Skip to main content
Log in

An economic analysis of aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: Calculation of partial hospital costs in relation to reimbursement

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Aseptic loosening is one of the most common intermediate and long-term complications after total hip replacement (THR). These complications cause suffering and require expensive revision surgery. Little concrete data on direct costs are available from the hospital’s, moreover operating department’s perspective. We here provide a detailed analysis of the costs of THR revision and relate them to reimbursement underlying the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system.

Materials and methods

Major cost parameters were identified using for orientation the cost matrix of the German Institute for Hospital Reimbursement (InEK GmbH). We then retrospectively analysed the major direct costs of aseptic revision THR in terms of contribution margins I and II. The analysis included a total of 114 patients who underwent aseptic revision from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2012. Data were retrieved from the hospital information system and patient records. All costs of surgery, diagnostic tests, and other treatments were calculated as purchase prices in EUR. The comparative analysis of direct costs and reimbursements was done for DRG I46A and I46B from the hospital’s, especially treating department’s rather than the society or healthcare insurance’s perspective.

Results

The average direct cost incurred by the hospital for a THR revision was €4,380.0. The largest share was accounted for surgical costs (62.7 % of total). Implant and staff costs were identified as the most important factors that can be influenced. The proportion of the daily contribution margin that was left to cover the hospital’s indirect cost decreased with the relative cost weight of the DRG to which a patient was assigned.

Conclusion

Our study for the first time provides a detailed analysis of the major direct case costs of THR revision for aseptic loosening from the provider’s perspective. Our findings suggest that these revision operations could be performed cost-beneficially by the operating unit. From an economic perspective, cases with higher cost weights are more favorable for a hospital. These results need to be confirmed in multicenter studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Birrell F, Johnell O, Silman A (1999) Projecting the need for hip replacement over the next three decades: influence of changing demography and threshold for surgery. Ann Rheum Dis 58(9):569–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fordham R, Skinner J, Wang X, Nolan J, Exeter Primary Outcome Study G (2012) The economic benefit of hip replacement: a 5-year follow-up of costs and outcomes in the Exeter Primary Outcomes Study. BMJ open 2(3):e000752. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000752

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Krummenauer F, Wolf C, Gunther KP, Kirschner S (2009) Clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the older patient. Eur J Med Res 14(2):76–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Losina E, Walensky RP, Kessler CL, Emrani PS, Reichmann WM, Wright EA, Holt HL, Solomon DH, Yelin E, Paltiel AD, Katz JN (2009) Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and hospital volume. Archives Intern Med 169(12):1113–1121. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.136 Discussion 1121–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Quintana JM, Escobar A, Arostegui I, Bilbao A, Azkarate J, Goenaga JI, Arenaza JC (2006) Health-related quality of life and appropriateness of knee or hip joint replacement. Arch Intern Med 166(2):220–226. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.2.220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Herberts P, Malchau H (2000) Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 71(2):111–121. doi:10.1080/000164700317413067

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marks R (2009) Body mass characteristics of hip osteoarthritis patients experiencing aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fractures, dislocation, and infections after total hip replacement. CEOR 1:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gudena R, Kuna S, Pradhan N (2011) Aseptic loosening of total hip replacement presenting as an anterior thigh mass. Musculoskelet Surg. doi:10.1007/s12306-011-0167-y

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roeder N, Rochell B, Bunzemeier H (2001) Klinische Kostenverteilungsmodelle–Die Kür der DRG-Kostenkalkulation. F&W, führen und wirtschaften im Krankenhaus 17 Jg:S 442–447

  10. Flessa S (2010) Grundzüge der Krankenhausbetriebslehre, 2nd edn. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  11. Busse R, Schreyögg J, Tiemann O (2010) Management im Gesundheitswesen, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Lauterbach KW, Stock S, Brunner H (2009) Gesundheitsökonomie, vol 2. Hans Huber, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schmalen H, Pechtl H (2009) Grundlagen und Probleme der Betriebswirtschaft, vol 14. Schäffer Poeschel, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  14. Straub T (2011) Einführung in die Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre, vol 1. Pearson Studium, München

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wöhe G, Döring, U (2010) Einführung in die Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre, vol 24. Vahlen

  16. InEK GmbH (2011) Kalkulationshandbuch

  17. Hollnecker JKC, Wedemeyer S, Gemmel J (2008) Pfadcontrolling-softwaregestütztes Controlling klinischer Behandlungspfade. Das Krankenhaus 12:1353–1356

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kasch R, Merk S, Drescher W, Schulz AP, Kayser R, Skripitz R, Frohlich S, Lahm A, Merk H, Flessa S (2012) Marginal contribution of UKS- versus TKA in varus arthritis of the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(8):1165–1172. doi:10.1007/s00402-012-1535-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. InEK GmbH (2011) G-DRG-Fallpauschalen-Katalog

  20. Flessa S (2008) Grundzüge der Krankenhaussteuerung, vol 1. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, München

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Romano CL, Romano D, Logoluso N, Meani E (2010) Septic versus aseptic hip revision: how different? J Orthop Traumatol 11(3):167–174. doi:10.1007/s10195-010-0106-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Haenle M, Skripitz C, Mittelmeier W, Skripitz R (2012) Economic impact of infected total hip arthroplasty in the German diagnosis-related groups system. Der Orthopade 41(6):467–476. doi:10.1007/s00132-012-1939-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vanhegan IS, Malik AK, Jayakumar P, Ul Islam S, Haddad FS (2012) A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty: the economic burden in relation to the national tariff. J Bone Joint Sur Br 94(5):619–623. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B5.27073

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bozic KJ, Stacey B, Berger A, Sadosky A, Oster G (2012) Resource utilization and costs before and after total joint arthroplasty. BMC Health Serv Res 12:73. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-73

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Crowe JF, Sculco TP, Kahn B (2003) Revision total hip arthroplasty: hospital cost and reimbursement analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 413:175–182. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000072469.32680.b6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. InEK GmbH (2010) G-DRG Report Browser 2009/2011. http://www.g-drg.de/cms/G-DRG-System_2011/Abschlussbericht_zur_Weiterentwicklung_des_G-DRG-Systems_und_Report_Browser/Report-Browser_2009_2011

  27. Barrack RL (1995) Economics of revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 319:209–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bozic KJ, Katz P, Cisternas M, Ono L, Ries MD, Showstack J (2005) Hospital resource utilization for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. Journal Bone Joint Sur Am 87(3):570–576. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02121

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Kasch.

Additional information

G. Assmann and R. Kasch are the first authors who contributed equally to the present work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Assmann, G., Kasch, R., Hofer, A. et al. An economic analysis of aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: Calculation of partial hospital costs in relation to reimbursement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134, 413–420 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-1920-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-1920-0

Keywords

Navigation