BACKGROUND: Revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) are costly, time-intensive, and technically demanding procedures. There are concerns regarding the valuation of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and the assigned relative value units (RVU) as a potential disincentive to perform revision TKAs. This study evaluated the labor and time investment for each component-specific revision and assessed the disparities between procedural value billed and reimbursement. METHODS: A retrospective review of 154 primary and revision TKA cases were thoroughly vetted using operative notes and internal billing data. Revision TKAs were stratified by single femoral component, single tibial component, polyethylene liner only, all-component, and spacer placement for prosthetic infection. Operative time, RVUs billed, total charges, deductions, and reimbursements were recorded. Mann-Whitney U tests compared final reimbursement per minute and per RVU between revision and primary TKAs. RESULTS: There were 28 primary TKAs, 11 femoral component revisions, 25 tibial component revisions, 25 liner exchanges, 37 all-component revisions, and 28 spacer placements. Revisions involving the tibial component, all-components, and placement of spacers were reimbursed less dollars per minute than primary TKAs (P < .05). Controlling for RVUs, liner exchanges and all-component revisions had fewer dollars per RVU than primary TKAs (P < .05). CONCLUSION: As revision complexity increases, physicians face less reimbursement per minute and per RVU. With reductions set by CMS and private insurers, revisions may be financially unfavorable and lead to restrictions and access to care problems. Our data supports the need for reevaluating RVU allocation amongst revision procedures with potential updates to the CPT coding system.
BACKGROUND: Revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) are costly, time-intensive, and technically demanding procedures. There are concerns regarding the valuation of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and the assigned relative value units (RVU) as a potential disincentive to perform revision TKAs. This study evaluated the labor and time investment for each component-specific revision and assessed the disparities between procedural value billed and reimbursement. METHODS: A retrospective review of 154 primary and revision TKA cases were thoroughly vetted using operative notes and internal billing data. Revision TKAs were stratified by single femoral component, single tibial component, polyethylene liner only, all-component, and spacer placement for prosthetic infection. Operative time, RVUs billed, total charges, deductions, and reimbursements were recorded. Mann-Whitney U tests compared final reimbursement per minute and per RVU between revision and primary TKAs. RESULTS: There were 28 primary TKAs, 11 femoral component revisions, 25 tibial component revisions, 25 liner exchanges, 37 all-component revisions, and 28 spacer placements. Revisions involving the tibial component, all-components, and placement of spacers were reimbursed less dollars per minute than primary TKAs (P < .05). Controlling for RVUs, liner exchanges and all-component revisions had fewer dollars per RVU than primary TKAs (P < .05). CONCLUSION: As revision complexity increases, physicians face less reimbursement per minute and per RVU. With reductions set by CMS and private insurers, revisions may be financially unfavorable and lead to restrictions and access to care problems. Our data supports the need for reevaluating RVU allocation amongst revision procedures with potential updates to the CPT coding system.