https://escholarship.org/content/qt2hs733d5/qt2hs733d5.pdf?t=qea4ej

Novel in vivo mouse model of shoulder implant infection.

BACKGROUND It is currently unknown to what extent routine histological examination of joint arthroplasty specimens occurs across hospitals nationwide. Although this practice is neither supported nor refuted by the available evidence, given the increasing demand for joint arthroplasties, it is crucial to study overall utilization as well as its main drivers. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES Using national data on joint replacements, we aimed to evaluate: (1) What is the current use of routine histological examination of joint arthroplasty specimens? (2) Does the use vary by geographic location and hospital characteristics? (3) Has use changed over time? METHODS From the Premier Healthcare database (2006-2016) we included claims data from 87,667 shoulder (595 hospitals, median age 70 years, 16% nonwhite), 564,577 hip (629 hospitals, median age 65 years, 21% nonwhite), and 1,131,323 (630 hospitals, median age 66 years, 24% nonwhite) knee arthroplasties (all elective). Our study group has extensive experience with this data set, which contains information on 20% to 25% of all US hospitalizations. Included hospitals are mainly concentrated in the South (approximately 40%) with equal distributions among the Northeast, West, and Midwest (approximately 20% each). Moreover, the Premier data set has detailed billing information, which allows for evaluations of real-world clinical practice. There was no missing information on the main variables of interest for this specific study. We assessed frequency of histology examination (defined by Current Procedural Terminology codes) overall as well as by hospital characteristics (urban/rural, bed size, teaching status, arthroplasty volume), geographic region (Northeast, South, Midwest, West), and year. Given the large sample size, instead of p values, standardized differences were applied in assessing group differences where a standardized difference of > 0.1 (or 10%) was assumed to represent a meaningful difference between groups. For significance of trends, p values were applied. Percentages provided represent proportions of individual procedures. RESULTS In most hospitals, histology testing was either rare (1%-10%, used in 187 of 595, 189 of 629, and 254 of 630 hospitals) or ubiquitous (91%-100%, used in 121 of 595, 220 of 629, and 195 of 630 hospitals) for shoulder, hip, and knee arthroplasties, respectively. Overall, histology testing occurred more often in smaller hospitals (37%-53% compared with 26%-45% in larger hospitals) and those located in the Northeast (59%-68% compared with 22%-44% in other regions) and urban areas (32%-49% compared with 20%-31% in rural areas), all with standardized differences > 10%. Histologic examination is slowly decreasing over time: from 2006 to 2016, it decreased from 34% to 30% for shoulder arthroplasty, from 50% to 45% for THAs, and from 43% to 38% for TKAs (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Although overall use is decreasing, a substantial number of hospitals still routinely perform histology testing of arthroplasty specimens. Moreover, variation between regions and hospital types suggests that this practice is driven by a variety of factors. This is the first study addressing national utilization, which will be helpful for individual hospitals to assess how they compare with national utilization patterns. Moreover, the findings have clear implications for followup studies, which may be necessary given the exponentially growing demand for arthroplasties. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, therapeutic study.

Are Histological Examinations of Arthroplasty Specimens Performed Consistently Across the Country? A Large Database Study.

BACKGROUND\nThe clinical value of histologic examination of tissues removed during shoulder arthroscopy has not been determined. The guidelines of the College of American Pathologists require routine histologic examination of all surgical specimens not specifically exempted by individual hospitals. Previous orthopaedic studies have examined the clinical value of these examinations in total hip and knee arthroplasty, lumbar discectomy, knee arthroscopy, and thumb arthroplasty. Those studies demonstrated that routine histologic examination rarely altered the diagnosis and increased the costs. This study examines the clinical value of histologic examination of shoulder arthroscopic specimens. We regard clinical value to include both diagnostic value and cost of the procedure.\n\n\nMETHODS\nBetween 1989 and 2005, 2144 consecutive shoulder arthroscopies were performed by one surgeon. We retrospectively reviewed the pathology report from every procedure to determine whether the histologic diagnosis affected patient care. We then estimated the total cost of histologic examination in 2005 dollars.\n\n\nRESULTS\nIn all cases, the histologic examination confirmed the findings at arthroscopic surgery. In no case did the histologic findings alter patient care. In 2005 dollars, the total cost of reviewed histologic examinations is estimated to be $160,543.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nHistologic examination of surgical specimens from arthroscopic shoulder surgery does not alter patient care, and it increases costs. On the basis of this study, histologic examination in shoulder arthroscopy should be done at the discretion of the orthopaedic surgeon rather than being mandatory.

The Clinical Value of Histologic Examination in Shoulder Arthroscopy. Authors' reply

Medical knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate. At the same time, unexplained variations in practice and patient outcomes and unacceptable rates of medical errors and inefficiencies in health care delivery have emerged. Our Institute for Health Care Delivery Science (I-HDS) began in 2014 as a novel platform to conduct multidisciplinary healthcare delivery research. We followed ten strategies to develop a successful institute with excellence in methodology and strong understanding of the value of team science. Our work was organized around five hubs: 1) Quality/Process Improvement and Systematic Review, 2) Comparative Effectiveness Research, Pragmatic Clinical Trials, and Predictive Analytics, 3) Health Economics and Decision Modeling, 4) Qualitative, Survey, and Mixed Methods, and 5) Training and Mentoring. In the first 5 years of the I-HDS, we have identified opportunities for change in clinical practice through research using our health system’s electronic health record (EHR) data, and designed programs to educate clinicians in the value of research to improve patient care and recognize efficiencies in processes. Testing the value of several model interventions has guided prioritization of evidence-based quality improvements. Some of the changes in practice have already been embedded in the EHR workflow successfully. Development and sustainability of the I-HDS has been fostered by a mix of internal and external funding, including philanthropic foundations. Challenges remain due to the highly competitive funding environment and changes needed to adapt the EHR to healthcare delivery research. Further stakeholder engagement and culture change working with hospital leadership and I-HDS core and affiliate members continues.

Developing an Institute for Health Care Delivery Science: successes, challenges, and solutions in the first five years

Background:Routine submission of pathologic specimens for histologic analysis following orthopedic surgery is a common and often required practice in the United States. Prior orthopedic studies hav...

Andy L. Chang

Papers

Cost-benefit analysis of routine pathology examination in primary shoulder arthroplasty