies. The goal of surgery is a stable and well-aligned thumb for pinch and prehensile activity, as well as a cosmetically pleasing hand. Incisions should not be made linearly along the axis of the digit, as the scar will cause deviation with growth.²⁴

Wassel type I polydactyly might appear incidentally as a broad thumb, in which case it requires no intervention (Figure 10). However, in Wassel types I and II polydactyly with deformity, the Bilhaut-Cloquet procedure is useful for both bifid and duplicated phalanges (Figure 11).^5,6,30,32,35 Collateral ligaments may need to be released in type II because of difficulty in opposing the tissue. Cosmetic results with Bilhaut-Cloquet are unpredictable. The original technique required symmetrically sized digits; results today have been improved with microtechniques and preservation of an entire nail.³⁶ Another option is ablation of the more hypoplastic osseous element and soft-tissue augmentation of the residual digit. The theme of ablation and augmentation is seen throughout the literature for the surgical treatment of polydactyly (Figure 12).¹

For type III polydactyly, the bifid proximal phalanx is narrowed by resection and realigned with osteotomy of the remaining diaphysis. Type IV polydactyly, the most common thumb duplication, often requires advancement of the abductor pollicis brevis to the base of the proximal phalanx to aid in metacarpophalangeal (MCP) stabilization, abduction, and opposition. The metacarpal head, if broad and with 2 facets, can be shaped to form a single articulating surface. The metacarpal, occasionally with the proximal phalanx, often requires realignment by closing wedge osteotomy. Last, tendons on the resected bony elements should be rebalanced on the remaining digit, and anomalous slips must be released. For instance, given a radial insertion of the long flexor tendon on the distal phalanx, the tendon should be moved centrally. A strong flexor or extensor tendon on the amputated digit should be transferred to the remaining digit.²⁴

Types V and VI are treated similarly to type IV, with the addition of a first web space Z-plasty or web widening if there is thenar eminence contracture. Acral transposition has also been described, with transposition of the tip of the ablated digit in place of the tip of the kept digit; this technique is ideal if one digit has a more normal proximal part while the other has a more normal distal part (Figure 13).³⁵

Type VII thumb polydactyly, the type most likely inherited and associated with other disorders, should be treated like type VI. The nail should be preserved; amputation of the distal phalanx is not advised. Resection of the delta phalanx or 1 interphalangeal (IP) joint is an option. Articular surfaces will remodel if done before the age of 1 year. If the thenar eminence is hypoplastic, then Huber transfer of the abductor digiti minimi should be considered.³⁷ Resection of the triphalangeal thumb is also advised, even if the biphalangeal thumb is more hypoplastic, with transfer of the ligaments and tendons, as described earlier.^{5,6,24,30,32,35}

Thumb triphalangism, if isolated, and hyperphalangism in the other digits, can be treated with resection of the delta phalanx or one of the IP joints if it is affecting function or cosmesis.^1,6 Wood and Flatt²³ recommended early resection of a thumb delta phalanx because of the likelihood of deviation that impedes thumb function. For children, they recommended delta phalanx resection and Kirschner wire fixation for 6 weeks; for adults, they recommended resection or fusion of the joint, with osteotomy as needed for deviation.^23,24 For thumb triphalangism, multiple surgeries are the norm, as Wood²⁴ reported in his study of 21 patients who underwent 78 operations in total.

Index polydactyly may present as a simple pedunculated skin tag, which can be simply excised, or as a more complex musculoskeletal duplication. More complex presentations can be treated with procedures similar to those used for the thumb. Typically, the additional digit is radially deviated and angulated, eventually leading to impingement of thumb pinch and the first web space. Ray amputation is also an option if no reconstructive surgery will produce the stable, sensate radial pinch that is essential to hand function.³²

Ring-finger polydactyly and long-finger polydactyly are often complicated by some element of syndactyly, resulting in a relative paucity of skin (Figure 14). There is failure of both formation (hypoplasia) and differentiation (syndactyly). The hypoplasia particularly affects the function of these digits by tethering them; multiple surgeries to restore proper hand function are the norm.¹ Reconstructive surgery for these digits requires preoperative tissue inventory followed by resection and augmentation; as in syndactyly, skin for coverage is at a premium. Creation of a 3-fingered hand is an option.²³

Temtamy and McKusick¹⁰ type A little-finger polydactyly is treated similarly to the thumb, with the caveat that hypothenar and intrinsic muscles that insert on the resected little finger are transferred to the remaining digit. In contrast to thumb polydactyly, the extrinsic musculature tends to be in good position. Suture ligation of type B polydactyly, as described by Flatt, is likely more common than orthopedists appreciate, as pediatricians and neonatal unit practitioners commonly perform this procedure in the nursery.^1-3 It has been described with 2-0 Vicryl³ (Ethicon, Somerville, New Jersey) and 4-0 silk sutures,³² with the goal of necrosis and autoamputation. Parents should be told the finger generally falls off about 10 days (range, 4-21 days) after ligation.³ Multiple authors have cited a report of exsanguination from suture ligation, but we could not locate the primary source. It is advisable to wait until a patient is 6 months of age if planning to resect the nubbin in the operating room, given the anesthesia risk and the lack of functional impairment. Katz and Linder³³ indicated they remove type B polydactyly in the nursery suite used for circumcisions; they use anesthetizing cream on the skin, and sharp excision with a scalpel, followed by direct pressure and Steri-Strip (3M, St. Paul, Minnesota) application. Suture ligation is recommended only if there is a narrow, thin (<2 mm) soft-tissue stalk; any broad or bony stalk necessitates surgical removal to avoid neuroma formation and failure of autonecrosis (Figure 15).²⁷ Other options are a single swipe of a scalpel and elliptical excision; sharp transaction of the digital nerve with subsequent retraction is advised to avoid neuroma formation.²

Barton described ulnar dimelia operations as “spare parts surgery.”¹ Extra digits are ablated and a thumb created (Figure 16). The hand might have a digit in relatively good rotational position for thumbplasty, or the principles of pollicization may need to be used. If the patient is already using the hand, the surgeon should note which finger the patient uses as a thumb.²⁴ Any accompanying wrist flexion contracture must be corrected with careful attention to musculotendinous balancing. Because the forearm and elbow, and occasionally even the more proximal limb, will be abnormal in this disorder, multiple surgeries are again the norm.¹

Pentadactyly is treated like thumb hypoplasia, with first web space creation.¹

Complications

In polydactyly, a reoperation rate of up to 25% has been reported, with most reoperations performed because of residual or subsequent deformity.^5,30,31,38 Risk factors for reoperation are type IV thumb duplication, preoperative “zigzag” deformity, and radially deviated thumb elements at presentation.⁵ The delta phalanx may not show on radiographs until the patient is 18 months old, but functional deformity will worsen as long as it is present. Zigzag deformity may be due to the delta phalanx or to musculotendinous imbalance, such as a radially inserted flexor pollicis longus (FPL) or lack of stable MCP abduction. Miura³¹ found that careful reconstruction of the joint capsule and thenar muscles from the ablated digit to the remnant digit is the key to a successful initial surgery. Lee and colleagues³⁹ defined zigzag deformity as more than 20° MCP and IP angulation; for cases present before surgery, they recommended FPL relocation by the pullout technique in addition to osteotomies to prevent further interphalangeal deviation (Figures 17, 18).

Abnormal physeal growth, joint instability, and stiffness can all occur. Stiffness is particularly difficult to treat but seldom presents a functional problem. Joint enlargement, which is not uncommon, results from either broad articular surfaces or retained cartilage from the perichondral ring after resection that later ossifies.^5,38 Nubbin-type duplications may not fall off after suture ligation, necessitating further excision, and a cosmetic bump is seen after 40% of suture ligations.³ Patillo and Rayan²⁸ and Rayan and Frey²⁹ warned against suture ligation unless the nubbin has a small stalk because of the possibility of infection and gangrene. The excised nubbin tissue is histologically nervous, and there have been reports of painful neuromas in the remaining scar of a ligated nubbin that respond well to excision.^26,27,40 It is thought that these painful lesions form because the ligature prevents the digital nerves to the vestigial digit from retracting.²⁷ Nail deformity and IP joint stiffness are seen with the Bilhaut-Cloquet procedure, though often finger function remains satisfactory.

Conclusion

Polydactyly is a common congenital hand abnormality. Its true incidence is unknown because of inconsistent documentation. Surgeons must strive for a functional, cosmetic hand, given a diverse set of possible anomalies. Hypoplasia is the rule; tissue should be ablated and augmented as necessary. Musculotendinous insertions may need to be centralized. Patients’ family members should always be counseled that more surgery may be needed in the future, as further deformity can occur with growth. Surgically corrected thumb duplications will be stiffer, shorter, and thinner than their normal counterparts. Nail ridges are common. However, it should be noted that 88% of these patients are satisfied with their results.⁴¹ Some amount of contracture and abnormal function should be expected with index-, long-, and ring-finger duplications. The only remnant of type B postaxial duplications may be a slight discoloration or bump, though stiffness and deformity can happen with a type A deformity. A “duplicated” digit that requires surgical correction will never be completely normal, but acceptable function is routinely achievable.

Polydactyly is the presence of extra digits. Its incidence is likely underestimated because many practitioners treat simple “nubbins” without referring them to orthopedic specialists.^1-3 Polydactyly can be detected by ultrasound as early as 14 weeks’ gestational age, with partial autoamputation seen in most isolated polydactylies.⁴ The thumb, responsible for 40% of hand function, must be able to oppose the other digits with a stable pinch.⁵ Polydactyly encumbers this motion when the duplicated digits deviate from normal alignment. Ezaki⁶ noted that the anatomy is better described as “split” than “duplicated.” There are many dichotomous ways to classify polydactyly: preaxial (radial) versus postaxial (ulnar), thumb versus triphalangeal, simple versus complex (Figure 1). Mixed polydactyly is defined as the presence of preaxial and postaxial polydactyly.⁷ Surgical management seeks to allow normal hand function and to restore cosmesis.

Epidemiology

Sun and colleagues⁸ reported the overall polydactyly incidence as 2 per 1000 live births in China from 1998 to 2009, with a slight male predominance; polydactyly was also 3 times more common than syndactyly in this population. Ivy,⁹ in a 5-year audit of Pennsylvania Department of Health records, found polydactyly to be the fourth most common congenital anomaly after clubfoot, cleft lip/palate, and spina bifida. Thumb duplication occurs in 0.08 to 1.4 per 1000 live births and is more common in American Indians and Asians than in other races.^5,10 It occurs in a male-to-female ratio of 2.5 to 1 and is most often unilateral.⁵ Postaxial polydactyly is predominant in black infants; it is most often inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion, if isolated, or in an autosomal recessive pattern, if syndromic.¹ A prospective San Diego study of 11,161 newborns found postaxial type B polydactyly in 1 per 531 live births (1 per 143 black infants, 1 per 1339 white infants); 76% of cases were bilateral, and 86% had a positive family history.³ In patients of non-African descent, it is associated with anomalies in other organs. Central duplication is rare and often autosomal dominant.^5,10

Genetics and Development

As early as 1896, the heritability of polydactyly was noted.¹¹ As of 2010, polydactyly has been associated with 310 diseases.¹² Ninety-nine genes, most involved in regulation of anterior-posterior formation of the limb bud, have been implicated.^12,13

The upper limb begins to form at day 26 in utero.¹⁴ Apoptosis in the interdigital necrotic zones results in the formation of individual digits. It is presumed that, in polydactyly, the involved tissue is hypoplastic because of an abnormal interaction between mesoderm and ectoderm.⁵ Presence of an apical ectodermal ridge determines the formation of a limb bud, and on it the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA) dictates preaxial and postaxial alignment.^14,15 The ZPA is located on the posterior zone of the developing limb bud. The levels of GLI3, a zinc finger-containing DNA-binding protein, are highest in the anterior area, and HAND2, a basic helix-loop-helix DNA-binding protein, is found in the ZPA. This polarity promotes sonic hedgehog (Shh) gene expression in the posterior region, which in turn prevents GLI3 cleavage into its repressed form. GLI3R (repressed) and GLI3A (active) concentrations are highest, therefore, in the anterior and posterior portions of the bud, respectively. The GLI3A:GLI3R ratio is responsible for the identity and number of digits in the hand (ie, the thumb develops in regions of high GLI3R). GLI and Shh mutations lead to polydactylous hands with absent thumbs (Figure 2).¹⁶

Ciliopathies have also been shown to cause postaxial polydactyly, possibly because of the role that nonmotile cilia play in hedgehog signaling.¹⁷ Mutations in Shh genomic regulators cause preaxial polydactyly.¹⁸ HoxD activates Shh in the ZPA; HoxD13 mutations are associated with synpolydactyly.^16,19 In each of these mutations, Shh production is altered, and some form of polydactyly results.

Associations

Many syndromes have been associated with polydactyly. Not all polydactyly is associated with other disorders, but the more complex the polydactyly, the more likely that other anomalies are present. Every patient who presents with polydactyly should have a full history taken and a physical examination performed (Figure 3). Any patient with syndromic findings or atypical presentations (eg, triphalangism, postaxial polydactyly in a patient of non-African descent, central and index polydactyly) should be referred to a geneticist.

Classifications

The Wassel²⁰ classification describes the anatomical presentation of thumb duplication on the basis of 70 cases in Iowa (Figures 4, 5; Table 1). Because some duplications fall outside the Wassel classification, many researchers have proposed modifications (Figure 6).^21-25

The Temtamy and McKusick¹⁰ classification, which is the product of geneticists, classifies duplications by grouping genetically related presentations (Table 2). It provides the most commonly used postaxial classification, with type A being a fully developed digit and type B a rudimentary and pedunculated digit, informally referred to as a nubbin. Type B is more common than type A. Given inheritance patterns, it is assumed that type A is likely multifactorial and type B autosomal dominant.¹⁰ Thumb polydactyly inheritance is still unclear. The other types of preaxial polydactyly and high degrees of polydactyly are rare but seem to be passed on in an autosomal dominant fashion on pedigree analysis.¹⁰

The Stelling and Turek classification presents the duplication from a tissue perspective: Type I duplication is a rudimentary mass devoid of other tissue elements; type II is a subtotal duplication with some normal structures; and type III is a duplication of the entire “osteoarticular column,” including the metacarpal.¹ It is interesting to note that histology of type I duplications shows neuroma-like tissue.^26-28 Again, normal is a relative term because, in polydactyly, the duplications are hypoplastic and deviated, with anomalous anatomy.

The Rayan classification describes ulnar polydactyly and was derived from a case study series of 148 patients in Oklahoma (Table 3).²⁹

There are also some complex polydactylies that are not easily classified: ulnar dimelia, cleft hand, pentadactyly, and hyperphalangism. Ulnar dimelia, also known as “mirror hand,” is typically 7 digits with no thumb, but other variations are seen. The radius is often absent, and the elbow is abnormal. There is some debate about whether it is a fusion of 2 hands. Pentadactyly, or the 5-fingered hand, appears as 5 triphalangeal digits with no thumb (Figure 7).

Isolated thumb triphalangism might appear similar to pentadactyly. Miura^30,31 pointed out that the radial digit in the pentadactylous hand may be opposable (thumb-like) or nonopposable; in his studies, the patients with the opposable thumb had a metacarpal with a proximal epiphysis (Figure 8). Consequently, the triphalangeal thumb metacarpal with a distal epiphysis is true pentadactyly, whereas that with a proximal epiphysis is hyperphalangism (Figure 9). Treatment of these complex polydactylies involves the same underlying principles as for preaxial and postaxial polydactyly, albeit with additional proximal upper extremity considerations.

When to Operate (Timing)

Ezaki⁶ recommended surgical intervention at age 6 to 9 months, before fine motor skills have developed with the abnormal anatomy. Cortical learning occurs as the child begins prehensile activities before 6 months, but the risks of anesthesia outweigh functional benefits until the child is older. Waiting until 1 year of age is not uncommon, though surgery at an earlier age may be beneficial if the polydactyly affects hand function.³² It is not uncommon to wait with the more balanced thumb polydactylies to assess thumb function. Hypoplasia might also delay surgical intervention until there is enough tissue inventory for reconstruction. Wassel²⁰ noted that surgical intervention ideally occurs before the supernumerary elements displace the normal elements, as tends to happen with growth. Suture ligation is an option in the neonatal unit for some pedunculated digits.³³ Studies have shown satisfactory results in adults treated for polydactyly, if the patient presents later than expected.³⁴

Surgical Considerations

Knavel recommended simple excision, stating that “ablation requires no ingenuity and creates no problems.”⁵ This belief, though true for some duplications, will not lead to the best outcome for more complex polydactylies. The goal of surgery is a stable and well-aligned thumb for pinch and prehensile activity, as well as a cosmetically pleasing hand. Incisions should not be made linearly along the axis of the digit, as the scar will cause deviation with growth.²⁴

Wassel type I polydactyly might appear incidentally as a broad thumb, in which case it requires no intervention (Figure 10). However, in Wassel types I and II polydactyly with deformity, the Bilhaut-Cloquet procedure is useful for both bifid and duplicated phalanges (Figure 11).^5,6,30,32,35 Collateral ligaments may need to be released in type II because of difficulty in opposing the tissue. Cosmetic results with Bilhaut-Cloquet are unpredictable. The original technique required symmetrically sized digits; results today have been improved with microtechniques and preservation of an entire nail.³⁶ Another option is ablation of the more hypoplastic osseous element and soft-tissue augmentation of the residual digit. The theme of ablation and augmentation is seen throughout the literature for the surgical treatment of polydactyly (Figure 12).¹

For type III polydactyly, the bifid proximal phalanx is narrowed by resection and realigned with osteotomy of the remaining diaphysis. Type IV polydactyly, the most common thumb duplication, often requires advancement of the abductor pollicis brevis to the base of the proximal phalanx to aid in metacarpophalangeal (MCP) stabilization, abduction, and opposition. The metacarpal head, if broad and with 2 facets, can be shaped to form a single articulating surface. The metacarpal, occasionally with the proximal phalanx, often requires realignment by closing wedge osteotomy. Last, tendons on the resected bony elements should be rebalanced on the remaining digit, and anomalous slips must be released. For instance, given a radial insertion of the long flexor tendon on the distal phalanx, the tendon should be moved centrally. A strong flexor or extensor tendon on the amputated digit should be transferred to the remaining digit.²⁴

Types V and VI are treated similarly to type IV, with the addition of a first web space Z-plasty or web widening if there is thenar eminence contracture. Acral transposition has also been described, with transposition of the tip of the ablated digit in place of the tip of the kept digit; this technique is ideal if one digit has a more normal proximal part while the other has a more normal distal part (Figure 13).³⁵

Type VII thumb polydactyly, the type most likely inherited and associated with other disorders, should be treated like type VI. The nail should be preserved; amputation of the distal phalanx is not advised. Resection of the delta phalanx or 1 interphalangeal (IP) joint is an option. Articular surfaces will remodel if done before the age of 1 year. If the thenar eminence is hypoplastic, then Huber transfer of the abductor digiti minimi should be considered.³⁷ Resection of the triphalangeal thumb is also advised, even if the biphalangeal thumb is more hypoplastic, with transfer of the ligaments and tendons, as described earlier.^{5,6,24,30,32,35}

Thumb triphalangism, if isolated, and hyperphalangism in the other digits, can be treated with resection of the delta phalanx or one of the IP joints if it is affecting function or cosmesis.^1,6 Wood and Flatt²³ recommended early resection of a thumb delta phalanx because of the likelihood of deviation that impedes thumb function. For children, they recommended delta phalanx resection and Kirschner wire fixation for 6 weeks; for adults, they recommended resection or fusion of the joint, with osteotomy as needed for deviation.^23,24 For thumb triphalangism, multiple surgeries are the norm, as Wood²⁴ reported in his study of 21 patients who underwent 78 operations in total.

Index polydactyly may present as a simple pedunculated skin tag, which can be simply excised, or as a more complex musculoskeletal duplication. More complex presentations can be treated with procedures similar to those used for the thumb. Typically, the additional digit is radially deviated and angulated, eventually leading to impingement of thumb pinch and the first web space. Ray amputation is also an option if no reconstructive surgery will produce the stable, sensate radial pinch that is essential to hand function.³²

Ring-finger polydactyly and long-finger polydactyly are often complicated by some element of syndactyly, resulting in a relative paucity of skin (Figure 14). There is failure of both formation (hypoplasia) and differentiation (syndactyly). The hypoplasia particularly affects the function of these digits by tethering them; multiple surgeries to restore proper hand function are the norm.¹ Reconstructive surgery for these digits requires preoperative tissue inventory followed by resection and augmentation; as in syndactyly, skin for coverage is at a premium. Creation of a 3-fingered hand is an option.²³

Temtamy and McKusick¹⁰ type A little-finger polydactyly is treated similarly to the thumb, with the caveat that hypothenar and intrinsic muscles that insert on the resected little finger are transferred to the remaining digit. In contrast to thumb polydactyly, the extrinsic musculature tends to be in good position. Suture ligation of type B polydactyly, as described by Flatt, is likely more common than orthopedists appreciate, as pediatricians and neonatal unit practitioners commonly perform this procedure in the nursery.^1-3 It has been described with 2-0 Vicryl³ (Ethicon, Somerville, New Jersey) and 4-0 silk sutures,³² with the goal of necrosis and autoamputation. Parents should be told the finger generally falls off about 10 days (range, 4-21 days) after ligation.³ Multiple authors have cited a report of exsanguination from suture ligation, but we could not locate the primary source. It is advisable to wait until a patient is 6 months of age if planning to resect the nubbin in the operating room, given the anesthesia risk and the lack of functional impairment. Katz and Linder³³ indicated they remove type B polydactyly in the nursery suite used for circumcisions; they use anesthetizing cream on the skin, and sharp excision with a scalpel, followed by direct pressure and Steri-Strip (3M, St. Paul, Minnesota) application. Suture ligation is recommended only if there is a narrow, thin (<2 mm) soft-tissue stalk; any broad or bony stalk necessitates surgical removal to avoid neuroma formation and failure of autonecrosis (Figure 15).²⁷ Other options are a single swipe of a scalpel and elliptical excision; sharp transaction of the digital nerve with subsequent retraction is advised to avoid neuroma formation.²

Barton described ulnar dimelia operations as “spare parts surgery.”¹ Extra digits are ablated and a thumb created (Figure 16). The hand might have a digit in relatively good rotational position for thumbplasty, or the principles of pollicization may need to be used. If the patient is already using the hand, the surgeon should note which finger the patient uses as a thumb.²⁴ Any accompanying wrist flexion contracture must be corrected with careful attention to musculotendinous balancing. Because the forearm and elbow, and occasionally even the more proximal limb, will be abnormal in this disorder, multiple surgeries are again the norm.¹

Pentadactyly is treated like thumb hypoplasia, with first web space creation.¹

Complications

In polydactyly, a reoperation rate of up to 25% has been reported, with most reoperations performed because of residual or subsequent deformity.^5,30,31,38 Risk factors for reoperation are type IV thumb duplication, preoperative “zigzag” deformity, and radially deviated thumb elements at presentation.⁵ The delta phalanx may not show on radiographs until the patient is 18 months old, but functional deformity will worsen as long as it is present. Zigzag deformity may be due to the delta phalanx or to musculotendinous imbalance, such as a radially inserted flexor pollicis longus (FPL) or lack of stable MCP abduction. Miura³¹ found that careful reconstruction of the joint capsule and thenar muscles from the ablated digit to the remnant digit is the key to a successful initial surgery. Lee and colleagues³⁹ defined zigzag deformity as more than 20° MCP and IP angulation; for cases present before surgery, they recommended FPL relocation by the pullout technique in addition to osteotomies to prevent further interphalangeal deviation (Figures 17, 18).

Abnormal physeal growth, joint instability, and stiffness can all occur. Stiffness is particularly difficult to treat but seldom presents a functional problem. Joint enlargement, which is not uncommon, results from either broad articular surfaces or retained cartilage from the perichondral ring after resection that later ossifies.^5,38 Nubbin-type duplications may not fall off after suture ligation, necessitating further excision, and a cosmetic bump is seen after 40% of suture ligations.³ Patillo and Rayan²⁸ and Rayan and Frey²⁹ warned against suture ligation unless the nubbin has a small stalk because of the possibility of infection and gangrene. The excised nubbin tissue is histologically nervous, and there have been reports of painful neuromas in the remaining scar of a ligated nubbin that respond well to excision.^26,27,40 It is thought that these painful lesions form because the ligature prevents the digital nerves to the vestigial digit from retracting.²⁷ Nail deformity and IP joint stiffness are seen with the Bilhaut-Cloquet procedure, though often finger function remains satisfactory.

Conclusion

Polydactyly is a common congenital hand abnormality. Its true incidence is unknown because of inconsistent documentation. Surgeons must strive for a functional, cosmetic hand, given a diverse set of possible anomalies. Hypoplasia is the rule; tissue should be ablated and augmented as necessary. Musculotendinous insertions may need to be centralized. Patients’ family members should always be counseled that more surgery may be needed in the future, as further deformity can occur with growth. Surgically corrected thumb duplications will be stiffer, shorter, and thinner than their normal counterparts. Nail ridges are common. However, it should be noted that 88% of these patients are satisfied with their results.⁴¹ Some amount of contracture and abnormal function should be expected with index-, long-, and ring-finger duplications. The only remnant of type B postaxial duplications may be a slight discoloration or bump, though stiffness and deformity can happen with a type A deformity. A “duplicated” digit that requires surgical correction will never be completely normal, but acceptable function is routinely achievable.

Polydactyly is the presence of extra digits. Its incidence is likely underestimated because many practitioners treat simple “nubbins” without referring them to orthopedic specialists.^1-3 Polydactyly can be detected by ultrasound as early as 14 weeks’ gestational age, with partial autoamputation seen in most isolated polydactylies.⁴ The thumb, responsible for 40% of hand function, must be able to oppose the other digits with a stable pinch.⁵ Polydactyly encumbers this motion when the duplicated digits deviate from normal alignment. Ezaki⁶ noted that the anatomy is better described as “split” than “duplicated.” There are many dichotomous ways to classify polydactyly: preaxial (radial) versus postaxial (ulnar), thumb versus triphalangeal, simple versus complex (Figure 1). Mixed polydactyly is defined as the presence of preaxial and postaxial polydactyly.⁷ Surgical management seeks to allow normal hand function and to restore cosmesis.

Epidemiology

Sun and colleagues⁸ reported the overall polydactyly incidence as 2 per 1000 live births in China from 1998 to 2009, with a slight male predominance; polydactyly was also 3 times more common than syndactyly in this population. Ivy,⁹ in a 5-year audit of Pennsylvania Department of Health records, found polydactyly to be the fourth most common congenital anomaly after clubfoot, cleft lip/palate, and spina bifida. Thumb duplication occurs in 0.08 to 1.4 per 1000 live births and is more common in American Indians and Asians than in other races.^5,10 It occurs in a male-to-female ratio of 2.5 to 1 and is most often unilateral.⁵ Postaxial polydactyly is predominant in black infants; it is most often inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion, if isolated, or in an autosomal recessive pattern, if syndromic.¹ A prospective San Diego study of 11,161 newborns found postaxial type B polydactyly in 1 per 531 live births (1 per 143 black infants, 1 per 1339 white infants); 76% of cases were bilateral, and 86% had a positive family history.³ In patients of non-African descent, it is associated with anomalies in other organs. Central duplication is rare and often autosomal dominant.^5,10

Genetics and Development

As early as 1896, the heritability of polydactyly was noted.¹¹ As of 2010, polydactyly has been associated with 310 diseases.¹² Ninety-nine genes, most involved in regulation of anterior-posterior formation of the limb bud, have been implicated.^12,13

The upper limb begins to form at day 26 in utero.¹⁴ Apoptosis in the interdigital necrotic zones results in the formation of individual digits. It is presumed that, in polydactyly, the involved tissue is hypoplastic because of an abnormal interaction between mesoderm and ectoderm.⁵ Presence of an apical ectodermal ridge determines the formation of a limb bud, and on it the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA) dictates preaxial and postaxial alignment.^14,15 The ZPA is located on the posterior zone of the developing limb bud. The levels of GLI3, a zinc finger-containing DNA-binding protein, are highest in the anterior area, and HAND2, a basic helix-loop-helix DNA-binding protein, is found in the ZPA. This polarity promotes sonic hedgehog (Shh) gene expression in the posterior region, which in turn prevents GLI3 cleavage into its repressed form. GLI3R (repressed) and GLI3A (active) concentrations are highest, therefore, in the anterior and posterior portions of the bud, respectively. The GLI3A:GLI3R ratio is responsible for the identity and number of digits in the hand (ie, the thumb develops in regions of high GLI3R). GLI and Shh mutations lead to polydactylous hands with absent thumbs (Figure 2).¹⁶

Ciliopathies have also been shown to cause postaxial polydactyly, possibly because of the role that nonmotile cilia play in hedgehog signaling.¹⁷ Mutations in Shh genomic regulators cause preaxial polydactyly.¹⁸ HoxD activates Shh in the ZPA; HoxD13 mutations are associated with synpolydactyly.^16,19 In each of these mutations, Shh production is altered, and some form of polydactyly results.

Associations

Many syndromes have been associated with polydactyly. Not all polydactyly is associated with other disorders, but the more complex the polydactyly, the more likely that other anomalies are present. Every patient who presents with polydactyly should have a full history taken and a physical examination performed (Figure 3). Any patient with syndromic findings or atypical presentations (eg, triphalangism, postaxial polydactyly in a patient of non-African descent, central and index polydactyly) should be referred to a geneticist.

Classifications

The Wassel²⁰ classification describes the anatomical presentation of thumb duplication on the basis of 70 cases in Iowa (Figures 4, 5; Table 1). Because some duplications fall outside the Wassel classification, many researchers have proposed modifications (Figure 6).^21-25

The Temtamy and McKusick¹⁰ classification, which is the product of geneticists, classifies duplications by grouping genetically related presentations (Table 2). It provides the most commonly used postaxial classification, with type A being a fully developed digit and type B a rudimentary and pedunculated digit, informally referred to as a nubbin. Type B is more common than type A. Given inheritance patterns, it is assumed that type A is likely multifactorial and type B autosomal dominant.¹⁰ Thumb polydactyly inheritance is still unclear. The other types of preaxial polydactyly and high degrees of polydactyly are rare but seem to be passed on in an autosomal dominant fashion on pedigree analysis.¹⁰

The Stelling and Turek classification presents the duplication from a tissue perspective: Type I duplication is a rudimentary mass devoid of other tissue elements; type II is a subtotal duplication with some normal structures; and type III is a duplication of the entire “osteoarticular column,” including the metacarpal.¹ It is interesting to note that histology of type I duplications shows neuroma-like tissue.^26-28 Again, normal is a relative term because, in polydactyly, the duplications are hypoplastic and deviated, with anomalous anatomy.

The Rayan classification describes ulnar polydactyly and was derived from a case study series of 148 patients in Oklahoma (Table 3).²⁹

There are also some complex polydactylies that are not easily classified: ulnar dimelia, cleft hand, pentadactyly, and hyperphalangism. Ulnar dimelia, also known as “mirror hand,” is typically 7 digits with no thumb, but other variations are seen. The radius is often absent, and the elbow is abnormal. There is some debate about whether it is a fusion of 2 hands. Pentadactyly, or the 5-fingered hand, appears as 5 triphalangeal digits with no thumb (Figure 7).

Isolated thumb triphalangism might appear similar to pentadactyly. Miura^30,31 pointed out that the radial digit in the pentadactylous hand may be opposable (thumb-like) or nonopposable; in his studies, the patients with the opposable thumb had a metacarpal with a proximal epiphysis (Figure 8). Consequently, the triphalangeal thumb metacarpal with a distal epiphysis is true pentadactyly, whereas that with a proximal epiphysis is hyperphalangism (Figure 9). Treatment of these complex polydactylies involves the same underlying principles as for preaxial and postaxial polydactyly, albeit with additional proximal upper extremity considerations.

When to Operate (Timing)

Ezaki⁶ recommended surgical intervention at age 6 to 9 months, before fine motor skills have developed with the abnormal anatomy. Cortical learning occurs as the child begins prehensile activities before 6 months, but the risks of anesthesia outweigh functional benefits until the child is older. Waiting until 1 year of age is not uncommon, though surgery at an earlier age may be beneficial if the polydactyly affects hand function.³² It is not uncommon to wait with the more balanced thumb polydactylies to assess thumb function. Hypoplasia might also delay surgical intervention until there is enough tissue inventory for reconstruction. Wassel²⁰ noted that surgical intervention ideally occurs before the supernumerary elements displace the normal elements, as tends to happen with growth. Suture ligation is an option in the neonatal unit for some pedunculated digits.³³ Studies have shown satisfactory results in adults treated for polydactyly, if the patient presents later than expected.³⁴

Surgical Considerations

Knavel recommended simple excision, stating that “ablation requires no ingenuity and creates no problems.”⁵ This belief, though true for some duplications, will not lead to the best outcome for more complex polydactylies. The goal of surgery is a stable and well-aligned thumb for pinch and prehensile activity, as well as a cosmetically pleasing hand. Incisions should not be made linearly along the axis of the digit, as the scar will cause deviation with growth.²⁴

Wassel type I polydactyly might appear incidentally as a broad thumb, in which case it requires no intervention (Figure 10). However, in Wassel types I and II polydactyly with deformity, the Bilhaut-Cloquet procedure is useful for both bifid and duplicated phalanges (Figure 11).^5,6,30,32,35 Collateral ligaments may need to be released in type II because of difficulty in opposing the tissue. Cosmetic results with Bilhaut-Cloquet are unpredictable. The original technique required symmetrically sized digits; results today have been improved with microtechniques and preservation of an entire nail.³⁶ Another option is ablation of the more hypoplastic osseous element and soft-tissue augmentation of the residual digit. The theme of ablation and augmentation is seen throughout the literature for the surgical treatment of polydactyly (Figure 12).¹

For type III polydactyly, the bifid proximal phalanx is narrowed by resection and realigned with osteotomy of the remaining diaphysis. Type IV polydactyly, the most common thumb duplication, often requires advancement of the abductor pollicis brevis to the base of the proximal phalanx to aid in metacarpophalangeal (MCP) stabilization, abduction, and opposition. The metacarpal head, if broad and with 2 facets, can be shaped to form a single articulating surface. The metacarpal, occasionally with the proximal phalanx, often requires realignment by closing wedge osteotomy. Last, tendons on the resected bony elements should be rebalanced on the remaining digit, and anomalous slips must be released. For instance, given a radial insertion of the long flexor tendon on the distal phalanx, the tendon should be moved centrally. A strong flexor or extensor tendon on the amputated digit should be transferred to the remaining digit.²⁴

Types V and VI are treated similarly to type IV, with the addition of a first web space Z-plasty or web widening if there is thenar eminence contracture. Acral transposition has also been described, with transposition of the tip of the ablated digit in place of the tip of the kept digit; this technique is ideal if one digit has a more normal proximal part while the other has a more normal distal part (Figure 13).³⁵

Type VII thumb polydactyly, the type most likely inherited and associated with other disorders, should be treated like type VI. The nail should be preserved; amputation of the distal phalanx is not advised. Resection of the delta phalanx or 1 interphalangeal (IP) joint is an option. Articular surfaces will remodel if done before the age of 1 year. If the thenar eminence is hypoplastic, then Huber transfer of the abductor digiti minimi should be considered.³⁷ Resection of the triphalangeal thumb is also advised, even if the biphalangeal thumb is more hypoplastic, with transfer of the ligaments and tendons, as described earlier.^{5,6,24,30,32,35}

Thumb triphalangism, if isolated, and hyperphalangism in the other digits, can be treated with resection of the delta phalanx or one of the IP joints if it is affecting function or cosmesis.^1,6 Wood and Flatt²³ recommended early resection of a thumb delta phalanx because of the likelihood of deviation that impedes thumb function. For children, they recommended delta phalanx resection and Kirschner wire fixation for 6 weeks; for adults, they recommended resection or fusion of the joint, with osteotomy as needed for deviation.^23,24 For thumb triphalangism, multiple surgeries are the norm, as Wood²⁴ reported in his study of 21 patients who underwent 78 operations in total.

Index polydactyly may present as a simple pedunculated skin tag, which can be simply excised, or as a more complex musculoskeletal duplication. More complex presentations can be treated with procedures similar to those used for the thumb. Typically, the additional digit is radially deviated and angulated, eventually leading to impingement of thumb pinch and the first web space. Ray amputation is also an option if no reconstructive surgery will produce the stable, sensate radial pinch that is essential to hand function.³²

Ring-finger polydactyly and long-finger polydactyly are often complicated by some element of syndactyly, resulting in a relative paucity of skin (Figure 14). There is failure of both formation (hypoplasia) and differentiation (syndactyly). The hypoplasia particularly affects the function of these digits by tethering them; multiple surgeries to restore proper hand function are the norm.¹ Reconstructive surgery for these digits requires preoperative tissue inventory followed by resection and augmentation; as in syndactyly, skin for coverage is at a premium. Creation of a 3-fingered hand is an option.²³

Temtamy and McKusick¹⁰ type A little-finger polydactyly is treated similarly to the thumb, with the caveat that hypothenar and intrinsic muscles that insert on the resected little finger are transferred to the remaining digit. In contrast to thumb polydactyly, the extrinsic musculature tends to be in good position. Suture ligation of type B polydactyly, as described by Flatt, is likely more common than orthopedists appreciate, as pediatricians and neonatal unit practitioners commonly perform this procedure in the nursery.^1-3 It has been described with 2-0 Vicryl³ (Ethicon, Somerville, New Jersey) and 4-0 silk sutures,³² with the goal of necrosis and autoamputation. Parents should be told the finger generally falls off about 10 days (range, 4-21 days) after ligation.³ Multiple authors have cited a report of exsanguination from suture ligation, but we could not locate the primary source. It is advisable to wait until a patient is 6 months of age if planning to resect the nubbin in the operating room, given the anesthesia risk and the lack of functional impairment. Katz and Linder³³ indicated they remove type B polydactyly in the nursery suite used for circumcisions; they use anesthetizing cream on the skin, and sharp excision with a scalpel, followed by direct pressure and Steri-Strip (3M, St. Paul, Minnesota) application. Suture ligation is recommended only if there is a narrow, thin (<2 mm) soft-tissue stalk; any broad or bony stalk necessitates surgical removal to avoid neuroma formation and failure of autonecrosis (Figure 15).²⁷ Other options are a single swipe of a scalpel and elliptical excision; sharp transaction of the digital nerve with subsequent retraction is advised to avoid neuroma formation.²

Barton described ulnar dimelia operations as “spare parts surgery.”¹ Extra digits are ablated and a thumb created (Figure 16). The hand might have a digit in relatively good rotational position for thumbplasty, or the principles of pollicization may need to be used. If the patient is already using the hand, the surgeon should note which finger the patient uses as a thumb.²⁴ Any accompanying wrist flexion contracture must be corrected with careful attention to musculotendinous balancing. Because the forearm and elbow, and occasionally even the more proximal limb, will be abnormal in this disorder, multiple surgeries are again the norm.¹

Pentadactyly is treated like thumb hypoplasia, with first web space creation.¹

Complications

In polydactyly, a reoperation rate of up to 25% has been reported, with most reoperations performed because of residual or subsequent deformity.^5,30,31,38 Risk factors for reoperation are type IV thumb duplication, preoperative “zigzag” deformity, and radially deviated thumb elements at presentation.⁵ The delta phalanx may not show on radiographs until the patient is 18 months old, but functional deformity will worsen as long as it is present. Zigzag deformity may be due to the delta phalanx or to musculotendinous imbalance, such as a radially inserted flexor pollicis longus (FPL) or lack of stable MCP abduction. Miura³¹ found that careful reconstruction of the joint capsule and thenar muscles from the ablated digit to the remnant digit is the key to a successful initial surgery. Lee and colleagues³⁹ defined zigzag deformity as more than 20° MCP and IP angulation; for cases present before surgery, they recommended FPL relocation by the pullout technique in addition to osteotomies to prevent further interphalangeal deviation (Figures 17, 18).

Abnormal physeal growth, joint instability, and stiffness can all occur. Stiffness is particularly difficult to treat but seldom presents a functional problem. Joint enlargement, which is not uncommon, results from either broad articular surfaces or retained cartilage from the perichondral ring after resection that later ossifies.^5,38 Nubbin-type duplications may not fall off after suture ligation, necessitating further excision, and a cosmetic bump is seen after 40% of suture ligations.³ Patillo and Rayan²⁸ and Rayan and Frey²⁹ warned against suture ligation unless the nubbin has a small stalk because of the possibility of infection and gangrene. The excised nubbin tissue is histologically nervous, and there have been reports of painful neuromas in the remaining scar of a ligated nubbin that respond well to excision.^26,27,40 It is thought that these painful lesions form because the ligature prevents the digital nerves to the vestigial digit from retracting.²⁷ Nail deformity and IP joint stiffness are seen with the Bilhaut-Cloquet procedure, though often finger function remains satisfactory.

Conclusion

Polydactyly is a common congenital hand abnormality. Its true incidence is unknown because of inconsistent documentation. Surgeons must strive for a functional, cosmetic hand, given a diverse set of possible anomalies. Hypoplasia is the rule; tissue should be ablated and augmented as necessary. Musculotendinous insertions may need to be centralized. Patients’ family members should always be counseled that more surgery may be needed in the future, as further deformity can occur with growth. Surgically corrected thumb duplications will be stiffer, shorter, and thinner than their normal counterparts. Nail ridges are common. However, it should be noted that 88% of these patients are satisfied with their results.⁴¹ Some amount of contracture and abnormal function should be expected with index-, long-, and ring-finger duplications. The only remnant of type B postaxial duplications may be a slight discoloration or bump, though stiffness and deformity can happen with a type A deformity. A “duplicated” digit that requires surgical correction will never be completely normal, but acceptable function is routinely achievable.

Participating in a short series of phone conversations with trained counselors can substantially boost recovery and reduce pain in patients after spinal surgery, according to a study published online ahead of print March 28 in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

The phone calls were designed to enhance standard pre- and post-operative care by reinforcing the value of continuing with physical therapy and back-strengthening exercise regimens.

“Phone counseling appears to be an easy, low-cost strategy that yields meaningful results by improving patient engagement in physical therapy and at-home exercise programs that are so vital for their recovery,” said lead study author Richard Skolasky Jr., ScD, Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

The study included 122 patients ages 46 to 72, who underwent surgery at Johns Hopkins University between 2009 and 2012 to correct spinal stenosis. Each patient was assigned either home exercise programs or physical therapy to help accelerate their recovery time. About half of the patients also received a series of phone counseling sessions from a trained spinal surgery counselor to discuss the importance of exercise in their recovery. The first and most detailed phone session took place a few weeks before the patients had their surgeries. Two follow-up sessions occurred at 6 weeks and at 3 months after the operation was performed.

The study found that patients who received phone calls participated in physical therapy and home exercise at higher rates, and had less pain and less disability 6 months after their surgery, compared with the standard-approach group. Six months after surgery, 74% of patients who received phone counseling experienced significant improvements on standard measures of physical functioning and self-reported measures of pain, compared with 41% of people who did not receive phone calls.

“Modern orthopedic science has made great strides in surgical techniques to correct spinal deformities and achieved significant progress in developing physical therapies that boost the benefits of surgery, but we have not been all that good at motivating and engaging patients to partake in such post-surgical recovery programs,” said co-investigator Stephen Wegener, PhD, Associate Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University.

“The findings of our research suggest we may have found a way to add that missing ingredient that draws patients to be more active participants in their physical rehabilitation and recovery,” stated Dr. Wegener.

Participating in a short series of phone conversations with trained counselors can substantially boost recovery and reduce pain in patients after spinal surgery, according to a study published online ahead of print March 28 in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

The phone calls were designed to enhance standard pre- and post-operative care by reinforcing the value of continuing with physical therapy and back-strengthening exercise regimens.

“Phone counseling appears to be an easy, low-cost strategy that yields meaningful results by improving patient engagement in physical therapy and at-home exercise programs that are so vital for their recovery,” said lead study author Richard Skolasky Jr., ScD, Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

The study included 122 patients ages 46 to 72, who underwent surgery at Johns Hopkins University between 2009 and 2012 to correct spinal stenosis. Each patient was assigned either home exercise programs or physical therapy to help accelerate their recovery time. About half of the patients also received a series of phone counseling sessions from a trained spinal surgery counselor to discuss the importance of exercise in their recovery. The first and most detailed phone session took place a few weeks before the patients had their surgeries. Two follow-up sessions occurred at 6 weeks and at 3 months after the operation was performed.

The study found that patients who received phone calls participated in physical therapy and home exercise at higher rates, and had less pain and less disability 6 months after their surgery, compared with the standard-approach group. Six months after surgery, 74% of patients who received phone counseling experienced significant improvements on standard measures of physical functioning and self-reported measures of pain, compared with 41% of people who did not receive phone calls.

“Modern orthopedic science has made great strides in surgical techniques to correct spinal deformities and achieved significant progress in developing physical therapies that boost the benefits of surgery, but we have not been all that good at motivating and engaging patients to partake in such post-surgical recovery programs,” said co-investigator Stephen Wegener, PhD, Associate Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University.

“The findings of our research suggest we may have found a way to add that missing ingredient that draws patients to be more active participants in their physical rehabilitation and recovery,” stated Dr. Wegener.

Participating in a short series of phone conversations with trained counselors can substantially boost recovery and reduce pain in patients after spinal surgery, according to a study published online ahead of print March 28 in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

The phone calls were designed to enhance standard pre- and post-operative care by reinforcing the value of continuing with physical therapy and back-strengthening exercise regimens.

“Phone counseling appears to be an easy, low-cost strategy that yields meaningful results by improving patient engagement in physical therapy and at-home exercise programs that are so vital for their recovery,” said lead study author Richard Skolasky Jr., ScD, Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

The study included 122 patients ages 46 to 72, who underwent surgery at Johns Hopkins University between 2009 and 2012 to correct spinal stenosis. Each patient was assigned either home exercise programs or physical therapy to help accelerate their recovery time. About half of the patients also received a series of phone counseling sessions from a trained spinal surgery counselor to discuss the importance of exercise in their recovery. The first and most detailed phone session took place a few weeks before the patients had their surgeries. Two follow-up sessions occurred at 6 weeks and at 3 months after the operation was performed.

The study found that patients who received phone calls participated in physical therapy and home exercise at higher rates, and had less pain and less disability 6 months after their surgery, compared with the standard-approach group. Six months after surgery, 74% of patients who received phone counseling experienced significant improvements on standard measures of physical functioning and self-reported measures of pain, compared with 41% of people who did not receive phone calls.

“Modern orthopedic science has made great strides in surgical techniques to correct spinal deformities and achieved significant progress in developing physical therapies that boost the benefits of surgery, but we have not been all that good at motivating and engaging patients to partake in such post-surgical recovery programs,” said co-investigator Stephen Wegener, PhD, Associate Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University.

“The findings of our research suggest we may have found a way to add that missing ingredient that draws patients to be more active participants in their physical rehabilitation and recovery,” stated Dr. Wegener.

An 8-surgeon group in the Southeast had a history of high patient receivables, the result of a long-held culture of “We’ll submit to your insurance and bill you after insurance pays.”

The billing and collections staff worked in the basement—far away and out of sight of the patients who showed up for their postoperative visits owing big bucks.

In a flash of wisdom, the administrator agreed to move the patient-balance collector into a converted closet near the check-out area, and provided the information, tools, and training that enabled her to speak with patients about their balances when they came in for an appointment. In her first month in this role and location, this employee collected more than her annual salary from patients. 

It Takes a Program

This is one of our favorite client success stories, and it illustrates a key point: point-of-service (POS) collections do not have to be complicated. But the process does have to be deliberate and coordinated. Practices cannot simply update the financial policy and hope the staff members magically begin collecting. If this is your strategy, we promise that it will fail.

Successful POS collecting requires a program approach. And this approach starts at the front-end of the billing cycle, not “after insurance pays.”

POS collections have never been more important. Health insurance exchanges and payers are increasing deductibles and coinsurances. Physicians are opting out of network. Given these realities, POS collections are vital to your cash flow and effective receivables management.

If you are starting practice, you have a perfect opportunity to open with POS collecting in place. A solo surgeon whom we set up in practice did so, and has collected up-front for office services, scans, and surgeries from his first day in practice. Today, the practice’s only outstanding patient receivables are those of patients on payment plans—and these are less than 1% of total accounts receivable.

We also converted the “after insurance pays” philosophy of a surgeon in the South, implementing both POS collections and surgical deposits. In the first month, his patient payments increased by 40%. Another solo orthopedist reported an increased take-home salary of $90,000 in the first year after we helped his staff collect surgery deposits.

Six POS Program Elements

In 30 years of implementing or training staff to implement POS collections, we have come to recognize the following 6 key elements to include in your program approach: Policies + Procedures + Technology + Training + Monitoring + Coaching.

At a high level, here are the actions your practice will need to take:

1. Update the financial policy with 1 written standard for all physicians.

2. Develop granular procedures driven by the policy; these are the “how-tos” that enable the staff to collect successfully.

3. Implement new technologies, such as cost estimators, recurring payments, and online bill pay.

4. Schedule formal training to ensure that staff members know how to ask for money. (Do not assume they are, can, or will without training.)

5. Measure and monitor the outcome of patient collections and staff performance.

6. Provide ongoing coaching and oversight to maintain motivation and skills.

A blueprint for addressing each one of these actions follows.

1. Update the financial policy

The policy is the set of expectations on which to build all procedures and training. Dust off this document, and review it as a group with the practice administrator. First, strike old language that says the patient will be balance-billed, or will only be asked in the office for his visit copay. Next, strive for clarity. “You will be asked to pay your financial responsibility at the time of service,” really says nothing. Instead, the policy should be direct:

If you are recommended for surgery, our staff will calculate your coinsurance and unmet deductible amounts: 50% of this amount will be collected as a surgery deposit, and the remaining 50% is due on or before the day of surgery. Payment plans are available.

For office visits and services, break down the policy by coverage type. We find that a table such as the one shown makes expectations clear.

Finally, strive for 1 standard policy for all providers. If every provider is allowed to create his or her own set of collection policies, the practice is setting staff up for complexity overload, and collections will suffer.

2. Develop granular procedures

Few practices take the time to translate the financial policy into written procedures that can be followed by staff. The policy establishes the rules, but the procedures tell staff what to do to implement those rules. For instance:

Create a “POS Playbook” that contains information such as procedures, cost-quotation worksheets, US Poverty guidelines¹, and financing brochures. As old-school as it sounds, a 3-ring binder is great for this information, and makes information access and updates easy.

3. Implement collection technologies

Modern practices use inexpensive (and often free) tools that increase patient convenience and staff efficiency. Implement at least 2 of these useful technologies and watch your POS collections increase:

Reports from your practice management system (PMS). Use the technology you already have. There are 2 standard reports in your PMS or clearinghouse that give front-desk staff the data to ask patients for money. Eligibility status and past-due balance reports indicate amounts owed, unmet deductibles, and the ineligible patients they can collect from when they come in for their appointment.

Online cost estimators. These free, online tools are offered by payers and provide staff with real-time data about a patient’s unmet deductible and coinsurance. When staff members enter Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and the patient’s benefit information into the online cost estimator, they can access valuable information. Many insurance plans offer cost estimators on their web sites. Others deliver the data through statewide or regional portals, such as Availity (www.availity.com). The accuracy of cost-estimator data can vary by region and depends on the data links with payers. Ask your team to evaluate which estimators are best for you based on your payer mix.

Online bill pay. Everyone appreciates the convenience of paying bills online. Most patient portals offer this feature. If yours does not or you do not have a portal, you can offer PayPal (www.paypal.com) on your practice website, or use a system such as Intuit Health (www.intuithealth.com).

Recurring billing. Recurring billing is how you pay for services, such as Netflix, Pandora, or your gym membership: it is automatically billed to a credit card each month. Offer this option to patients as a payment plan method, and staff will no longer need to send costly statements, post monthly check payments, or follow up when a patient is delinquent. Plus, it guarantees payment every month; patients can no longer say, “I forgot.”

TransFirst (www.transfirstassociation.com) and a-claim (www.a-claim.com) offer recurring billing through a “virtual terminal” that staff logs in to at checkout, or during the preprocedure patient counseling process. Both vendors also offer the option of automatically charging a patient’s credit card after their insurance pays, speeding patient account pay-off and negating the need for statements.

Real-time collections scripts based on payer rules. Patient Access, offered by Availity, combines real-time payer data with financial policies that are entered during set-up to create instant, patient-specific scripts that staff members read to the patient in front of them.

4. Schedule formal training

Just because someone can collect a copay does not mean he or she is comfortable with or capable of asking patients for past-due balances, surgical deposits, or large coinsurances. It is the rare staff person who is a “natural” at asking patients for money in a polished and professional manner.

That’s why training staff how to ask patients for money is vital. A front-office supervisor or manager should conduct several training sessions to cover policies and procedures. Training materials should include talking points and scenarios for collecting for office services and past-due balances, and calculating what patients owe, using technology tools. Use role-playing to ensure staff can explain payment plan options and how to apply for patient financing or financial assistance.

Few practices can skip this part of the POS program and still be successful. If your manager or supervisor is not capable of training, it is worth the investment to hire an outside expert. Without thorough training, staff efforts will be suboptimal or, at worst, fail because the staff members will not know how or what to collect.

5. Measure and monitor the outcome

The Hawthorne effect is a psychological phenomenon that says people perform better and make more positive changes as a result of increased attention.² In other words, staff members will perform better, and collect more, if they know someone is paying attention. Trust us on this one.

Employees respect what management inspects. So even if the implementation of POS collections has been a big success, do not take your eyes off the ball.

Stop by the front desk or surgery coordinator’s office a few times a month and ask how much has been collected. Randomly review daily over-the-counter collections logs. And always put POS collections performance on the monthly partner meeting agenda; review a graph that shows monthly collections at checkout and surgery deposits. Keeping tabs on performance enables the practice to take action quickly when collections drop, and before that decline becomes acute.

6. Provide ongoing coaching and oversight

Most practices train once, then wonder why staff motivation (and collections too) fall off after a while. Like that new couch you bought: it was all you could talk about the week after it was delivered. Now, it is only a comfy place to sit. It is the same with collections efforts. When the newness wears off, staff motivation does too, and training principles can be forgotten. That’s human nature. Conduct role-playing in staff meetings each quarter and discuss best practices for handling patient objections. Encourage peer-to-peer observation and coaching to address knowledge gaps and missed collection opportunities. Ongoing training and coaching will tease out training needs and boost your team’s collection confidence and success.

An 8-surgeon group in the Southeast had a history of high patient receivables, the result of a long-held culture of “We’ll submit to your insurance and bill you after insurance pays.”

The billing and collections staff worked in the basement—far away and out of sight of the patients who showed up for their postoperative visits owing big bucks.

In a flash of wisdom, the administrator agreed to move the patient-balance collector into a converted closet near the check-out area, and provided the information, tools, and training that enabled her to speak with patients about their balances when they came in for an appointment. In her first month in this role and location, this employee collected more than her annual salary from patients. 

It Takes a Program

This is one of our favorite client success stories, and it illustrates a key point: point-of-service (POS) collections do not have to be complicated. But the process does have to be deliberate and coordinated. Practices cannot simply update the financial policy and hope the staff members magically begin collecting. If this is your strategy, we promise that it will fail.

Successful POS collecting requires a program approach. And this approach starts at the front-end of the billing cycle, not “after insurance pays.”

POS collections have never been more important. Health insurance exchanges and payers are increasing deductibles and coinsurances. Physicians are opting out of network. Given these realities, POS collections are vital to your cash flow and effective receivables management.

If you are starting practice, you have a perfect opportunity to open with POS collecting in place. A solo surgeon whom we set up in practice did so, and has collected up-front for office services, scans, and surgeries from his first day in practice. Today, the practice’s only outstanding patient receivables are those of patients on payment plans—and these are less than 1% of total accounts receivable.

We also converted the “after insurance pays” philosophy of a surgeon in the South, implementing both POS collections and surgical deposits. In the first month, his patient payments increased by 40%. Another solo orthopedist reported an increased take-home salary of $90,000 in the first year after we helped his staff collect surgery deposits.

Six POS Program Elements

In 30 years of implementing or training staff to implement POS collections, we have come to recognize the following 6 key elements to include in your program approach: Policies + Procedures + Technology + Training + Monitoring + Coaching.

At a high level, here are the actions your practice will need to take:

1. Update the financial policy with 1 written standard for all physicians.

2. Develop granular procedures driven by the policy; these are the “how-tos” that enable the staff to collect successfully.

3. Implement new technologies, such as cost estimators, recurring payments, and online bill pay.

4. Schedule formal training to ensure that staff members know how to ask for money. (Do not assume they are, can, or will without training.)

5. Measure and monitor the outcome of patient collections and staff performance.

6. Provide ongoing coaching and oversight to maintain motivation and skills.

A blueprint for addressing each one of these actions follows.

1. Update the financial policy

The policy is the set of expectations on which to build all procedures and training. Dust off this document, and review it as a group with the practice administrator. First, strike old language that says the patient will be balance-billed, or will only be asked in the office for his visit copay. Next, strive for clarity. “You will be asked to pay your financial responsibility at the time of service,” really says nothing. Instead, the policy should be direct:

If you are recommended for surgery, our staff will calculate your coinsurance and unmet deductible amounts: 50% of this amount will be collected as a surgery deposit, and the remaining 50% is due on or before the day of surgery. Payment plans are available.

For office visits and services, break down the policy by coverage type. We find that a table such as the one shown makes expectations clear.

Finally, strive for 1 standard policy for all providers. If every provider is allowed to create his or her own set of collection policies, the practice is setting staff up for complexity overload, and collections will suffer.

2. Develop granular procedures

Few practices take the time to translate the financial policy into written procedures that can be followed by staff. The policy establishes the rules, but the procedures tell staff what to do to implement those rules. For instance:

Create a “POS Playbook” that contains information such as procedures, cost-quotation worksheets, US Poverty guidelines¹, and financing brochures. As old-school as it sounds, a 3-ring binder is great for this information, and makes information access and updates easy.

3. Implement collection technologies

Modern practices use inexpensive (and often free) tools that increase patient convenience and staff efficiency. Implement at least 2 of these useful technologies and watch your POS collections increase:

Reports from your practice management system (PMS). Use the technology you already have. There are 2 standard reports in your PMS or clearinghouse that give front-desk staff the data to ask patients for money. Eligibility status and past-due balance reports indicate amounts owed, unmet deductibles, and the ineligible patients they can collect from when they come in for their appointment.

Online cost estimators. These free, online tools are offered by payers and provide staff with real-time data about a patient’s unmet deductible and coinsurance. When staff members enter Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and the patient’s benefit information into the online cost estimator, they can access valuable information. Many insurance plans offer cost estimators on their web sites. Others deliver the data through statewide or regional portals, such as Availity (www.availity.com). The accuracy of cost-estimator data can vary by region and depends on the data links with payers. Ask your team to evaluate which estimators are best for you based on your payer mix.

Online bill pay. Everyone appreciates the convenience of paying bills online. Most patient portals offer this feature. If yours does not or you do not have a portal, you can offer PayPal (www.paypal.com) on your practice website, or use a system such as Intuit Health (www.intuithealth.com).

Recurring billing. Recurring billing is how you pay for services, such as Netflix, Pandora, or your gym membership: it is automatically billed to a credit card each month. Offer this option to patients as a payment plan method, and staff will no longer need to send costly statements, post monthly check payments, or follow up when a patient is delinquent. Plus, it guarantees payment every month; patients can no longer say, “I forgot.”

TransFirst (www.transfirstassociation.com) and a-claim (www.a-claim.com) offer recurring billing through a “virtual terminal” that staff logs in to at checkout, or during the preprocedure patient counseling process. Both vendors also offer the option of automatically charging a patient’s credit card after their insurance pays, speeding patient account pay-off and negating the need for statements.

Real-time collections scripts based on payer rules. Patient Access, offered by Availity, combines real-time payer data with financial policies that are entered during set-up to create instant, patient-specific scripts that staff members read to the patient in front of them.

4. Schedule formal training

Just because someone can collect a copay does not mean he or she is comfortable with or capable of asking patients for past-due balances, surgical deposits, or large coinsurances. It is the rare staff person who is a “natural” at asking patients for money in a polished and professional manner.

That’s why training staff how to ask patients for money is vital. A front-office supervisor or manager should conduct several training sessions to cover policies and procedures. Training materials should include talking points and scenarios for collecting for office services and past-due balances, and calculating what patients owe, using technology tools. Use role-playing to ensure staff can explain payment plan options and how to apply for patient financing or financial assistance.

Few practices can skip this part of the POS program and still be successful. If your manager or supervisor is not capable of training, it is worth the investment to hire an outside expert. Without thorough training, staff efforts will be suboptimal or, at worst, fail because the staff members will not know how or what to collect.

5. Measure and monitor the outcome

The Hawthorne effect is a psychological phenomenon that says people perform better and make more positive changes as a result of increased attention.² In other words, staff members will perform better, and collect more, if they know someone is paying attention. Trust us on this one.

Employees respect what management inspects. So even if the implementation of POS collections has been a big success, do not take your eyes off the ball.

Stop by the front desk or surgery coordinator’s office a few times a month and ask how much has been collected. Randomly review daily over-the-counter collections logs. And always put POS collections performance on the monthly partner meeting agenda; review a graph that shows monthly collections at checkout and surgery deposits. Keeping tabs on performance enables the practice to take action quickly when collections drop, and before that decline becomes acute.

6. Provide ongoing coaching and oversight

Most practices train once, then wonder why staff motivation (and collections too) fall off after a while. Like that new couch you bought: it was all you could talk about the week after it was delivered. Now, it is only a comfy place to sit. It is the same with collections efforts. When the newness wears off, staff motivation does too, and training principles can be forgotten. That’s human nature. Conduct role-playing in staff meetings each quarter and discuss best practices for handling patient objections. Encourage peer-to-peer observation and coaching to address knowledge gaps and missed collection opportunities. Ongoing training and coaching will tease out training needs and boost your team’s collection confidence and success.

An 8-surgeon group in the Southeast had a history of high patient receivables, the result of a long-held culture of “We’ll submit to your insurance and bill you after insurance pays.”

The billing and collections staff worked in the basement—far away and out of sight of the patients who showed up for their postoperative visits owing big bucks.

In a flash of wisdom, the administrator agreed to move the patient-balance collector into a converted closet near the check-out area, and provided the information, tools, and training that enabled her to speak with patients about their balances when they came in for an appointment. In her first month in this role and location, this employee collected more than her annual salary from patients. 

It Takes a Program

This is one of our favorite client success stories, and it illustrates a key point: point-of-service (POS) collections do not have to be complicated. But the process does have to be deliberate and coordinated. Practices cannot simply update the financial policy and hope the staff members magically begin collecting. If this is your strategy, we promise that it will fail.

Successful POS collecting requires a program approach. And this approach starts at the front-end of the billing cycle, not “after insurance pays.”

POS collections have never been more important. Health insurance exchanges and payers are increasing deductibles and coinsurances. Physicians are opting out of network. Given these realities, POS collections are vital to your cash flow and effective receivables management.

If you are starting practice, you have a perfect opportunity to open with POS collecting in place. A solo surgeon whom we set up in practice did so, and has collected up-front for office services, scans, and surgeries from his first day in practice. Today, the practice’s only outstanding patient receivables are those of patients on payment plans—and these are less than 1% of total accounts receivable.

We also converted the “after insurance pays” philosophy of a surgeon in the South, implementing both POS collections and surgical deposits. In the first month, his patient payments increased by 40%. Another solo orthopedist reported an increased take-home salary of $90,000 in the first year after we helped his staff collect surgery deposits.

Six POS Program Elements

In 30 years of implementing or training staff to implement POS collections, we have come to recognize the following 6 key elements to include in your program approach: Policies + Procedures + Technology + Training + Monitoring + Coaching.

At a high level, here are the actions your practice will need to take:

1. Update the financial policy with 1 written standard for all physicians.

2. Develop granular procedures driven by the policy; these are the “how-tos” that enable the staff to collect successfully.

3. Implement new technologies, such as cost estimators, recurring payments, and online bill pay.

4. Schedule formal training to ensure that staff members know how to ask for money. (Do not assume they are, can, or will without training.)

5. Measure and monitor the outcome of patient collections and staff performance.

6. Provide ongoing coaching and oversight to maintain motivation and skills.

A blueprint for addressing each one of these actions follows.

1. Update the financial policy

The policy is the set of expectations on which to build all procedures and training. Dust off this document, and review it as a group with the practice administrator. First, strike old language that says the patient will be balance-billed, or will only be asked in the office for his visit copay. Next, strive for clarity. “You will be asked to pay your financial responsibility at the time of service,” really says nothing. Instead, the policy should be direct:

If you are recommended for surgery, our staff will calculate your coinsurance and unmet deductible amounts: 50% of this amount will be collected as a surgery deposit, and the remaining 50% is due on or before the day of surgery. Payment plans are available.

For office visits and services, break down the policy by coverage type. We find that a table such as the one shown makes expectations clear.

Finally, strive for 1 standard policy for all providers. If every provider is allowed to create his or her own set of collection policies, the practice is setting staff up for complexity overload, and collections will suffer.

2. Develop granular procedures

Few practices take the time to translate the financial policy into written procedures that can be followed by staff. The policy establishes the rules, but the procedures tell staff what to do to implement those rules. For instance:

Create a “POS Playbook” that contains information such as procedures, cost-quotation worksheets, US Poverty guidelines¹, and financing brochures. As old-school as it sounds, a 3-ring binder is great for this information, and makes information access and updates easy.

3. Implement collection technologies

Modern practices use inexpensive (and often free) tools that increase patient convenience and staff efficiency. Implement at least 2 of these useful technologies and watch your POS collections increase:

Reports from your practice management system (PMS). Use the technology you already have. There are 2 standard reports in your PMS or clearinghouse that give front-desk staff the data to ask patients for money. Eligibility status and past-due balance reports indicate amounts owed, unmet deductibles, and the ineligible patients they can collect from when they come in for their appointment.

Online cost estimators. These free, online tools are offered by payers and provide staff with real-time data about a patient’s unmet deductible and coinsurance. When staff members enter Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and the patient’s benefit information into the online cost estimator, they can access valuable information. Many insurance plans offer cost estimators on their web sites. Others deliver the data through statewide or regional portals, such as Availity (www.availity.com). The accuracy of cost-estimator data can vary by region and depends on the data links with payers. Ask your team to evaluate which estimators are best for you based on your payer mix.

Online bill pay. Everyone appreciates the convenience of paying bills online. Most patient portals offer this feature. If yours does not or you do not have a portal, you can offer PayPal (www.paypal.com) on your practice website, or use a system such as Intuit Health (www.intuithealth.com).

Recurring billing. Recurring billing is how you pay for services, such as Netflix, Pandora, or your gym membership: it is automatically billed to a credit card each month. Offer this option to patients as a payment plan method, and staff will no longer need to send costly statements, post monthly check payments, or follow up when a patient is delinquent. Plus, it guarantees payment every month; patients can no longer say, “I forgot.”

TransFirst (www.transfirstassociation.com) and a-claim (www.a-claim.com) offer recurring billing through a “virtual terminal” that staff logs in to at checkout, or during the preprocedure patient counseling process. Both vendors also offer the option of automatically charging a patient’s credit card after their insurance pays, speeding patient account pay-off and negating the need for statements.

Real-time collections scripts based on payer rules. Patient Access, offered by Availity, combines real-time payer data with financial policies that are entered during set-up to create instant, patient-specific scripts that staff members read to the patient in front of them.

4. Schedule formal training

Just because someone can collect a copay does not mean he or she is comfortable with or capable of asking patients for past-due balances, surgical deposits, or large coinsurances. It is the rare staff person who is a “natural” at asking patients for money in a polished and professional manner.

That’s why training staff how to ask patients for money is vital. A front-office supervisor or manager should conduct several training sessions to cover policies and procedures. Training materials should include talking points and scenarios for collecting for office services and past-due balances, and calculating what patients owe, using technology tools. Use role-playing to ensure staff can explain payment plan options and how to apply for patient financing or financial assistance.

Few practices can skip this part of the POS program and still be successful. If your manager or supervisor is not capable of training, it is worth the investment to hire an outside expert. Without thorough training, staff efforts will be suboptimal or, at worst, fail because the staff members will not know how or what to collect.

5. Measure and monitor the outcome

The Hawthorne effect is a psychological phenomenon that says people perform better and make more positive changes as a result of increased attention.² In other words, staff members will perform better, and collect more, if they know someone is paying attention. Trust us on this one.

Employees respect what management inspects. So even if the implementation of POS collections has been a big success, do not take your eyes off the ball.

Stop by the front desk or surgery coordinator’s office a few times a month and ask how much has been collected. Randomly review daily over-the-counter collections logs. And always put POS collections performance on the monthly partner meeting agenda; review a graph that shows monthly collections at checkout and surgery deposits. Keeping tabs on performance enables the practice to take action quickly when collections drop, and before that decline becomes acute.

6. Provide ongoing coaching and oversight

Most practices train once, then wonder why staff motivation (and collections too) fall off after a while. Like that new couch you bought: it was all you could talk about the week after it was delivered. Now, it is only a comfy place to sit. It is the same with collections efforts. When the newness wears off, staff motivation does too, and training principles can be forgotten. That’s human nature. Conduct role-playing in staff meetings each quarter and discuss best practices for handling patient objections. Encourage peer-to-peer observation and coaching to address knowledge gaps and missed collection opportunities. Ongoing training and coaching will tease out training needs and boost your team’s collection confidence and success.

Patients with lower limb amputation have a high incidence of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the residual limb as well as the contralateral limb. A radical surgery, hip disarticulation is generally performed in younger patients after malignancy or trauma. Compliance is poor with existing prostheses, resulting in increased dependency on and use of the remaining sound limb.

In this case report, a crutch-walking 51-year-old woman presented with severe left hip arthritis 25 years after a right hip disarticulation. She underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA), a challenging procedure in a person without a contralateral hip joint. The many complex technical considerations associated with her THA included precise perioperative planning, the selection of appropriate prostheses and bearing surfaces, and the preoperative and intraoperative assessment of limb length and offset. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 51-year-old woman presented to our service with a 3-year history of debilitating left hip pain. Twenty-five years earlier, she had been diagnosed with synovial sarcoma of the right knee and underwent limb-sparing surgery, followed by a true hip disarticulation performed for local recurrence. After her surgery, she declined the use of a prosthesis and mobilized with the use of 2 crutches. She has remained otherwise healthy and active, and runs her own business, which involves some lifting and carrying of objects. During the 3 years prior to presentation, she developed progressively debilitating left hip and groin pain, which radiated to the medial aspect of her left knee. Her mobilization distance had reduced to a few hundred meters, and she experienced significant night pain, and start-up pain. Activity modification, weight loss, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication afforded no relief. She denied any back pain or radicular symptoms.

Clinical examination showed a well-healed scar and pristine stump under her right hemipelvis. Passive range of movement of her left hip was painful for all movements, reduced at flexion (90º) and internal (10º) and external rotation (5º). Examination of her left knee was normal, with a full range of movement and no joint-line tenderness. A high body mass index (>30) was noted. Radiographic imaging confirmed significant OA of the hip joint (Figure 1). Informed consent was obtained for THA. The implants were selected—an uncemented collared Corail Stem (DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) with a stainless steel dual mobility (DM) Novae SunFit acetabular cup (Serf, Decines, France), with bearing components of ceramic on polyethylene. A preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of the left hip was performed (Figure 2) to aid templating, which was accomplished using plain films and CT images, with reference to the proximal femur for deciding level of neck cut, planning stem size, and optimizing length and offset, while determining cup size, depth, inclination, and height for the acetabular component.

Prior to surgery, the patient was positioned in the lateral decubitus position, using folded pillows under the medial aspect of her left proximal and distal thigh in lieu of her amputated limb. Pillows were secured to the table with elastic bandage tape. Standard pubic symphysis, lumbosacral, and midthoracic padded bolsters stabilized the pelvis in the normal fashion, with additional elastic bandage tape to further secure the pelvis brim to the table and reduce intraoperative motion. A posterior approach was used. A capsulotomy was performed with the hip in extension and slight abduction, with meticulous preservation of the capsule as the guide for the patient’s native length and offset. Reaming of the acetabulum was line to line, with insertion of an uncemented DM metal-back press-fit hydroxyapatite-coated shell placed in a standard fashion parallel with the transverse acetabular ligament, as described by Archbold and colleagues.¹ The femur was sequentially reamed with broaches until press fit was achieved, and a calcar reamer was used to optimize interface with the collared implant. The surgeon’s standard 4 clinical tests were performed with trial implants after reduction to gauge hip tension, length, and offset. These tests are positive shuck test with hip and knee extension, lack of shuck in hip extension with knee flexion, lack of kick sign in hip extension and knee flexion, and palpation of gluteus medius belly to determine tension. Finally, with the hip returned to the extended and slightly abducted position, the capsule was tested for length and tension. The definitive stem implant was inserted, final testing with trial heads was repeated prior to definitive neck length and head selection, and final reduction was performed. A layered closure was performed, after generous washout. Pillows were taped together and positioned from the bed railing across the midline of the bed to prevent abduction, in the fashion of an abduction pillow.

The patient was mobilized the day after surgery and permitted full weight-bearing. Recovery was uneventful, and the patient returned to work within 6 weeks of surgery after her scheduled appointment and radiographic examination (Figure 3). Ongoing regular clinical and radiologic surveillance are planned.

Discussion

Hip and knee OA in the residual limb is more common for amputees than for the general population.^2,3 THA for OA in amputees has been reported after below-knee amputation in both the ipsilateral and the contralateral hip.⁴ A true hip disarticulation is a rarely performed radical surgical procedure, involving the removal of the entire femur, and is most often related to surgical oncologic treatment or combat-related injuries, both being more common in younger people. Like many patients who have had a hip disarticulation,⁵ our patient declined a prosthesis, finding the design cosmetically unappealing and uncomfortable, in favor of crutch-walking. This accelerated wear of the remaining hip, and is a sobering reminder of the high demand on the bearing surfaces of the implants after her procedure.

The implants chosen for this procedure are critical. We use implants which are proven and reliable. Our institution uses the Corail Stem, an uncemented collared stem with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A rating,⁶ widely used for THA.⁷ For the acetabulum, we chose the Novae SunFit, a modern version based on Bousquet’s 1976 DM design. The DM cup is a tripolar cup with a fixed porous-coated or cemented metal cup, which articulates with a large mobile polyethylene liner. A standard head in either metal or ceramic is inserted into this liner. The articulation between the head and the liner is constrained, while the articulation between the liner and the metal cup is unconstrained. This interposition of a mobile insert increases the effective head diameter, and the favorable head-neck ratio allows increased range of motion while avoiding early femoral neck impingement with a fixed liner or metal cup. A growing body of evidence indicates that DM cups reduce dislocation rates in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty and, when used with prudence, in selected tumor cases.⁸ A study of 1905 hips, using second-generation DM cups, reported cumulative survival rate of 98.6% at 12.2 years,⁹ with favorable outcomes compared with standard prostheses in the medium term for younger patients,¹⁰ and in the longer term,¹¹ without increasing polyethylene wear.¹²

We use DM cups for 2 patient cohorts: first, for all patients older than 75 years because, in this age group, the risk of dislocation is higher than the risk of revision for wear-induced lysis; and second, in younger patients with any neuromuscular, cognitive, or mechanical risk factors that would excessively increase the risk of dislocation. This reflects the balance of risks in arthroplasty, with the ever-present trade-off between polyethylene-induced osteolysis and stability. Dislocation of the remaining sound limb for this young, active, agile patient would be a catastrophic complication. Given our patient’s risk factors for dislocation—female, an amputee with a high risk of falling, high body mass index, and lack of a contralateral limb to restrict adduction—the balance of risks favored hip stability over wear. We chose, therefore, a DM cup, using a ceramic-head-on-polyethylene-insert surface-bearing combination.

CT scanning is routinely performed in our institution to optimize preoperative templating. The preoperative CT images enable accurate planning, notably for the extramedullary reconstruction,¹³ and are used in addition to acetates and standard radiographs. This encourages preservation of acetabular bone stock by selecting the smallest suitable cup, reduces the risk of femoral fracture by giving an accurate prediction of the stem size, and ensures accuracy of restoring the patient’s offset and length. Although limb-length discrepancy was not an issue for this patient with a single sound limb, the sequalae of excessively increasing offset or length (eg, gluteus medius tendinopathy and trochanteric bursitis) would arguably be more debilitating than for someone who could offload weight to the “good hip.” For these reasons, marrying the preoperative templating with on-table testing with trial prostheses and restoring the native capsular tension is vital.

The importance of on-table positioning for proximal amputees undergoing hip arthroplasty has been highlighted.¹⁴ Lacking the normal bony constraints increases the risk of intraoperative on-table movement, which, in turn, risks reducing the accuracy of implant positioning. Crude limb-length checking using the contralateral knee is not possible. In addition, the lack of a contralateral hip joint causes a degree of compensatory pelvic tilt, which raises the option of increasing the coverage to compensate for obligate adduction during single-leg, crutch-walking gait. Lacking established guidelines to accommodate these variables, we inserted the cup in a standard fashion, at 45º, referencing acetabular version using the transverse acetabular ligament,¹ and used the smallest stable cup after line-to-line reaming.

This case of THA in a young, crutch-walking patient with a contralateral true hip disarticulation highlights the importance of meticulous preoperative planning, implant selection appropriate for the patient in question, perioperative positioning, and the technical and operative challenges of restoring the patient’s normal hip architecture. 

Patients with lower limb amputation have a high incidence of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the residual limb as well as the contralateral limb. A radical surgery, hip disarticulation is generally performed in younger patients after malignancy or trauma. Compliance is poor with existing prostheses, resulting in increased dependency on and use of the remaining sound limb.

In this case report, a crutch-walking 51-year-old woman presented with severe left hip arthritis 25 years after a right hip disarticulation. She underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA), a challenging procedure in a person without a contralateral hip joint. The many complex technical considerations associated with her THA included precise perioperative planning, the selection of appropriate prostheses and bearing surfaces, and the preoperative and intraoperative assessment of limb length and offset. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 51-year-old woman presented to our service with a 3-year history of debilitating left hip pain. Twenty-five years earlier, she had been diagnosed with synovial sarcoma of the right knee and underwent limb-sparing surgery, followed by a true hip disarticulation performed for local recurrence. After her surgery, she declined the use of a prosthesis and mobilized with the use of 2 crutches. She has remained otherwise healthy and active, and runs her own business, which involves some lifting and carrying of objects. During the 3 years prior to presentation, she developed progressively debilitating left hip and groin pain, which radiated to the medial aspect of her left knee. Her mobilization distance had reduced to a few hundred meters, and she experienced significant night pain, and start-up pain. Activity modification, weight loss, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication afforded no relief. She denied any back pain or radicular symptoms.

Clinical examination showed a well-healed scar and pristine stump under her right hemipelvis. Passive range of movement of her left hip was painful for all movements, reduced at flexion (90º) and internal (10º) and external rotation (5º). Examination of her left knee was normal, with a full range of movement and no joint-line tenderness. A high body mass index (>30) was noted. Radiographic imaging confirmed significant OA of the hip joint (Figure 1). Informed consent was obtained for THA. The implants were selected—an uncemented collared Corail Stem (DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) with a stainless steel dual mobility (DM) Novae SunFit acetabular cup (Serf, Decines, France), with bearing components of ceramic on polyethylene. A preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of the left hip was performed (Figure 2) to aid templating, which was accomplished using plain films and CT images, with reference to the proximal femur for deciding level of neck cut, planning stem size, and optimizing length and offset, while determining cup size, depth, inclination, and height for the acetabular component.

Prior to surgery, the patient was positioned in the lateral decubitus position, using folded pillows under the medial aspect of her left proximal and distal thigh in lieu of her amputated limb. Pillows were secured to the table with elastic bandage tape. Standard pubic symphysis, lumbosacral, and midthoracic padded bolsters stabilized the pelvis in the normal fashion, with additional elastic bandage tape to further secure the pelvis brim to the table and reduce intraoperative motion. A posterior approach was used. A capsulotomy was performed with the hip in extension and slight abduction, with meticulous preservation of the capsule as the guide for the patient’s native length and offset. Reaming of the acetabulum was line to line, with insertion of an uncemented DM metal-back press-fit hydroxyapatite-coated shell placed in a standard fashion parallel with the transverse acetabular ligament, as described by Archbold and colleagues.¹ The femur was sequentially reamed with broaches until press fit was achieved, and a calcar reamer was used to optimize interface with the collared implant. The surgeon’s standard 4 clinical tests were performed with trial implants after reduction to gauge hip tension, length, and offset. These tests are positive shuck test with hip and knee extension, lack of shuck in hip extension with knee flexion, lack of kick sign in hip extension and knee flexion, and palpation of gluteus medius belly to determine tension. Finally, with the hip returned to the extended and slightly abducted position, the capsule was tested for length and tension. The definitive stem implant was inserted, final testing with trial heads was repeated prior to definitive neck length and head selection, and final reduction was performed. A layered closure was performed, after generous washout. Pillows were taped together and positioned from the bed railing across the midline of the bed to prevent abduction, in the fashion of an abduction pillow.

The patient was mobilized the day after surgery and permitted full weight-bearing. Recovery was uneventful, and the patient returned to work within 6 weeks of surgery after her scheduled appointment and radiographic examination (Figure 3). Ongoing regular clinical and radiologic surveillance are planned.

Discussion

Hip and knee OA in the residual limb is more common for amputees than for the general population.^2,3 THA for OA in amputees has been reported after below-knee amputation in both the ipsilateral and the contralateral hip.⁴ A true hip disarticulation is a rarely performed radical surgical procedure, involving the removal of the entire femur, and is most often related to surgical oncologic treatment or combat-related injuries, both being more common in younger people. Like many patients who have had a hip disarticulation,⁵ our patient declined a prosthesis, finding the design cosmetically unappealing and uncomfortable, in favor of crutch-walking. This accelerated wear of the remaining hip, and is a sobering reminder of the high demand on the bearing surfaces of the implants after her procedure.

The implants chosen for this procedure are critical. We use implants which are proven and reliable. Our institution uses the Corail Stem, an uncemented collared stem with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A rating,⁶ widely used for THA.⁷ For the acetabulum, we chose the Novae SunFit, a modern version based on Bousquet’s 1976 DM design. The DM cup is a tripolar cup with a fixed porous-coated or cemented metal cup, which articulates with a large mobile polyethylene liner. A standard head in either metal or ceramic is inserted into this liner. The articulation between the head and the liner is constrained, while the articulation between the liner and the metal cup is unconstrained. This interposition of a mobile insert increases the effective head diameter, and the favorable head-neck ratio allows increased range of motion while avoiding early femoral neck impingement with a fixed liner or metal cup. A growing body of evidence indicates that DM cups reduce dislocation rates in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty and, when used with prudence, in selected tumor cases.⁸ A study of 1905 hips, using second-generation DM cups, reported cumulative survival rate of 98.6% at 12.2 years,⁹ with favorable outcomes compared with standard prostheses in the medium term for younger patients,¹⁰ and in the longer term,¹¹ without increasing polyethylene wear.¹²

We use DM cups for 2 patient cohorts: first, for all patients older than 75 years because, in this age group, the risk of dislocation is higher than the risk of revision for wear-induced lysis; and second, in younger patients with any neuromuscular, cognitive, or mechanical risk factors that would excessively increase the risk of dislocation. This reflects the balance of risks in arthroplasty, with the ever-present trade-off between polyethylene-induced osteolysis and stability. Dislocation of the remaining sound limb for this young, active, agile patient would be a catastrophic complication. Given our patient’s risk factors for dislocation—female, an amputee with a high risk of falling, high body mass index, and lack of a contralateral limb to restrict adduction—the balance of risks favored hip stability over wear. We chose, therefore, a DM cup, using a ceramic-head-on-polyethylene-insert surface-bearing combination.

CT scanning is routinely performed in our institution to optimize preoperative templating. The preoperative CT images enable accurate planning, notably for the extramedullary reconstruction,¹³ and are used in addition to acetates and standard radiographs. This encourages preservation of acetabular bone stock by selecting the smallest suitable cup, reduces the risk of femoral fracture by giving an accurate prediction of the stem size, and ensures accuracy of restoring the patient’s offset and length. Although limb-length discrepancy was not an issue for this patient with a single sound limb, the sequalae of excessively increasing offset or length (eg, gluteus medius tendinopathy and trochanteric bursitis) would arguably be more debilitating than for someone who could offload weight to the “good hip.” For these reasons, marrying the preoperative templating with on-table testing with trial prostheses and restoring the native capsular tension is vital.

The importance of on-table positioning for proximal amputees undergoing hip arthroplasty has been highlighted.¹⁴ Lacking the normal bony constraints increases the risk of intraoperative on-table movement, which, in turn, risks reducing the accuracy of implant positioning. Crude limb-length checking using the contralateral knee is not possible. In addition, the lack of a contralateral hip joint causes a degree of compensatory pelvic tilt, which raises the option of increasing the coverage to compensate for obligate adduction during single-leg, crutch-walking gait. Lacking established guidelines to accommodate these variables, we inserted the cup in a standard fashion, at 45º, referencing acetabular version using the transverse acetabular ligament,¹ and used the smallest stable cup after line-to-line reaming.

This case of THA in a young, crutch-walking patient with a contralateral true hip disarticulation highlights the importance of meticulous preoperative planning, implant selection appropriate for the patient in question, perioperative positioning, and the technical and operative challenges of restoring the patient’s normal hip architecture. 

Patients with lower limb amputation have a high incidence of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the residual limb as well as the contralateral limb. A radical surgery, hip disarticulation is generally performed in younger patients after malignancy or trauma. Compliance is poor with existing prostheses, resulting in increased dependency on and use of the remaining sound limb.

In this case report, a crutch-walking 51-year-old woman presented with severe left hip arthritis 25 years after a right hip disarticulation. She underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA), a challenging procedure in a person without a contralateral hip joint. The many complex technical considerations associated with her THA included precise perioperative planning, the selection of appropriate prostheses and bearing surfaces, and the preoperative and intraoperative assessment of limb length and offset. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 51-year-old woman presented to our service with a 3-year history of debilitating left hip pain. Twenty-five years earlier, she had been diagnosed with synovial sarcoma of the right knee and underwent limb-sparing surgery, followed by a true hip disarticulation performed for local recurrence. After her surgery, she declined the use of a prosthesis and mobilized with the use of 2 crutches. She has remained otherwise healthy and active, and runs her own business, which involves some lifting and carrying of objects. During the 3 years prior to presentation, she developed progressively debilitating left hip and groin pain, which radiated to the medial aspect of her left knee. Her mobilization distance had reduced to a few hundred meters, and she experienced significant night pain, and start-up pain. Activity modification, weight loss, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication afforded no relief. She denied any back pain or radicular symptoms.

Clinical examination showed a well-healed scar and pristine stump under her right hemipelvis. Passive range of movement of her left hip was painful for all movements, reduced at flexion (90º) and internal (10º) and external rotation (5º). Examination of her left knee was normal, with a full range of movement and no joint-line tenderness. A high body mass index (>30) was noted. Radiographic imaging confirmed significant OA of the hip joint (Figure 1). Informed consent was obtained for THA. The implants were selected—an uncemented collared Corail Stem (DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) with a stainless steel dual mobility (DM) Novae SunFit acetabular cup (Serf, Decines, France), with bearing components of ceramic on polyethylene. A preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of the left hip was performed (Figure 2) to aid templating, which was accomplished using plain films and CT images, with reference to the proximal femur for deciding level of neck cut, planning stem size, and optimizing length and offset, while determining cup size, depth, inclination, and height for the acetabular component.

Prior to surgery, the patient was positioned in the lateral decubitus position, using folded pillows under the medial aspect of her left proximal and distal thigh in lieu of her amputated limb. Pillows were secured to the table with elastic bandage tape. Standard pubic symphysis, lumbosacral, and midthoracic padded bolsters stabilized the pelvis in the normal fashion, with additional elastic bandage tape to further secure the pelvis brim to the table and reduce intraoperative motion. A posterior approach was used. A capsulotomy was performed with the hip in extension and slight abduction, with meticulous preservation of the capsule as the guide for the patient’s native length and offset. Reaming of the acetabulum was line to line, with insertion of an uncemented DM metal-back press-fit hydroxyapatite-coated shell placed in a standard fashion parallel with the transverse acetabular ligament, as described by Archbold and colleagues.¹ The femur was sequentially reamed with broaches until press fit was achieved, and a calcar reamer was used to optimize interface with the collared implant. The surgeon’s standard 4 clinical tests were performed with trial implants after reduction to gauge hip tension, length, and offset. These tests are positive shuck test with hip and knee extension, lack of shuck in hip extension with knee flexion, lack of kick sign in hip extension and knee flexion, and palpation of gluteus medius belly to determine tension. Finally, with the hip returned to the extended and slightly abducted position, the capsule was tested for length and tension. The definitive stem implant was inserted, final testing with trial heads was repeated prior to definitive neck length and head selection, and final reduction was performed. A layered closure was performed, after generous washout. Pillows were taped together and positioned from the bed railing across the midline of the bed to prevent abduction, in the fashion of an abduction pillow.

The patient was mobilized the day after surgery and permitted full weight-bearing. Recovery was uneventful, and the patient returned to work within 6 weeks of surgery after her scheduled appointment and radiographic examination (Figure 3). Ongoing regular clinical and radiologic surveillance are planned.

Discussion

Hip and knee OA in the residual limb is more common for amputees than for the general population.^2,3 THA for OA in amputees has been reported after below-knee amputation in both the ipsilateral and the contralateral hip.⁴ A true hip disarticulation is a rarely performed radical surgical procedure, involving the removal of the entire femur, and is most often related to surgical oncologic treatment or combat-related injuries, both being more common in younger people. Like many patients who have had a hip disarticulation,⁵ our patient declined a prosthesis, finding the design cosmetically unappealing and uncomfortable, in favor of crutch-walking. This accelerated wear of the remaining hip, and is a sobering reminder of the high demand on the bearing surfaces of the implants after her procedure.

The implants chosen for this procedure are critical. We use implants which are proven and reliable. Our institution uses the Corail Stem, an uncemented collared stem with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A rating,⁶ widely used for THA.⁷ For the acetabulum, we chose the Novae SunFit, a modern version based on Bousquet’s 1976 DM design. The DM cup is a tripolar cup with a fixed porous-coated or cemented metal cup, which articulates with a large mobile polyethylene liner. A standard head in either metal or ceramic is inserted into this liner. The articulation between the head and the liner is constrained, while the articulation between the liner and the metal cup is unconstrained. This interposition of a mobile insert increases the effective head diameter, and the favorable head-neck ratio allows increased range of motion while avoiding early femoral neck impingement with a fixed liner or metal cup. A growing body of evidence indicates that DM cups reduce dislocation rates in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty and, when used with prudence, in selected tumor cases.⁸ A study of 1905 hips, using second-generation DM cups, reported cumulative survival rate of 98.6% at 12.2 years,⁹ with favorable outcomes compared with standard prostheses in the medium term for younger patients,¹⁰ and in the longer term,¹¹ without increasing polyethylene wear.¹²

We use DM cups for 2 patient cohorts: first, for all patients older than 75 years because, in this age group, the risk of dislocation is higher than the risk of revision for wear-induced lysis; and second, in younger patients with any neuromuscular, cognitive, or mechanical risk factors that would excessively increase the risk of dislocation. This reflects the balance of risks in arthroplasty, with the ever-present trade-off between polyethylene-induced osteolysis and stability. Dislocation of the remaining sound limb for this young, active, agile patient would be a catastrophic complication. Given our patient’s risk factors for dislocation—female, an amputee with a high risk of falling, high body mass index, and lack of a contralateral limb to restrict adduction—the balance of risks favored hip stability over wear. We chose, therefore, a DM cup, using a ceramic-head-on-polyethylene-insert surface-bearing combination.

CT scanning is routinely performed in our institution to optimize preoperative templating. The preoperative CT images enable accurate planning, notably for the extramedullary reconstruction,¹³ and are used in addition to acetates and standard radiographs. This encourages preservation of acetabular bone stock by selecting the smallest suitable cup, reduces the risk of femoral fracture by giving an accurate prediction of the stem size, and ensures accuracy of restoring the patient’s offset and length. Although limb-length discrepancy was not an issue for this patient with a single sound limb, the sequalae of excessively increasing offset or length (eg, gluteus medius tendinopathy and trochanteric bursitis) would arguably be more debilitating than for someone who could offload weight to the “good hip.” For these reasons, marrying the preoperative templating with on-table testing with trial prostheses and restoring the native capsular tension is vital.

The importance of on-table positioning for proximal amputees undergoing hip arthroplasty has been highlighted.¹⁴ Lacking the normal bony constraints increases the risk of intraoperative on-table movement, which, in turn, risks reducing the accuracy of implant positioning. Crude limb-length checking using the contralateral knee is not possible. In addition, the lack of a contralateral hip joint causes a degree of compensatory pelvic tilt, which raises the option of increasing the coverage to compensate for obligate adduction during single-leg, crutch-walking gait. Lacking established guidelines to accommodate these variables, we inserted the cup in a standard fashion, at 45º, referencing acetabular version using the transverse acetabular ligament,¹ and used the smallest stable cup after line-to-line reaming.

This case of THA in a young, crutch-walking patient with a contralateral true hip disarticulation highlights the importance of meticulous preoperative planning, implant selection appropriate for the patient in question, perioperative positioning, and the technical and operative challenges of restoring the patient’s normal hip architecture. 

Hip fractures, the most severe and costly fall-related fractures, account for 350,000 hospital admissions per year.¹ The majority of hip fractures result from low-impact falls, typically in patients over age 60 years. In fact, the increase in hip fracture with age is nearly exponential.^2,3 With the predicted aging of our population, hip fractures will continue to increase in volume. Between 2000 and 2050, the elderly US population will increase by 135%,⁴ proportionately increasing the number of projected hip fractures. Considering that hip fractures account for 72% of total costs in terms of orthopedic fracture care in the elderly, the dramatic rise in hip fractures is of great concern for future costs of health care delivery in this field.^5-7

In an effort to move toward a value-based system in which costs are reduced while quality of care is maintained, Medicare recently unveiled a new bundled payment system of reimbursement. Through this system, hospitals will be reimbursed for treatment provided to Medicare beneficiaries based on the expected costs of care, instead of through the traditional fee-for-service model. Given this development, orthopedic surgeons will need to develop interventions that reduce costs while maintaining quality of care after hip fracture surgery.

One of the most significant ramifications of a value-based system is that reimbursement for hip fractures may be standardized based on a single diagnosis regardless of the actual costs associated with treatment.⁸ In hip fracture cases, however, a wide range of factors, including degree of communition of the bone, presence of medical comorbidities,⁹ and amount of soft-tissue injury, can dramatically increase recovery time. In fact, one of the most important determinants of treatment costs related to hospital length of stay (LOS) is whether the fracture is a femoral neck or intertrochanteric fracture.^10,11 Type of fracture is a significant determinant of surgical options, and these can dramatically change patient outcomes and costs of surgical care.^12-16 In addition, hospital recovery time or LOS can vary widely based on type of surgery. As hospitalization costs account for 44% of the direct medical costs for hip fractures,¹⁷ differences in LOS can have major financial implications in a value-based system of reimbursement in which all forms of hip fracture are reimbursed a standard amount.

We conducted a study to analyze differences in hospital LOS for different forms of hip fracture repair to determine the potential financial repercussions of a bundled payment model of reimbursement. By performing a retrospective chart review at a large, level I trauma center, we were able to compare LOS and associated costs for total hip arthroplasty (THA), hemiarthroplasty (HA), cephalomedullary nailing (CMN), open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP).

Materials and Methods

After receiving institutional review board approval for this study, we retrospectively reviewed all hip fracture cases treated at a level I trauma center between January 2000 and December 2009. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were searched for cases of low-energy falls that caused hip fractures that were resolved with THA, HA, CMN, ORIF, or CRPP. Patients who underwent HA or THA were grouped for analysis. Patients who were over age 60 years and had acetabular, proximal femoral, trochanteric, or femoral neck fractures were included in our search. Patients who had incomplete medical records or did not meet the age criterion were excluded from analysis.

We reviewed patient charts in our institutional electronic medical records database to collect these data: date of birth, age, sex, date of admission, date of discharge, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status score, complications, height, weight, start and stop times of procedure, whether or not the procedure was an emergent procedure, days from admission to surgery, 90-day readmissions, days from surgery to discharge, and general category of operation. We also recorded individual comorbidities, including prior myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, heart block, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, current smoking status, smoking history, renal disease, dialysis, cancer, and diabetes. Duration of surgery was calculated from recorded start and stop times. Body mass index was calculated using height and weight recorded during initial stay. LOS was recorded as the difference between the admission and discharge dates.

Mean total cost to the hospital ($4530/d patient was hospitalized) was obtained from the institution’s financial services. All fractional LOS values were rounded to the nearest whole number and multiplied by the per diem cost. Student t test was used to compare mean LOS and costs of HA/THA with those of all the other procedures. Additional tests were run to analyze differences in LOS and type of surgeries performed throughout the 9-year period. A multivariate regression model controlling for ASA score, body mass index, age, sex, and comorbidities was developed to analyze differences in LOS and costs for patients who underwent HA/THA versus CMN, ORIF, and CRPP. Significance was set at P = .05.

Results

Our search identified 720 patients who were over age 60 years and underwent operative fixation for hip fracture at our level I trauma center between 2000 and 2009. Of these 720 patients, 105 who had incomplete charts or did not meet the age criteria were excluded, leaving 615 patients (with complete records of isolated low-energy hip fractures) for analysis.

Table 1 lists the demographics of our patient population. The majority of patients had undergone ORIF (30.24%) or HA/THA (45.69%). CRPP was the least common procedure (9.92%) after CMN (14.15%). Mean age was 78.4 years; the majority of patients were between 75 and 89 years of age. Mean hospital LOS was 6.91 days. The majority of patients (n = 414; 67.32%) were female. ASA scores had a narrow distribution, with most patients assigned a score of 3. The readmission rate was significantly higher for HA/THA (39.1%) than for ORIF (28.5%; P = .02) and CRPP (24.6%; P = .04).

Table 2 lists mean LOS and associated costs for each procedure compared with HA/THA. Mean LOS for all patients was 6.91 days, with associated hospitalization costs of $30,011.25. Patients who underwent HA/THA had the longest mean LOS (7.43 days) and highest mean hospitalization costs ($33,657.90). In comparison, patients who underwent ORIF had a mean LOS of 6.59 days with $29,852.70 in costs (P = .04). CRPP also had a significantly (P < .003) shorter LOS (5.59 days) and lower costs ($25,322.70). Although CMN had a mean LOS of 6.89 days and $31,211.70 in costs, the difference in LOS was not significantly different from that of HA/THA. The proportion of surgeries that were HA/THA, CMN, ORIF, and CRPP did not change significantly through the 9-year period (P = .19). Similarly, mean LOS did not change significantly for any of the types of surgery through this period (Table 3).

Figure 1 provides the distribution of LOS for all 4 procedures. The interquartile range (IQR) for patients who underwent HA/THA was 4 to 9 days (median, 6 days). Patients who underwent CMN also had a median LOS of 6 days and an IQR of 4 to 8 days. Both ORIF (IQR, 4-8 days) and CRPP (IQR, 3-6 days) were associated with a median LOS of 5 days.

Figure 2 shows mean hospitalization costs based on type of procedure. HA/THA had the highest mean cost, $33,657.90, or $8335.20 more than CRPP ($25,322.70). Patients who underwent CMN had a mean cost of $31,211.70, versus $29,852.70 for patients who underwent ORIF.

Table 4 summarizes the multivariate analysis results. After ASA score, sex, age, and comorbidities were controlled for, there was an overall significant relationship involving surgical treatment, LOS, and associated hospitalization costs for HA/THA, ORIF, and CRPP. Compared with HA/THA, ORIF had $3805.20 less in costs (P = .042) and 0.84 fewer hospital days. Patients who underwent CRPP were hospitalized for significantly fewer days (1.63) and associated costs ($7383.90) (P = .0076). There was no significant difference in LOS and costs between HA/THA and CMN. Of the controlled variables, only ASA score (P < .001) and male sex (P = .001) were significantly associated with changes in LOS and costs. There was no significant association with comorbidities, LOS, or costs.

Discussion

In this study of surgical intervention in patients with hip fractures, we determined that HA/THA was associated with significantly increased hospital LOS and costs than ORIF and CRPP. Although arthroplasty had an increased mean LOS compared with CMN, the difference was not statistically significant. In addition to type of procedure, both male sex (P = .001) and preoperative ASA score (P < .001) were significant predictors of LOS and costs. These findings are supported by other studies in which preoperative functioning was found to be a strong predictor of increased LOS and costs among hip fracture patients,¹⁸ most likely because of increased risk for complications.¹⁹

Although our study was the first to directly compare LOS and costs for HA/THA and CMN, other investigators have analyzed the effect of surgical complications on LOS for patients treated with THA, HA, and CMN. In a study on the effects of surgical complications on LOS after hip fracture surgery, Foss and colleagues¹⁷ reported that the proportion of CMN patients (31%) with complications was larger than that of HA patients (19%) and THA patients (0%). They also reported that surgical complications were associated with significantly increased LOS during primary admission. Similarly, Edwards and colleagues²⁰ found that the infection risk was higher with CMN (3.1%) than with THA (0%) and HA (0%-2.3%) and that infections were associated with increased LOS (P > .001). However, further statistical analysis revealed that the odds of developing an infection were not significantly higher with CMN than with other studies.²⁰ Similarly, other studies have reported low rates of complications, including nonunion, with CMN.^21,22 In our study, we found no significant difference in LOS and costs for CMN and HA/THA after controlling for ASA score, which is known to be associated with a higher risk for complications.^18,19

The largest difference in LOS and costs after controlling for potential confounding variables was between HA/THA and CRPP ($7383.90). To our knowledge, only one study has performed a comparative analysis of LOS for CRPP and other surgical treatments for hip fractures. For femoral neck fractures treated between 1990 and 1994, Fekete and colleagues²³ found that LOS was 14.9 days for ORIF cases and 12.1 days for CRPP cases—a difference of 2.8 days. In comparison, we found a 1-day difference in mean LOS between ORIF cases (6.59 days) and CRPP cases (5.59 days).

Other studies of LOS and associated costs over a 2-year period have found that ORIF is overall more costly than HA/THA. For example, Keating and colleagues¹³ compared total costs of care, including LOS, for healthy older patients with displaced intracapsular hip fractures treated with ORIF, bipolar HA, or THA. Although ORIF was initially less costly than HA/THA, overall ORIF costs over 2 years were significantly higher because of readmissions, which increased overall LOS. Similarly, in cases of displaced femoral fractures, Iorio and colleagues¹⁵ found that LOS was 6.4 days for ORIF, 4.9 days for unipolar HA, 6.2 days for bipolar HA, and 5.5 days for cemented and hybrid THA. However, when overall projected costs were estimated, including the costs of rehabilitation and of (probable) revision arthroplasty, ORIF was estimated to cost more over a 2-year period because of the need for additional care and in-patient stays. In contrast, we found that hospitalization costs were $3805.20 lower for ORIF than for HA/THA, even after adjusting for comorbidities, and that ORIF had a lower overall readmission rate. Early discharge of patients who are at risk for subsequent complications may have played a significant role in increasing readmission rates for arthroplasty patients. These findings indicate the complexities involved in a bundled payment system of reimbursement, in which a single payment for both initial stay and related readmissions will force orthopedists to consider long-term hospitalization costs when deciding on length of postoperative care and the most cost-effective surgical treatment.

One of the limitations of this study is its retrospective design. Although selection of our sample from a single level I trauma center reduced differences in cost and patient care protocols between institutions, it also reduced the generalizability of our actual costs. In addition, for some patients, LOS may have increased because of delays in surgery or discharge, lack of operating room availability, or need for further medical clearance for additional procedures. Day of admission could also have significantly affected LOS. However, the effects of these confounding factors were reduced because of the large sample analyzed. As stated earlier, overall LOS depends on both initial in-patient stays and readmissions. Therefore, long-term prospective studies that compare LOS and associated costs for patients with hip fractures treated with ORIF, CRPP, HA/THA, and CMN are needed.

Conclusion

It has been recently suggested that hip fracture repair be included in the National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling, which will potentially reimburse orthopedic surgeons a standardized amount for hip fracture surgery regardless of actual treatment costs.⁸ In this model, it will be essential to understand how type of fracture and surgical procedure can influence LOS and therefore hip fracture treatment costs. We found that, based on these factors, mean LOS ranged from 5.59 to 7.43 days, which translates to a cost range of $25,322.70 to $33,657.90. Before a standardized bundled payment system is implemented, further studies are needed to identify other factors that can significantly affect the cost of hip fracture repair.

Hip fractures, the most severe and costly fall-related fractures, account for 350,000 hospital admissions per year.¹ The majority of hip fractures result from low-impact falls, typically in patients over age 60 years. In fact, the increase in hip fracture with age is nearly exponential.^2,3 With the predicted aging of our population, hip fractures will continue to increase in volume. Between 2000 and 2050, the elderly US population will increase by 135%,⁴ proportionately increasing the number of projected hip fractures. Considering that hip fractures account for 72% of total costs in terms of orthopedic fracture care in the elderly, the dramatic rise in hip fractures is of great concern for future costs of health care delivery in this field.^5-7

In an effort to move toward a value-based system in which costs are reduced while quality of care is maintained, Medicare recently unveiled a new bundled payment system of reimbursement. Through this system, hospitals will be reimbursed for treatment provided to Medicare beneficiaries based on the expected costs of care, instead of through the traditional fee-for-service model. Given this development, orthopedic surgeons will need to develop interventions that reduce costs while maintaining quality of care after hip fracture surgery.

One of the most significant ramifications of a value-based system is that reimbursement for hip fractures may be standardized based on a single diagnosis regardless of the actual costs associated with treatment.⁸ In hip fracture cases, however, a wide range of factors, including degree of communition of the bone, presence of medical comorbidities,⁹ and amount of soft-tissue injury, can dramatically increase recovery time. In fact, one of the most important determinants of treatment costs related to hospital length of stay (LOS) is whether the fracture is a femoral neck or intertrochanteric fracture.^10,11 Type of fracture is a significant determinant of surgical options, and these can dramatically change patient outcomes and costs of surgical care.^12-16 In addition, hospital recovery time or LOS can vary widely based on type of surgery. As hospitalization costs account for 44% of the direct medical costs for hip fractures,¹⁷ differences in LOS can have major financial implications in a value-based system of reimbursement in which all forms of hip fracture are reimbursed a standard amount.

We conducted a study to analyze differences in hospital LOS for different forms of hip fracture repair to determine the potential financial repercussions of a bundled payment model of reimbursement. By performing a retrospective chart review at a large, level I trauma center, we were able to compare LOS and associated costs for total hip arthroplasty (THA), hemiarthroplasty (HA), cephalomedullary nailing (CMN), open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP).

Materials and Methods

After receiving institutional review board approval for this study, we retrospectively reviewed all hip fracture cases treated at a level I trauma center between January 2000 and December 2009. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were searched for cases of low-energy falls that caused hip fractures that were resolved with THA, HA, CMN, ORIF, or CRPP. Patients who underwent HA or THA were grouped for analysis. Patients who were over age 60 years and had acetabular, proximal femoral, trochanteric, or femoral neck fractures were included in our search. Patients who had incomplete medical records or did not meet the age criterion were excluded from analysis.

We reviewed patient charts in our institutional electronic medical records database to collect these data: date of birth, age, sex, date of admission, date of discharge, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status score, complications, height, weight, start and stop times of procedure, whether or not the procedure was an emergent procedure, days from admission to surgery, 90-day readmissions, days from surgery to discharge, and general category of operation. We also recorded individual comorbidities, including prior myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, heart block, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, current smoking status, smoking history, renal disease, dialysis, cancer, and diabetes. Duration of surgery was calculated from recorded start and stop times. Body mass index was calculated using height and weight recorded during initial stay. LOS was recorded as the difference between the admission and discharge dates.

Mean total cost to the hospital ($4530/d patient was hospitalized) was obtained from the institution’s financial services. All fractional LOS values were rounded to the nearest whole number and multiplied by the per diem cost. Student t test was used to compare mean LOS and costs of HA/THA with those of all the other procedures. Additional tests were run to analyze differences in LOS and type of surgeries performed throughout the 9-year period. A multivariate regression model controlling for ASA score, body mass index, age, sex, and comorbidities was developed to analyze differences in LOS and costs for patients who underwent HA/THA versus CMN, ORIF, and CRPP. Significance was set at P = .05.

Results

Our search identified 720 patients who were over age 60 years and underwent operative fixation for hip fracture at our level I trauma center between 2000 and 2009. Of these 720 patients, 105 who had incomplete charts or did not meet the age criteria were excluded, leaving 615 patients (with complete records of isolated low-energy hip fractures) for analysis.

Table 1 lists the demographics of our patient population. The majority of patients had undergone ORIF (30.24%) or HA/THA (45.69%). CRPP was the least common procedure (9.92%) after CMN (14.15%). Mean age was 78.4 years; the majority of patients were between 75 and 89 years of age. Mean hospital LOS was 6.91 days. The majority of patients (n = 414; 67.32%) were female. ASA scores had a narrow distribution, with most patients assigned a score of 3. The readmission rate was significantly higher for HA/THA (39.1%) than for ORIF (28.5%; P = .02) and CRPP (24.6%; P = .04).

Table 2 lists mean LOS and associated costs for each procedure compared with HA/THA. Mean LOS for all patients was 6.91 days, with associated hospitalization costs of $30,011.25. Patients who underwent HA/THA had the longest mean LOS (7.43 days) and highest mean hospitalization costs ($33,657.90). In comparison, patients who underwent ORIF had a mean LOS of 6.59 days with $29,852.70 in costs (P = .04). CRPP also had a significantly (P < .003) shorter LOS (5.59 days) and lower costs ($25,322.70). Although CMN had a mean LOS of 6.89 days and $31,211.70 in costs, the difference in LOS was not significantly different from that of HA/THA. The proportion of surgeries that were HA/THA, CMN, ORIF, and CRPP did not change significantly through the 9-year period (P = .19). Similarly, mean LOS did not change significantly for any of the types of surgery through this period (Table 3).

Figure 1 provides the distribution of LOS for all 4 procedures. The interquartile range (IQR) for patients who underwent HA/THA was 4 to 9 days (median, 6 days). Patients who underwent CMN also had a median LOS of 6 days and an IQR of 4 to 8 days. Both ORIF (IQR, 4-8 days) and CRPP (IQR, 3-6 days) were associated with a median LOS of 5 days.

Figure 2 shows mean hospitalization costs based on type of procedure. HA/THA had the highest mean cost, $33,657.90, or $8335.20 more than CRPP ($25,322.70). Patients who underwent CMN had a mean cost of $31,211.70, versus $29,852.70 for patients who underwent ORIF.

Table 4 summarizes the multivariate analysis results. After ASA score, sex, age, and comorbidities were controlled for, there was an overall significant relationship involving surgical treatment, LOS, and associated hospitalization costs for HA/THA, ORIF, and CRPP. Compared with HA/THA, ORIF had $3805.20 less in costs (P = .042) and 0.84 fewer hospital days. Patients who underwent CRPP were hospitalized for significantly fewer days (1.63) and associated costs ($7383.90) (P = .0076). There was no significant difference in LOS and costs between HA/THA and CMN. Of the controlled variables, only ASA score (P < .001) and male sex (P = .001) were significantly associated with changes in LOS and costs. There was no significant association with comorbidities, LOS, or costs.

Discussion

In this study of surgical intervention in patients with hip fractures, we determined that HA/THA was associated with significantly increased hospital LOS and costs than ORIF and CRPP. Although arthroplasty had an increased mean LOS compared with CMN, the difference was not statistically significant. In addition to type of procedure, both male sex (P = .001) and preoperative ASA score (P < .001) were significant predictors of LOS and costs. These findings are supported by other studies in which preoperative functioning was found to be a strong predictor of increased LOS and costs among hip fracture patients,¹⁸ most likely because of increased risk for complications.¹⁹

Although our study was the first to directly compare LOS and costs for HA/THA and CMN, other investigators have analyzed the effect of surgical complications on LOS for patients treated with THA, HA, and CMN. In a study on the effects of surgical complications on LOS after hip fracture surgery, Foss and colleagues¹⁷ reported that the proportion of CMN patients (31%) with complications was larger than that of HA patients (19%) and THA patients (0%). They also reported that surgical complications were associated with significantly increased LOS during primary admission. Similarly, Edwards and colleagues²⁰ found that the infection risk was higher with CMN (3.1%) than with THA (0%) and HA (0%-2.3%) and that infections were associated with increased LOS (P > .001). However, further statistical analysis revealed that the odds of developing an infection were not significantly higher with CMN than with other studies.²⁰ Similarly, other studies have reported low rates of complications, including nonunion, with CMN.^21,22 In our study, we found no significant difference in LOS and costs for CMN and HA/THA after controlling for ASA score, which is known to be associated with a higher risk for complications.^18,19

The largest difference in LOS and costs after controlling for potential confounding variables was between HA/THA and CRPP ($7383.90). To our knowledge, only one study has performed a comparative analysis of LOS for CRPP and other surgical treatments for hip fractures. For femoral neck fractures treated between 1990 and 1994, Fekete and colleagues²³ found that LOS was 14.9 days for ORIF cases and 12.1 days for CRPP cases—a difference of 2.8 days. In comparison, we found a 1-day difference in mean LOS between ORIF cases (6.59 days) and CRPP cases (5.59 days).

Other studies of LOS and associated costs over a 2-year period have found that ORIF is overall more costly than HA/THA. For example, Keating and colleagues¹³ compared total costs of care, including LOS, for healthy older patients with displaced intracapsular hip fractures treated with ORIF, bipolar HA, or THA. Although ORIF was initially less costly than HA/THA, overall ORIF costs over 2 years were significantly higher because of readmissions, which increased overall LOS. Similarly, in cases of displaced femoral fractures, Iorio and colleagues¹⁵ found that LOS was 6.4 days for ORIF, 4.9 days for unipolar HA, 6.2 days for bipolar HA, and 5.5 days for cemented and hybrid THA. However, when overall projected costs were estimated, including the costs of rehabilitation and of (probable) revision arthroplasty, ORIF was estimated to cost more over a 2-year period because of the need for additional care and in-patient stays. In contrast, we found that hospitalization costs were $3805.20 lower for ORIF than for HA/THA, even after adjusting for comorbidities, and that ORIF had a lower overall readmission rate. Early discharge of patients who are at risk for subsequent complications may have played a significant role in increasing readmission rates for arthroplasty patients. These findings indicate the complexities involved in a bundled payment system of reimbursement, in which a single payment for both initial stay and related readmissions will force orthopedists to consider long-term hospitalization costs when deciding on length of postoperative care and the most cost-effective surgical treatment.

One of the limitations of this study is its retrospective design. Although selection of our sample from a single level I trauma center reduced differences in cost and patient care protocols between institutions, it also reduced the generalizability of our actual costs. In addition, for some patients, LOS may have increased because of delays in surgery or discharge, lack of operating room availability, or need for further medical clearance for additional procedures. Day of admission could also have significantly affected LOS. However, the effects of these confounding factors were reduced because of the large sample analyzed. As stated earlier, overall LOS depends on both initial in-patient stays and readmissions. Therefore, long-term prospective studies that compare LOS and associated costs for patients with hip fractures treated with ORIF, CRPP, HA/THA, and CMN are needed.

Conclusion

It has been recently suggested that hip fracture repair be included in the National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling, which will potentially reimburse orthopedic surgeons a standardized amount for hip fracture surgery regardless of actual treatment costs.⁸ In this model, it will be essential to understand how type of fracture and surgical procedure can influence LOS and therefore hip fracture treatment costs. We found that, based on these factors, mean LOS ranged from 5.59 to 7.43 days, which translates to a cost range of $25,322.70 to $33,657.90. Before a standardized bundled payment system is implemented, further studies are needed to identify other factors that can significantly affect the cost of hip fracture repair.

Hip fractures, the most severe and costly fall-related fractures, account for 350,000 hospital admissions per year.¹ The majority of hip fractures result from low-impact falls, typically in patients over age 60 years. In fact, the increase in hip fracture with age is nearly exponential.^2,3 With the predicted aging of our population, hip fractures will continue to increase in volume. Between 2000 and 2050, the elderly US population will increase by 135%,⁴ proportionately increasing the number of projected hip fractures. Considering that hip fractures account for 72% of total costs in terms of orthopedic fracture care in the elderly, the dramatic rise in hip fractures is of great concern for future costs of health care delivery in this field.^5-7

In an effort to move toward a value-based system in which costs are reduced while quality of care is maintained, Medicare recently unveiled a new bundled payment system of reimbursement. Through this system, hospitals will be reimbursed for treatment provided to Medicare beneficiaries based on the expected costs of care, instead of through the traditional fee-for-service model. Given this development, orthopedic surgeons will need to develop interventions that reduce costs while maintaining quality of care after hip fracture surgery.

One of the most significant ramifications of a value-based system is that reimbursement for hip fractures may be standardized based on a single diagnosis regardless of the actual costs associated with treatment.⁸ In hip fracture cases, however, a wide range of factors, including degree of communition of the bone, presence of medical comorbidities,⁹ and amount of soft-tissue injury, can dramatically increase recovery time. In fact, one of the most important determinants of treatment costs related to hospital length of stay (LOS) is whether the fracture is a femoral neck or intertrochanteric fracture.^10,11 Type of fracture is a significant determinant of surgical options, and these can dramatically change patient outcomes and costs of surgical care.^12-16 In addition, hospital recovery time or LOS can vary widely based on type of surgery. As hospitalization costs account for 44% of the direct medical costs for hip fractures,¹⁷ differences in LOS can have major financial implications in a value-based system of reimbursement in which all forms of hip fracture are reimbursed a standard amount.

We conducted a study to analyze differences in hospital LOS for different forms of hip fracture repair to determine the potential financial repercussions of a bundled payment model of reimbursement. By performing a retrospective chart review at a large, level I trauma center, we were able to compare LOS and associated costs for total hip arthroplasty (THA), hemiarthroplasty (HA), cephalomedullary nailing (CMN), open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP).

Materials and Methods

After receiving institutional review board approval for this study, we retrospectively reviewed all hip fracture cases treated at a level I trauma center between January 2000 and December 2009. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were searched for cases of low-energy falls that caused hip fractures that were resolved with THA, HA, CMN, ORIF, or CRPP. Patients who underwent HA or THA were grouped for analysis. Patients who were over age 60 years and had acetabular, proximal femoral, trochanteric, or femoral neck fractures were included in our search. Patients who had incomplete medical records or did not meet the age criterion were excluded from analysis.

We reviewed patient charts in our institutional electronic medical records database to collect these data: date of birth, age, sex, date of admission, date of discharge, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status score, complications, height, weight, start and stop times of procedure, whether or not the procedure was an emergent procedure, days from admission to surgery, 90-day readmissions, days from surgery to discharge, and general category of operation. We also recorded individual comorbidities, including prior myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, heart block, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, current smoking status, smoking history, renal disease, dialysis, cancer, and diabetes. Duration of surgery was calculated from recorded start and stop times. Body mass index was calculated using height and weight recorded during initial stay. LOS was recorded as the difference between the admission and discharge dates.

Mean total cost to the hospital ($4530/d patient was hospitalized) was obtained from the institution’s financial services. All fractional LOS values were rounded to the nearest whole number and multiplied by the per diem cost. Student t test was used to compare mean LOS and costs of HA/THA with those of all the other procedures. Additional tests were run to analyze differences in LOS and type of surgeries performed throughout the 9-year period. A multivariate regression model controlling for ASA score, body mass index, age, sex, and comorbidities was developed to analyze differences in LOS and costs for patients who underwent HA/THA versus CMN, ORIF, and CRPP. Significance was set at P = .05.

Results

Our search identified 720 patients who were over age 60 years and underwent operative fixation for hip fracture at our level I trauma center between 2000 and 2009. Of these 720 patients, 105 who had incomplete charts or did not meet the age criteria were excluded, leaving 615 patients (with complete records of isolated low-energy hip fractures) for analysis.

Table 1 lists the demographics of our patient population. The majority of patients had undergone ORIF (30.24%) or HA/THA (45.69%). CRPP was the least common procedure (9.92%) after CMN (14.15%). Mean age was 78.4 years; the majority of patients were between 75 and 89 years of age. Mean hospital LOS was 6.91 days. The majority of patients (n = 414; 67.32%) were female. ASA scores had a narrow distribution, with most patients assigned a score of 3. The readmission rate was significantly higher for HA/THA (39.1%) than for ORIF (28.5%; P = .02) and CRPP (24.6%; P = .04).

Table 2 lists mean LOS and associated costs for each procedure compared with HA/THA. Mean LOS for all patients was 6.91 days, with associated hospitalization costs of $30,011.25. Patients who underwent HA/THA had the longest mean LOS (7.43 days) and highest mean hospitalization costs ($33,657.90). In comparison, patients who underwent ORIF had a mean LOS of 6.59 days with $29,852.70 in costs (P = .04). CRPP also had a significantly (P < .003) shorter LOS (5.59 days) and lower costs ($25,322.70). Although CMN had a mean LOS of 6.89 days and $31,211.70 in costs, the difference in LOS was not significantly different from that of HA/THA. The proportion of surgeries that were HA/THA, CMN, ORIF, and CRPP did not change significantly through the 9-year period (P = .19). Similarly, mean LOS did not change significantly for any of the types of surgery through this period (Table 3).

Figure 1 provides the distribution of LOS for all 4 procedures. The interquartile range (IQR) for patients who underwent HA/THA was 4 to 9 days (median, 6 days). Patients who underwent CMN also had a median LOS of 6 days and an IQR of 4 to 8 days. Both ORIF (IQR, 4-8 days) and CRPP (IQR, 3-6 days) were associated with a median LOS of 5 days.

Figure 2 shows mean hospitalization costs based on type of procedure. HA/THA had the highest mean cost, $33,657.90, or $8335.20 more than CRPP ($25,322.70). Patients who underwent CMN had a mean cost of $31,211.70, versus $29,852.70 for patients who underwent ORIF.

Table 4 summarizes the multivariate analysis results. After ASA score, sex, age, and comorbidities were controlled for, there was an overall significant relationship involving surgical treatment, LOS, and associated hospitalization costs for HA/THA, ORIF, and CRPP. Compared with HA/THA, ORIF had $3805.20 less in costs (P = .042) and 0.84 fewer hospital days. Patients who underwent CRPP were hospitalized for significantly fewer days (1.63) and associated costs ($7383.90) (P = .0076). There was no significant difference in LOS and costs between HA/THA and CMN. Of the controlled variables, only ASA score (P < .001) and male sex (P = .001) were significantly associated with changes in LOS and costs. There was no significant association with comorbidities, LOS, or costs.

Discussion

In this study of surgical intervention in patients with hip fractures, we determined that HA/THA was associated with significantly increased hospital LOS and costs than ORIF and CRPP. Although arthroplasty had an increased mean LOS compared with CMN, the difference was not statistically significant. In addition to type of procedure, both male sex (P = .001) and preoperative ASA score (P < .001) were significant predictors of LOS and costs. These findings are supported by other studies in which preoperative functioning was found to be a strong predictor of increased LOS and costs among hip fracture patients,¹⁸ most likely because of increased risk for complications.¹⁹

Although our study was the first to directly compare LOS and costs for HA/THA and CMN, other investigators have analyzed the effect of surgical complications on LOS for patients treated with THA, HA, and CMN. In a study on the effects of surgical complications on LOS after hip fracture surgery, Foss and colleagues¹⁷ reported that the proportion of CMN patients (31%) with complications was larger than that of HA patients (19%) and THA patients (0%). They also reported that surgical complications were associated with significantly increased LOS during primary admission. Similarly, Edwards and colleagues²⁰ found that the infection risk was higher with CMN (3.1%) than with THA (0%) and HA (0%-2.3%) and that infections were associated with increased LOS (P > .001). However, further statistical analysis revealed that the odds of developing an infection were not significantly higher with CMN than with other studies.²⁰ Similarly, other studies have reported low rates of complications, including nonunion, with CMN.^21,22 In our study, we found no significant difference in LOS and costs for CMN and HA/THA after controlling for ASA score, which is known to be associated with a higher risk for complications.^18,19

The largest difference in LOS and costs after controlling for potential confounding variables was between HA/THA and CRPP ($7383.90). To our knowledge, only one study has performed a comparative analysis of LOS for CRPP and other surgical treatments for hip fractures. For femoral neck fractures treated between 1990 and 1994, Fekete and colleagues²³ found that LOS was 14.9 days for ORIF cases and 12.1 days for CRPP cases—a difference of 2.8 days. In comparison, we found a 1-day difference in mean LOS between ORIF cases (6.59 days) and CRPP cases (5.59 days).

Other studies of LOS and associated costs over a 2-year period have found that ORIF is overall more costly than HA/THA. For example, Keating and colleagues¹³ compared total costs of care, including LOS, for healthy older patients with displaced intracapsular hip fractures treated with ORIF, bipolar HA, or THA. Although ORIF was initially less costly than HA/THA, overall ORIF costs over 2 years were significantly higher because of readmissions, which increased overall LOS. Similarly, in cases of displaced femoral fractures, Iorio and colleagues¹⁵ found that LOS was 6.4 days for ORIF, 4.9 days for unipolar HA, 6.2 days for bipolar HA, and 5.5 days for cemented and hybrid THA. However, when overall projected costs were estimated, including the costs of rehabilitation and of (probable) revision arthroplasty, ORIF was estimated to cost more over a 2-year period because of the need for additional care and in-patient stays. In contrast, we found that hospitalization costs were $3805.20 lower for ORIF than for HA/THA, even after adjusting for comorbidities, and that ORIF had a lower overall readmission rate. Early discharge of patients who are at risk for subsequent complications may have played a significant role in increasing readmission rates for arthroplasty patients. These findings indicate the complexities involved in a bundled payment system of reimbursement, in which a single payment for both initial stay and related readmissions will force orthopedists to consider long-term hospitalization costs when deciding on length of postoperative care and the most cost-effective surgical treatment.

One of the limitations of this study is its retrospective design. Although selection of our sample from a single level I trauma center reduced differences in cost and patient care protocols between institutions, it also reduced the generalizability of our actual costs. In addition, for some patients, LOS may have increased because of delays in surgery or discharge, lack of operating room availability, or need for further medical clearance for additional procedures. Day of admission could also have significantly affected LOS. However, the effects of these confounding factors were reduced because of the large sample analyzed. As stated earlier, overall LOS depends on both initial in-patient stays and readmissions. Therefore, long-term prospective studies that compare LOS and associated costs for patients with hip fractures treated with ORIF, CRPP, HA/THA, and CMN are needed.

Conclusion

It has been recently suggested that hip fracture repair be included in the National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling, which will potentially reimburse orthopedic surgeons a standardized amount for hip fracture surgery regardless of actual treatment costs.⁸ In this model, it will be essential to understand how type of fracture and surgical procedure can influence LOS and therefore hip fracture treatment costs. We found that, based on these factors, mean LOS ranged from 5.59 to 7.43 days, which translates to a cost range of $25,322.70 to $33,657.90. Before a standardized bundled payment system is implemented, further studies are needed to identify other factors that can significantly affect the cost of hip fracture repair.