Suppr超能文献

与住院肩关节置换术相比,门诊肩关节置换术可显著降低整体费用。

Ambulatory shoulder arthroplasty provides a mild reduction in overall cost compared with inpatient shoulder arthroplasty cost of ambulatory shoulder arthroplasty.

机构信息

Florida Orthopaedic Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Jun;31(6S):S90-S93. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.10.038. Epub 2021 Dec 2.

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to determine the relative cost difference of inpatient vs. ambulatory total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was performed to identify a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary anatomic or reverse TSA at 2 orthopedic specialty hospitals between September 2015 and August 2020. Those undergoing surgery for fracture or revision were excluded. Itemized facility costs were analyzed with a time-driven activity-based costing model and compared between ambulatory and non-ambulatory procedures. Ambulatory patients were defined as those admitted and discharged on the same calendar day. All other patients were considered non-ambulatory.

RESULTS

A total of 1027 patients were analyzed, comprising 38 ambulatory patients (3.7%) and 989 non-ambulatory patients (96.3%). There was a higher proportion of anatomic TSA than reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the ambulatory group (81.6% vs. 51.7%, P < .0001). Overall, there was no difference in cost between the 2 groups ($8832 vs. $8841, P = .97). However, personnel costs were greater in the non-same-day group ($1895 vs. $2743, P < .0001) whereas supply costs were less ($6937 vs. $6097, P < .0003). When implant costs were excluded, outpatient shoulder arthroplasty provided a cost savings of $745.

CONCLUSION

Ambulatory shoulder arthroplasty provides a mild cost savings of $745 after controlling for fixed costs. This is much less dramatic than previously reported and should raise concern as shoulder arthroplasty continues to be targeted by payers as a potential for cost savings through decreased reimbursement.

摘要

假设

本研究旨在确定住院与门诊全肩关节置换术(TSA)治疗的相对成本差异。

方法

回顾性病例系列研究,在 2 家骨科专科医院中,对 2015 年 9 月至 2020 年 8 月期间行初次解剖型或反式 TSA 的连续患者系列进行鉴定。排除因骨折或翻修而行手术的患者。采用时间驱动作业成本法对项目成本进行分析,并比较门诊与非门诊手术之间的差异。门诊患者定义为入院和出院在同一天的患者。所有其他患者被视为非门诊患者。

结果

共分析了 1027 例患者,其中 38 例为门诊患者(3.7%),989 例为非门诊患者(96.3%)。门诊组中解剖型 TSA 的比例高于反式肩关节炎组(81.6%比 51.7%,P<.0001)。总体而言,两组之间的费用无差异(8832 美元比 8841 美元,P=.97)。然而,非同日组的人员成本更高(1895 美元比 2743 美元,P<.0001),而供应成本更低(6937 美元比 6097 美元,P<.0003)。当排除植入物成本时,门诊肩关节置换术可节省 745 美元的费用。

结论

在控制固定成本后,门诊肩关节置换术可节省 745 美元的轻度成本。这比之前报道的要小得多,而且由于肩部关节炎继续成为支付方通过降低报销来节省成本的潜在目标,这应该引起关注。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验