Jaicharan J Iyengar1, Sanjum P Samagh2, William Schairer3, Gaurav Singh3, Frank H Valone3, Brian T Feeley4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University, New York, New York, U.S.A. 2. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, U.S.A. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.. Electronic address: feeleyb@orthosurg.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate national trends in the surgical setting and hospital costs of shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair (RCR) using the Florida State surgical database and national inpatient database. METHODS: In part I we analyzed population-adjusted shifts in RCR technique (arthroscopic v open) in the Florida surgical database from 2000-2007 and quantified the procedural codes associated with arthroscopic and open RCR. In part II we analyzed the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2001-2009 for the total number of inpatient RCRs, the inpatient hospital type (rural, urban non-teaching, or urban teaching), and the cost. RESULTS: Part I showed a 163% increase in outpatient procedures in Florida, with a 353% increase in arthroscopic RCRs. There was a concurrent decrease in open RCRs; however, the overall trend was a 2-fold increase in total RCRs. Associated procedures such as subacromial decompression, distal clavicle resection, and extensive glenohumeral debridement increased by 440%, 589%, and 1,253%, respectively. Part II showed an overall 58.8% decrease in inpatient RCRs that was similar across all hospital settings, with an increase in RCR-associated hospital charges by 144.9%, whereas hospital costs only increased by 85.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms a shift toward arthroscopic RCR and associated procedures in the outpatient setting. The increased financial cost partly explains the shift; nevertheless, future studies are needed to further examine national trends. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study examining RCR trends by hospital type, cost, and setting further elucidates how orthopaedic surgery practice is evolving with the implementation of arthroscopic RCR in the past decade.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate national trends in the surgical setting and hospital costs of shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair (RCR) using the Florida State surgical database and national inpatient database. METHODS: In part I we analyzed population-adjusted shifts in RCR technique (arthroscopic v open) in the Florida surgical database from 2000-2007 and quantified the procedural codes associated with arthroscopic and open RCR. In part II we analyzed the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2001-2009 for the total number of inpatient RCRs, the inpatient hospital type (rural, urban non-teaching, or urban teaching), and the cost. RESULTS: Part I showed a 163% increase in outpatient procedures in Florida, with a 353% increase in arthroscopic RCRs. There was a concurrent decrease in open RCRs; however, the overall trend was a 2-fold increase in total RCRs. Associated procedures such as subacromial decompression, distal clavicle resection, and extensive glenohumeral debridement increased by 440%, 589%, and 1,253%, respectively. Part II showed an overall 58.8% decrease in inpatient RCRs that was similar across all hospital settings, with an increase in RCR-associated hospital charges by 144.9%, whereas hospital costs only increased by 85.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms a shift toward arthroscopic RCR and associated procedures in the outpatient setting. The increased financial cost partly explains the shift; nevertheless, future studies are needed to further examine national trends. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study examining RCR trends by hospital type, cost, and setting further elucidates how orthopaedic surgery practice is evolving with the implementation of arthroscopic RCR in the past decade.
Authors: Yizhong Hu; Victor Birman; A Deymier-Black; Alix Demyier-Black; Andrea G Schwartz; Stavros Thomopoulos; Guy M Genin Journal: Biophys J Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Olaf Lorbach; Mike H Baums; Tanja Kostuj; Stephan Pauly; Markus Scheibel; Andrew Carr; Nasim Zargar; Maristella F Saccomanno; Giuseppe Milano Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Kyle R Duchman; Dayne T Mickelson; Barrett A Little; Thomas W Hash; Devin B Lemmex; Alison P Toth; Grant E Garrigues Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Jourdan M Cancienne; Stephen F Brockmeier; Scott A Rodeo; Chris Young; Brian C Werner Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Sambit Sahoo; Jill Mohr; Gregory J Strnad; Jose Vega; Morgan Jones; Mark S Schickendantz; Lutul Farrow; Kurt P Spindler; Joseph P Iannotti; Eric T Ricchetti; Kathleen A Derwin Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Leo Pauzenberger; Annemarie Grieb; Michael Hexel; Brenda Laky; Werner Anderl; Philipp Heuberer Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 4.342