Cost-effectivness in a DRG system for two-step exchange of infected total joint arthroplasty

The costs related to the treatment of infected total joint arthroplasties represent an ever groving burden to the society. Different patient-adapted therapeutic options like débridement and retention, 1- or 2-step exchange can be used. If a 2-step exchange is used we have to consider short (2-4 weeks) or long (>4-6 weeks) interval treatment. The Swiss DRG (Diagnose related Groups) determines the reimboursement the hopsital receives for the treatment of an infected total arthroplasty. The review assesses the cost-effectiveness of hospitalisation practices linked to surgical treatment in the two-stage exchange of a prosthetic-joint infection. The aim of this retrospectiv study is to compare the economical impact between a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (6 weeks and above) interval during a two-satge procedure to determine the financial impact. Retrospectiv study of the patients with a two-stage procedure for a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at CHUV hospital Lausanne (Switzerland) between 2012 and 2013. The review analyses the correlation between the interval length and the length of the hospital stay as well as with the costs and revenues per hospital stay. In average there is a loss of 40′000 Euro per hospitalisation for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Revenues never cover all the costs, even with a short interval procedure. This economical loss increases with the length of the hospital stay if a long-term intervall is choosen. The review explores potential for improvement in reimbourement practices and hospitalisation practices in the current Swiss healthcare setting. There should be alternative setups to decrease the burden of medical costs by a) increase the reimboursment for the treatment of infected total joints or by b) splitting the hospital stay with partners (rapid transfer after first operation from center hospital to level 2 hospital and retransfer for second operation to center) in order to increase revenues.

Device-specific weighted T-score for two quantitative ultrasounds: operational propositions for the management of osteoporosis for 65 years and older women in Switzerland.

The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis of osteoporosis are mainly applicable for dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at the spine and hip levels. There is a growing demand for cheaper devices, free of ionizing radiation such as promising quantitative ultrasound (QUS). In common with many other countries, QUS measurements are increasingly used in Switzerland without adequate clinical guidelines. The T-score approach developed for DXA cannot be applied to QUS, although well-conducted prospective studies have shown that ultrasound could be a valuable predictor of fracture risk. As a consequence, an expert committee named the Swiss Quality Assurance Project (SQAP, for which the main mission is the establishment of quality assurance procedures for DXA and QUS in Switzerland) was mandated by the Swiss Association Against Osteoporosis (ASCO) in 2000 to propose operational clinical recommendations for the use of QUS in the management of osteoporosis for two QUS devices sold in Switzerland. Device-specific weighted "T-score" based on the risk of osteoporotic hip fractures as well as on the prediction of DXA osteoporosis at the hip, according to the WHO definition of osteoporosis, were calculated for the Achilles (Lunar, General Electric, Madison, Wis.) and Sahara (Hologic, Waltham, Mass.) ultrasound devices. Several studies (totaling a few thousand subjects) were used to calculate age-adjusted odd ratios (OR) and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the prediction of osteoporotic fracture (taking into account a weighting score depending on the design of the study involved in the calculation). The ORs were 2.4 (1.9-3.2) and AUC 0.72 (0.66-0.77), respectively, for the Achilles, and 2.3 (1.7-3.1) and 0.75 (0.68-0.82), respectively, for the Sahara device. To translate risk estimates into thresholds for clinical application, 90% sensitivity was used to define low fracture and low osteoporosis risk, and a specificity of 80% was used to define subjects as being at high risk of fracture or having osteoporosis at the hip. From the combination of the fracture model with the hip DXA osteoporotic model, we found a T-score threshold of -1.2 and -2.5 for the stiffness (Achilles) determining, respectively, the low- and high-risk subjects. Similarly, we found a T-score at -1.0 and -2.2 for the QUI index (Sahara). Then a screening strategy combining QUS, DXA, and clinical factors for the identification of women needing treatment was proposed. The application of this approach will help to minimize the inappropriate use of QUS from which the whole field currently suffers.