Maximizing Hip Care Capturing And Demonstrating Value Syllabus
2014-10-20
: Pdf Maximizing Hip Care Capturing And Demonstrating Value Syllabus Maximizing_Hip_Care_Capturing_and_Demonstrating_Value_Syllabus 10 2014 pdf
Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 70
Download | |
Open PDF In Browser | View PDF |
10/20/2014 The Importance of Value in Healthcare Kevin J. Bozic, MD, MBA William R. Murray Professor and Vice Chair UCSF Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Core Faculty, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies Visiting Scholar, Harvard Business School Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest Research Support: AHRQ, NIH, RWJF, CHCF, UC CHQI, CMS Consultant: Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Pacific Business Group on Health Visiting Scholar, Harvard Business School Governance/Leadership Roles: AAOS (Council on Research and Quality) AAHKS (Health Policy, EBPC) COA (Past-President) OREF (Board of Trustees) UCSF Medical Center (HTAP) California Joint Replacement Registry (Chair) Problems with US Healthcare System Emphasis on healthcare, not health Fragmented delivery, payment systems Medical error/defensive medicine ‘Medical arms race’ Moral hazard “Now we just have to sit back and wait for the Fed to bail us out.” 1 10/20/2014 Lack of Competition Based on Value • Patient choice and competition for patients are powerful forces to encourage continuous improvement in value and restructuring of care • Today’s competition in health care is not aligned with value Financial success of system participants Patient success • Creating positive-sum competition on value is fundamental to health care reform *Slide courtesy of Michael Porter, PhD Primary Goal: Improve Value Value = Outcome/* Cost “Value in any field must be defined around the customer (e.g., patient), not the supplier (e.g., providers)” PatientCost Costtoto Centered VALUE Achieve *Outcome= Quality (e.g., clinical outcome, Achieve Outcomes safety) Service (e.g., satisfaction,Outcomes Outcomes of + Care convenience, communication) Prerequisites for Value Based Healthcare Empower patients, providers, payors/purchasers with better information Tools for efficient, real time data capture Transparency of cost, quality Reorganize delivery, payment system around patient-centered value (not volume) Align stakeholder incentives around value Actionable, easy to understand/use, risk adjusted Increased accountability for providers, patients Leadership from the medical profession 2 10/20/2014 Physician Manner Relative Importance on 5 point Likert Scale (n=243) 4.68 Physician Quality 4.64 Hospital Factors 4.01 Physician Reputation 4.00 Customer Service 3.98 Physician Qualifications 3.97 Non-Clinical Features (convenience, cost) 3.50 Dimension Average (5 point Likert Scale) I believe that my choice of surgeon will have an important impact on my outcome. There are big differences in the quality of care among different orthopaedic surgeons. I had adequate information to choose the surgeon for my procedure. I found data that helped me understand how this surgeon compares to other surgeons. 4.7 4.5 3.3 3.2 Who Will Define ‘Quality’ in Orthopaedics? *Sinaiko and Rosenthal, AJMC, 2010 “Requires development of quality measures and ensures close collaboration with physicians and other stakeholders regarding the measures used in the performance program.” -SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act (HR 4015/S 2000) 3 10/20/2014 Empowering Patients, Providers with Data 10 Which Outcomes are Important to Measure? Johnston et al., 2013, Patient-Reported outcomes in meta-analysis- Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, Population Health Management: Appropriateness 4 10/20/2014 Population Health Management: ‘Downstreaming’ Population Health Management: Patient Engagement Healthy Behavior Selfmanage chronic disease Solicit input on report card measurements Consumer Engagement Market public report cards Shared Decision Making Transitioning to Value Based Payment Providers function in silos Waste, inefficiency Delivery, payment systems don’t promote alignment, accountability Regulatory, legal barriers to alignment Stark, anti-kickback, CMP, Tax Code 5 10/20/2014 Value Driven Payment Readmissions 2% Readmissions 2% Cost Savings 9% Post-Acute Care 27% Post-Acute Care 24% Index Admission - Physician PaymentIndex 10% Admission Physician Payment 10% Reduce/eliminate non value-added care Inappropriate care Avoidable complications/readm issions/reoperations Excess cost due to variation in price Standardization Index Admission Index Admission Hospital - Hospital 61% 55% MeanDRG DRG470 470Payment Paymentper Mean Distribution perCost Episode Episode after 10% Savings Source: Brandeis Analysis of 2012 CMS Data Providers Bear More Risk The Choice is Ours… “The first, critical step (in healthcare reform) is physician leadership”-Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, testimony to Senate Finance Committee, May, 2010 Either we find ways to stretch our healthcare dollars by improving quality and eliminating waste, or… Cost containment will be imposed on us by limiting access and cutting provider reimbursement 6 10/20/2014 Leadership Opportunity for Orthopaedics “Control your own destiny or someone else will” – Jack Welch Value is Agnostic to Practice Setting Private practice Solo/small group Single specialty Hospital-based Multi-specialty group Integrated delivery network Academic practice Are You Ready for Value Based Healthcare? Focus on sustainable, patient-centric value creation Credible data! Cost Outcomes Well-defined goals, performance metrics Leadership!! 7 10/20/2014 Thank You!!! 8 10/20/2014 Thomas G. Sampson M.D. San Francisco, CA Disclosure Information The following relationships exist: Consultant and Speaker: Con Med; Smith and Nephew; Arthrex Journal Review: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British; Arthroscopy; Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; AJSM International Society for Hip Arthroscopy: Past President 1931 Cadaver Hip Arthroscopy Peripheral Compartment Only 1 10/20/2014 Early Development 1970-1980 A different way of doing joint surgery with minimally invasive techniques (Arthroscopy) Central Compartment Johnson Distraction (Traction) Errikson Lateral Approach 1984 (Glick and Sampson) Supine approach 1991 (Byrd) Central Compartment-Long Scopes and Canulated Instruments Hip Arthroscopy: The Next Evolution in Sports Medicine Freddie H. Fu, MD, DSc,DPs (Editor) Recognize Instability, Labral Repair, Research, Fellowships 2 10/20/2014 FAI(Femoro-acetabular Impingement) Ganz Arthroscopic Femoroplasty 2001 Treat the CAM with resection osteoplasty using a specific reproducible technique 3 10/20/2014 Etiology of Hip Pain and DJD Explored FAI PVNS AVN RA OA Trauma Instability Synovial Chondromatosis Available Procedures Hip Pathology or Injury Osteotomy (PAO, Femoral) Hip At Risk Surgical Dislocation Arthroscopic Correction Both Open and Arthroscopic Evolve Osteoplasty (Femoroplasty) Open Surgical Dislocation Arthroscopic 4 10/20/2014 OLC Literature Industry ( Stryker, Smith and Nephew, ConMed-Linvatec, Arthex, Wolfe, Stortz) Company X 5 10/20/2014 Arthroscopic Treatment of FAI is now Mainstream Why should we be concerned (Financial Healthcare) 6 10/20/2014 Is Hip Arthroscopy Cost-effective for Femoroacetabular Impingement? David W. Shearer MD, MPH, Jonathan Kramer BS, Kevin J. Bozic MD, MBA, Brian T. Feeley MD CORR 2012 If NO arthritis, may be cost effective or beneficial With arthritis, probably NOT cost effective unless there is a benefit delay to a THR for 16 years The Patient (Ideal compared to open surgery) Day surgery 1. 2. Reduced pain and disability 3. Reduced loss of productivity (work) 4. Reduced limited mobility 5. Quicker return to selfcare (reduced family burden), ADLs and sports Clin Orthop Relat Res. Mar 2010; 468(3): 741–746. Prospective Analysis of Hip Arthroscopy with 10-year Followup J. W. Thomas Byrd, MD and Kay S. Jones, MSN, RN 50 patients (52 hips) 38 years (range, 14–84 years) 27 males and 23 females Median improvement = 25 points (mHHS) preoperative= 56 points postoperative=81 points 14 patients converted to THA 2 died Arthritis is an indicator of poor long-term outcomes 7 10/20/2014 Tissue damage Surgical dislocation Arthroscopic The value of hip arthroscopic surgery? 1. Define the goals of surgery 2. Optimizing cost per outcome 3. Best practices advice Define the goals of surgery Relieve pain Preserve cartilage and labrum Restore ROM and function 8 10/20/2014 Optimizing cost per outcome Direct costs Physician Surgical Therapy Indirect costs Time away from work or school Time away from team Family, etc. Best practices advice for hip arthroscopy Any non-arthritic hip condition Some with < Tönnis 1 Expectations match outcomes Surgeons expectations = patients expectations Reasonable and proven procedures Other tips to maximize value to patient, surgeon, hospital, insurer, government (public health benefits) 1. Correct indications, supported by H&P and imaging 2. Surgeon should know his abilities, and optimize the surgical environment 3. Hospitals and surgical centers of excellence only (avoid the occasional hip scope) 4. Insurers should pay a reasonable fee to support centers of excellence 5. Insurers and Government should rely on members (not bureaucrats) of AAOS and AANA to determine appropriate hip surgical procedures 9 10/20/2014 10 10/20/2014 Maximizing Hip Care: Capturing and Demonstrating Value in TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT Ryan M. Nunley, M.D. Associate Professor Joint Preservation, Resurfacing, and Replacement Service of Orthopaedic Surgery Washington University in St. Louis Disclosures My disclosures are listed in the AAOS database. • Consultant: Smith & Nephew, Wright Medical Technology, Medtronic, CardioMEMS, Integra Life Sciences, DePuy, Cardinal Health, Bluebelt, Biocomposites, Mobile Compression Systems • Research Support: Smith & Nephew, Wright Medical Technology, Biomet, Stryker, Medical Compression Systems, EOS Imaging, DePuy The Problem: Uncontrolled health care costs 1 10/20/2014 International Healthcare U.S. Health Care System in Crisis US Insurers-all patients 2 10/20/2014 U.S. Total Joint Payer Mix 60% Proportion of Patients 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Medicare HMO PPO Indemnity Medicaid % Total Discharges Source: AHRQ, HCUPnet, 2002 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, http://hcup.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.asp, site accessed on July 26, 2004. Total Hip Replacement is sum of ICD9CM Procedure Codes 81.51 and 81.53. 81.51 Total Hip Replacement, 81.53 Revise Hip Replacement. NIS data is collected for calendar years (January – December). Routine discharge is discharge to home only. Discharge to another institution includes discharge to SNF and IRF. DRG 209/471 7% 7% 6% % Total Medicare Reimbursement 5% % Total Discharges 6% 5.7% 4.4% 4% 3.4% 3.1% 3% 2% 1% 4.8% 5% 4.3% 4% 3.8% 3.5% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 209 & 471 (LE Arthroplasty) 88 (COPD) 89 (Pneumonia) % of Medicare Discharges 127 (Heart Failure) 116 (Implant pacemaker, stent) 127 (Heart failure) 209 & 471 (LE Arthroplasty) 483 (Tracheostomy ) % of Medicare Inpatient Charges Incidence of Arthritis in U.S. 3 10/20/2014 The Problem: • Number of patients needing TJA will continue to grow 600% Kurtz et al JBJS 2007 Background • Total hip replacement is one of the most costeffective procedures in all of medicine •Cautioned against overutilization of THA in young active patients •Described those over 65 yrs as best suited candidates •By the 2nd decade, considered expanding THA to much younger and more active pts 4 10/20/2014 • Primary goals • Pain relief • Restoration of Essential Functions • One of the most cost-effective medical interventions for improving quality of life Total Hip Arthroplasty • Implant Design • Bearing Surfaces • Surgical Techniques • Lead to improved outcomes • Increased patient satisfaction • Enhanced Implant Durability • Increased patient expectations and demand Total Hip Arthroplasty •# THAs in the United States continues to steadily increase Kurtz et al. JBJS-Am 2007 •Most rapid rate of growth is in younger patients Kurtz et al. J Arthroplasty 2009 5 10/20/2014 Rating scales for THA •Harris, Merle d’Aubigne developed hip scores in 1960’s •Consistent with indications at that time, excellent score required only pain relief, normal walking, and successful basic ADLs •In spite of application of procedures to younger, more active, more demanding patient population, same rating scales still utilized •General outcomes, QOL measures added; substantial ceiling effect persists •Evidence emerging that all patient expectations are not being met •43% of patients had ALL of their expectations fulfilled completely •Absence of any post-operative limp among most important prognostic factors for satisfaction 6 10/20/2014 Specific values important to patients, spouses, families, employers not specifically addressed by current rating scales: •Return to employment at high level •Return to high level recreation •Return to normal sexual function National Multi-Center Study Recently Completed to: •Establish current level of success/ function of modern implants in returning high demand patients to crucial activities •Determine if there are any discernible differences among currently utilized implants (including THA vs. SRA) Definitions • Modern implants = uncemented stem + advanced bearing surface • Advanced bearing surface: • Highly cross-linked polyethylene against metal, ceramic, or Oxinium • Ceramic-ceramic • Metal-metal (monoblock, modular, SRA) • High demand patients = age ≤ 60 + high activity level (premorbid UCLA score ≥ 6) 7 10/20/2014 Multicenter Study: Methods • Collected data through the administration of an unbiased and blinded telephone questionnaire to evaluate functional outcomes of modern hip implants at a minimum of one year after surgery. • Included patients from 5 geographically diverse medical centers with experience using different types of advanced bearing surfaces. Investigational Centers • Washington University School of Medicine • St. Louis, MO • Rush University Medical Center • Chicago, IL • Thomas Jefferson University/Rothman Institute • Philadelphia, PA • Anderson Orthopaedic Clinic • Arlington, VA • The Center for Hip and Knee Surgery • Mooresville, IN Survey Center Methodology • University of Wisconsin Survey Center (UWSC) was chosen as an independent third party surveyor • UWSC has long track record of administering health questionnaires for state and federal agencies • No affiliation with any of the surgeons • No knowledge or interest in bearing surfaces 8 10/20/2014 Overall Sample Disposition and Response Rate Sample Disposition Total Cases Completed Interview 943 Partial Interview 43 Eligible, Non-interview 361 Unknown Eligibility, Non-interview 33 Not Eligible 44 Total 1424 AAPOR Response Rate 1 68% Demographics and UCLA Demographics and Pre-morbid UCLA Activity Score All Hips Standard Head THA (≤32mm) Big Head THA (>32mm) SRA 806 359 323 124 n Number Male 531 (65.88%) 195 (54.32%) 236 (73.07%) 100 (80.65%) Number Female 275 (34.12%) 164 (45.68%) 87 (26.93%) 24 (19.35%) Age at surgery (mean; years) 49.50 48.62 50.30 49.93 Length f/u (mean; years) 2.31 2.56 2.32 1.57 Number UCLA = 10 306 (38.01%) 109 (30.45%) 121 (37.46%) 76 (61.29%) Number UCLA = 9 107 (13.29%) Number UCLA = 8 98 (12.17%) 57 (15.92%) 31 (9.60%) 10 (8.06%) Number UCLA = 7 61 34 (7.43%) (2.42%) Number UCLA = 6 UCLA frequency missing (7.58%) 34 (9.50%) 52 (16.10%) 21 (16.94%) (9.50%) 24 233 (28.94%) 124 (34.64%) 95 (29.41%) 1 1 3 14 (11.29%) 0 0 UCLA Activity Score • In the year before your hip became painful, did you… 10 Regularly participate in impact sports such as jogging, tennis, skiing, acrobatics, ballet, heavy labor, or backpacking. 9 Sometimes participate in impact sports. 8 Regularly participate in very active events, such as golf or bowling. 7 Regularly participate in active events, such as bicycling. 6 Regularly participate in moderate activities, such as swimming and unlimited housework or shopping. • Regularly: 1 x week or more; Sometimes: 1 x month or less 9 10/20/2014 Employment •THA is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedure in the world •Limited information in the literature to provide to patients, employers, and insurance companies about returning to work after THA •Employment is vital component to overall quality of life in young, active patients Job Demand Classification (U.S. Dept. of Labor) •Sedentary: • Sometimes stand or walk, but sit down most of the time. • Occasionally, lift up to a 10 lb load. •Light: • Walk or stand more than one third of the time. • Often lift up to 10 lbs. •Medium: Often lift up to 20 lbs, sometimes up to 50 lbs. •Heavy: Often lift up to 50 lbs, sometimes up to 100 lbs. •Very Heavy: Often lift over 50 lbs, sometimes over 100 lbs. Pre-op Job Demand Classification by Group Job Classification All Hips n Sedentary Light Standard Head THA (≤32mm) 806 107 (13.54%) 68 (8.61%) 359 38 (12.10%) 34 28 (9.63%) 190 (24.05%) 91 (25.78%) Heavy 188 (23.80%) Very Heavy 237 (30.00%) 16 SRA 323 51 (14.45%) Medium Frequency missing Big Head THA (>32mm) (8.92%) 124 18 (14.63%) 6 (4.88%) 66 (21.02%) 33 (26.83%) 80 (22.66%) 80 (25.48%) 28 (22.76%) 97 (27.48%) 102 (32.48%) 38 (30.89%) 6 9 1 10 10/20/2014 Return to Job Demand Classification Post-op? • Return to the usual job you had before your hip operation either with or without restrictions? • Sedentary: • Light: • Medium: • Heavy: • Very Heavy: 97.98% 93.75% 95.95% 94.08% 90.91% No difference based on type of implant Nunley et al. J Arthroplasty 2011Rand Award Working for Pay after Surgery •90.4% worked after surgery •1.6 % permanently disabled due to hip •Mean time off work was 6.9 weeks •94.1% returned to their usual job •1.7% unable to return to usual job due to hip •25.9% had some form of temporary work restrictions when they first returned • Temporary restrictions lasted mean 7.3 weeks Symptoms; Function: No difference in standard vs. large head THA Standard THA (< 32mm) Large THA (> 36mm) NO limp last 30 days 46% 50% Able to walk > 1 hour 52% 56% Tried to run 74% 69% Run > 1 mile 9% 14% Run for exercise 27% 33% 11 10/20/2014 Patient Specific Index: The Most Important Activity to the patient that they would like to be able to return to Top Activities Walking 175 Running/Jogging 119 Golf 89 Biking 70 Basketball 59 Racquet Sports (tennis, squash, racquetball) 53 Baseball/Softball 38 Pt specific index: No difference seen between THA cohorts Return to Most Important Activity Std THA Large THA UCLA 6/7/8 93% 91% UCLA 9/10 86% 91% Sexual Activity Results Sexually active after surgery? Sexually Active Not Sexually Active 10.5% 10 patients (1.4%) stated not sexually active due to hip Favors males (p<0.0001) and younger patients(p=0.0082) 89.5% Frequency after surgery? More Frequent 43.5% Same 52.0% Less Frequent 4.5% Favors females (p=0.0001) due to less apprehension and greater mobility Quality after surgery? Better Quality 69.9% Same 28.0% Worse Quality 2.2% Favors females (p=0.0011) due to less pain and greater mobility Hip Instability during sex? No Instability 96.7% Sensation “slip out” 3.3% No significant difference between groups 12 10/20/2014 Sexual Activity Results Sexually active after surgery? Sexually Active Not Sexually Active 10.5% 10 patients (1.4%) stated not sexually active due to hip Favors males (p<0.0001) and younger patients(p=0.0082) 89.5% Frequency after surgery? More Frequent 43.5% Same 52.0% Less Frequent 4.5% Favors females (p=0.0001) due to less apprehension and greater mobility Quality after surgery? Better Quality 69.9% Same 28.0% Worse Quality 2.2% Favors females (p=0.0011) due to less pain and greater mobility Hip Instability during sex? No Instability 96.7% Sensation “slip out” 3.3% No significant difference between groups Sexual Activity Results Sexually active after surgery? Sexually Active Not Sexually Active 10.5% 10 patients (1.4%) stated not sexually active due to hip Favors males (p<0.0001) and younger patients(p=0.0082) 89.5% Frequency after surgery? More Frequent 43.5% Same 52.0% Less Frequent 4.5% Favors females (p=0.0001) due to less apprehension and greater mobility Quality after surgery? Better Quality 69.9% Same 28.0% Worse Quality 2.2% Favors females (p=0.0011) due to less pain and greater mobility Hip Instability during sex? No Instability 96.7% Sensation “slip out” 3.3% No significant difference between groups Sexual Activity Results Sexually active after surgery? Sexually Active Not Sexually Active 10.5% 10 patients (1.4%) stated not sexually active due to hip Favors males (p<0.0001) and younger patients(p=0.0082) 89.5% Frequency after surgery? More Frequent 43.5% Same 52.0% Less Frequent 4.5% Favors females (p=0.0001) due to less apprehension and greater mobility Quality after surgery? Better Quality 69.9% Same 28.0% Worse Quality 2.2% Favors females (p=0.0011) due to less pain and greater mobility Hip Instability during sex? No Instability 96.7% Sensation “slip out” 3.3% No significant difference between groups 13 10/20/2014 Sexual Activity Results Sexually active after surgery? Sexually Active Not Sexually Active 10.5% 10 patients (1.4%) stated not sexually active due to hip Favors males (p<0.0001) and younger patients(p=0.0082) 89.5% Frequency after surgery? More Frequent 43.5% Same 52.0% Less Frequent 4.5% Favors females (p=0.0001) due to less apprehension and greater mobility Quality after surgery? Better Quality 69.9% Same 28.0% Worse Quality 2.2% Favors females (p=0.0011) due to less pain and greater mobility Hip Instability during sex? No Instability 96.7% Sensation “slip out” 3.3% No significant difference between groups Return to Sexual Function? •Ability to Return to sex activity •Quality of sexual activity •Feeling of hip instability during sex •Bearing surface •Femoral head size No difference based on type of implant CCJR-OREF Award Paper Shifts in Technology impact Surgeon “Value” Source: Orthopedic Network News, compiled from federal registers 1984-2011 14 10/20/2014 Who Will Define “Quality” in Orthopaedics? *Sinaiko and Rosenthal, AJMC, 2010 Quality Reporting •External / Internal Reporting Systems •HealthGrades / Vitals MD (External) •Hospital Rating Systems •Risk Adjusted Data •Primarily Joints/Spine Service Initiatives Satisfaction •HCAHPS (CMS) •Insurance Companies •Press Ganey •HealthGrades •Internally Generated Survey 15 10/20/2014 Cost Initiatives •Practice (FTE’s; Malpractice; Supplies) •Hospital (LOS; OR; Implant Supplies, etc.) •Episode of Care / Bundled Payment Total Hip Replacement • One of the most cost effective procedures in all of medicine • Expanding to younger and more active pt population • Need for improved economic value by • Increased efficiency to meet growing demand • Reduction in cost of care • Bundled Payments/ACOs are here to stay THANK YOU 16 10/15/2014 Periacetabular Osteotomy for Symptomatic Acetabular Dysplasia Young-Jo Kim, MD/PhD Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery Acetabular Dysplasia • Insufficient acetabular coverage leads to mechanical instability • Overloaded labrum and acetabular cartilage at the acetabular edge degenerates and results in hip PAIN with activity and OSTEOARTHRITIS • Periacetabular osteotomy reorients the shallow acetabulum resulting in less PAIN and POSSIBLE slowing of OA progression Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy 1 10/15/2014 Clinical Outcome after PAO • Survival data using THA as end point – 5-10 year 84-90% Matheney, Kim, and Millis JBJS 2009 91:2113-2123 Troelsen, Elmengaard, Soballe JBJS 2009 91:2169-2179 – 20 year 60% Steppacher, Tannast, Ganz, Siebenrock CORR 2008 466:1633-1644 Predictors of Failure • • • • Higher age More osteoarthritis, Tonnis grade>1 Poor joint congruency after osteotomy Severe dysplasia QOL in PAO patients older than 40 • Cohort comparison study • WOMAC and SF-12 assessment • Although PAO resulted in good QOL, THA was better. Garbuz, et al. J Arthroplasty 2008 23:960 2 10/15/2014 Cost Effectiveness of PAO • Cost effectiveness primarily a function of pre-existing OA and longevity after surgery • Tonnis grade I – PAO more cost effective – Cost effectiveness of $7856 per quality adjusted life year • Tonnis grade II – PAO still more cost effective, but – Cost effectiveness of $824 per quality adjusted life year • Tonnis grade III – THA more cost effective Sharifi, Sharifi, Morshed, Bozic, Diab JBJS 2008 90:2447 Proper patient selection is key! Radiographic Assessment of Hip OA • Plain radiographic features – Joint space narrowing – Osteophyte formation – Subchondral cyst formation • Radiographic views – Standing vs supine AP pelvis views – False profile view – Functional view (abduction, flexion, internal rotation view) 3 10/15/2014 Tönnis Grade of OA • Subjective grading of radiographic OA on AP pelvis • Grade 0 – no arthritis • Grade 1 – increased sclerosis of head and acetabulum, slight narrowing of the joint space, slight lipping at the joint margins Tönnis Grade of OA • Grade 2 – small cysts in the head or acetabulum, increasing narrowing of the joint space, moderate loss of sphericity of head • Grade 3 – large cysts in the head or acetabulum, severe narrowing or obliteration of the joint space, severe deformity of the head, necrosis • Difficult to distinguish between grade 0 and 1 • Inter-rater reliability can be poor Joint Space Width – Quantitative Measure of Cartilage Loss • Measure the minimum space between acetabulum and femoral head in the weight bearing zone • Usually more reliable measure • JSW > 3 mm considered normal • JSW < 2.5 mm is considered arthritic 4 10/15/2014 Joint Space Width JSW delayed Gadolinium Enhanced MRI of Cartilage - + - + - + + - + + - + + + + + - - + + Fluid + - + + - - -+ - + + + + - + - + - - + LOW Gd(DTPA)2- Image + + + + + + + + + + - - ++ + - + + + + + + + - ++ + - + + + Cartilage + + + + T1 Image [GAG] Image HIGH 5 10/15/2014 Delayed Gadolinium-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage to Predict Early Failure of Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy for Hip Dysplasia TORIN CUNNINGHAM, REBECCA JESSEL, DAVID ZURAKOWSKI, MICHAEL B. MILLIS, YOUNG-JO KIM JBJS 2006, 88A:1540-1548 Study Design • Prospective cohort study looking at factors affecting early failure of the joint after PAO • Looked at pre-operative dGEMRIC, patient factors, radiographic factors • Looked at clinical and radiographic failure as well as conversion to THR Results • Multiple stepwise logistic regression confirmed that dGEMRIC and joint subluxation are predictors of outcome independent of age, center-edge angle of Wiberg, Tönnis grade, and joint congruency. • Final model: – dGEMRIC: likelihood ratio test=9.91, p=0.002 – Subluxation: likelihood ratio test=6.33, p=0.012 6 10/15/2014 Patient Selection for Pelvic Osteotomy • 44 year old woman with chronic right hip pain with activity • Pain in the anterior groin • Pain with activity and night pain Cunningham, et al. JBJS-A 2006 10 % risk of early failure. Patient decided to proceed with surgery. 7 10/15/2014 7 years post-op Conclusion • PAO can be a cost effective solution in young patients with minimal osteoarthritis • Proper staging of cartilage damage is helpful in improving the overall outcome after PAO 8 VuMedi Maximizing Hip Care: Capturing and Demonstrating Value Webinar Managing the Hip at Risk 21st Century Paradigm Allston J. Stubbs, M.D., M.B.A. Medical Director Hip Arthroscopy & Associate Professor Department of Orthopaedic Surgery October 20, 2014 Allston J. Stubbs, M.D., M.B.A. I have financial relationships with the following companies: • Consultant: Smith & Nephew • Stock: Johnson & Johnson • Research Support: Bauerfeind • Department Support: Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, DepuyMitek • Boards/Committees: AOSSM, ISHA, AANA, Journal of Arthroscopy What is a “Hip at Risk” Hip predisposed to OA • Nature – Genetics – Acquired: LCP, SCFE, DDH – Inflammatory • Nurture – Occupation – Athletics – Trauma – Other: AVN VCAM Biomarker It’s more than FAI and dysplasia 1 “Why Do We Care?” 40 y/o Tae Kwon Do Olympian 6 months . . . FAI CAM Impingement Acetabular Surface Injury Effect of Symptoms on CM Stubbs et al. ISAKOS 2011 2 Why are the apparent #’s increasing? • Improved recognition by MDs, PTs • Better educated patient population • MRI Arthrography • Institutionalization of Sport – Start at Age 3 – Formal – Year Round – Male and Female Hip at Risk: OA Progression 21st Century Vision Cartilage Condition Pre-Arthritic GOAL 2014 OA Age Why Does It Matter? Patient & Provider 2.4 years of Hip Pain 3 Why Does It Matter? Public and Government Significant pressure for VALUE How do we add VALUE? • Reactive to Proactive Strategy • Series to Parallel Team-Based Thinking • Anticipating Future Paradigm Modifiers STRATEGIC APPROACH Proactive Strategy • Patient Selection and Treatment – What is our trigger for intervention: pain, MRI, other • Diagnostic Capabilities and Tools – Sensitivity & Specificity Optimization • Automated Outcome Assessment – Parallel background work-flow 4 Hip Screening Programs • Scoliosis Model • SCFE Model Does prophylactic treatment make sense? Nine Theories of Chondrolabral Dysfunction Need “hip system” answers not silver bullet . . . Age Inflammatory Neoplasm Disease (PVNS) Trauma s/p PAO Instability s/p Instrumentation IPI FAI SCFE States Dysplasia AVN DDH LT Impingement AIIS s/p Osteotomy LCP IPI=Iliopsoas Impingement Innovate with Existing Technology until advancements are made 5 Functional Testing Modified Dynamic Trendelenburg Test NORMAL ABNORMAL Figure adapted from Limpisvasti et al. JAAOS 2007 Balance & Labral Tears Stabilogram for Subject6-level65-trial2.txt mean COP distance = 6.38 mm 20 Anterior-Posterior distance (mm) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Medial-Lateral distance (mm) 15 20 False Profile View: Weight Bearing A C B Extract Maximum Information 1) Joint space 2) Joint shape 3) Extraarticular impingement 4) Other 6 Parallel Team-Based Thinking • Hip-Based Team • Coordinated Protocols • Integrated Systems Feagin Leadership Method Prearthritic Hip Team • Orthopaedic • Radiographic • Operative • Rehabilitative • Financial • Patient & Patient Team Coordinated message to patient, hospital, insurer Anticipating Future Paradigm Modifiers • Biologics – Stem cells & bioprinting • Diagnostics – Biomarkers & 4-D • Surgical Techniques – Outpatient & combination • Certification – Hip specialization Don’t allow the impossibilities of the present limit the possibilities of the future 7 Performance Assessment Easiest area for leadership • Automated • Background • Accessible Provider clinical care unaffected Can we achieve Level 1 Evidence • Patient enrollment • Is non-treatment ethical • Who is paying for it Hip at Risk: OA Progression 21st Century Vision 1) 2) 3) 4) Cartilage Condition Pre-Arthritic Hip at Risk Genetic and Biomarker Assessment Stem Cell Therapy Early Correction of Mechanical Derangement GOAL 2014 OA Age 8 Thank You! Cambridge, UK October 2015 www.isha.net @ishanet Bibliography • Byrd JWT. Hip Arthroscopy: patient assessment and indications. Instr Course Lect 2002; 52: 711‐719. Byrd JWT: Physical Examination. In Byrd JWT (ed) Operative Hip Arthroscopy 2nd Edition, Springer 2005;36‐50. • Clohisy JC, Beaulé PE, O'Malley A, Safran MR, Schoenecker P. AOA symposium. Hip disease in the young adult: current concepts of etiology and surgical treatment. J Bone Joint Surg‐Am 2008; 90(10): 2267‐2281. • Johnston TL, Schenker ML, Briggs KK, Philippon MJ. Relationship between offset angle alpha and hip chondral injury in femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy 2008; 24(6): 669‐675. • Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Sekiya JK. The diagnostic accuracy of a clinical examination in determining intra‐ articular hip pain for potential hip arthroscopy candidates. Arthroscopy 2008; 24(9): 1013‐1018. • O'Leary JA, Berend K, Vail TP. The relationship between diagnosis and outcome in arthroscopy of the hip. Arthroscopy 2001; 17(2): 181‐188. • Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT, Ganz R, Leunig M. Hip disease in the young, active patient: evaluation and nonarthroplasty surgical options. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16(8): 689‐703. 9
Source Exif Data:
File Type : PDF File Type Extension : pdf MIME Type : application/pdf PDF Version : 1.4 Linearized : No Modify Date : 2014:10:20 17:22:15-04:00 Creator : PDFMerge! (http://www.pdfmerge.com) Create Date : 2014:10:20 17:22:15-04:00 Producer : iText® 5.5.2 ©2000-2014 iText Group NV (ONLINE PDF SERVICES; licensed version) Page Count : 70EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools