Literature DB >> 22643803

Marginal contribution of UKS- versus TKA in varus arthritis of the knee.

Richard Kasch1, Sebastian Merk, Wolf Drescher, Arndt Peter Schulz, Ralph Kayser, Ralf Skripitz, Susanne Fröhlich, Andreas Lahm, Harry Merk, Steffen Fleßa.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent years, decisions regarding the treatment of individual patients have increasingly been affected by economic considerations. The G-DRG system reimburses sledge endoprosthetic implantations at a much lower rate than surface replacements and at significantly different cost weights (CW). Therefore, when only G-DRG payments are considered, TKA produces higher gains. Taking only these revenues alone into consideration, however, does not provide the basis of an economically sound decision-making process. The target of this research was to present a comparison between variable costs of the two procedures.
METHODS: The mean cost and performance data of 28 Endo-Modell (Link company) sledge implantations (UKS) and of 85 NexGen CR surface replacement total knee arthroplasties (TKA; Zimmer company) were compared in 2007.
RESULTS: From the perspective of the hospital, UKS treatment is of greater economic advantage when the medical indication is given. In preferring UKS marginal contribution can be improved, and although the relative weighting is comparatively low, the costs are significantly lower than in a comparative analysis of TKA. Based on the length of stay required for each procedure the average daily CW for UKS can be calculated as 0.1728, while being 0.1955 for TKA. The earlier release of the first patient results in another patient being admitted 1.5 days earlier and thus an increase in case mix. Meanwhile, the case-mix index and the costs of care per case decrease ceteris paribus.
CONCLUSION: Assuming the correct medical indication, the hospital seeking to maximize its marginal contribution would be wise to select sledge endoprosthesis implantation. Considering the economic perspective of gains and costs, the assumption that TKA is advantageous could not be confirmed in the present study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22643803     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-012-1535-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  5 in total

1.  Teleradiology from the provider's perspective-cost analysis for a mid-size university hospital.

Authors:  Christian Rosenberg; Kristin Kroos; Britta Rosenberg; Norbert Hosten; Steffen Flessa
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-04-19       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Comparative Analysis of Direct Hospital Care Costs between Aseptic and Two-Stage Septic Knee Revision.

Authors:  Richard Kasch; Sebastian Merk; Grit Assmann; Andreas Lahm; Matthias Napp; Harry Merk; Steffen Flessa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Valgus subsidence of the tibial component in cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  A D Liddle; H G Pandit; C Jenkins; P Lobenhoffer; W F M Jackson; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Economic analysis of two-stage septic revision after total hip arthroplasty: What are the relevant costs for the hospital's orthopedic department?

Authors:  R Kasch; G Assmann; S Merk; T Barz; M Melloh; A Hofer; H Merk; S Flessa
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Employee Acceptance of Use: A Precondition for Enhancing Therapy Effectiveness, Patient Safety, and Economic Efficiency.

Authors:  Maximilian C von Eiff; Wilfried von Eiff; Andreas Roth; Mohamed Ghanem
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2019-12-05
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.