Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty For The Treatment Of Fracture: More Expensive, More Complications, Same Diagnosis-Related Groups

Background: Revision total hip arthroplasty (revision THA) occurs for a wide variety of indications and in the United States it is coded under Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) 466, 467, and 468, which do not account for revision etiology, a potentially substantial driver of cost. This study investigates revision THA costs and 30-day complications by indication, both locally and nationally.Methods: Hospitalization costs and complication rates for 1,422 aseptic revision THAs performed at a high-volume center between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Additionally, charges for 28,133 revision THAs in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were converted to costs using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project cost-tocharge ratios, and 30-day complication rates for 3,224 revision THAs were obtained with use of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Costs and complications were compared between revision THAs performed for fracture, wear/loosening, and dislocation/instability with use of simultaneous and pairwise comparisons and a multivariable model accounting for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, age, and sex.Results: Local hospitalization costs for fracture (median, $25,672) were significantly higher than those for wear/ loosening ($20,228; p < 0.001) or dislocation/instability ($17,911; p < 0.001), with differences remaining significant even after adjusting for patient comorbidities (p < 0.001). NIS costs for fracture (median, $27,596) were higher than those for other aseptic indications (wear/loosening: $21,176, p < 0.001; dislocation/instability: $16,891, p< 0.001). Local 30-day orthopaedic complication rates for fracture (20.7%) were higher those than for dislocation/instability (9.0%; p = 0.007) and similar to those for wear/loosening (17.6%; p = 0.434). Nationally, combined medical and surgical compli- cation rates for fracture (71.3% of patients with >= 1 complication) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening (35.2%; p < 0.001) or dislocation/instability (35.1%; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Hospitalization costs for revision THA for fracture were 33% to 48% higher than for all other aseptic revision THAs, both locally and nationally. This increased cost persisted even after multivariable comorbidity adjustment, the current DRG basis for stratifying revision THA reimbursement. Additionally, 30-day complication rates suggest that increased resource utilization for fracture patients continues even after discharge. Indication-specific coding and reimbursement systems are necessary to maintain sustainable access to revision THA for all patients.