Cost comparison between spinal versus general anesthesia for hip and knee arthroplasty: an incremental cost study.

Abstract

PurposeWait list times for total joint arthroplasties have been growing, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing operating room (OR) efficiency by reducing OR time and associated costs while maintaining quality allows the greatest number of patients to receive care.MethodsWe used propensity score matching to compare parallel processing with spinal anesthesia in a block room vs general anesthesia in a retrospective cohort of adult patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We compared perioperative costs, hospital costs, OR time intervals, and complications between the groups with nonparametric tests using an intention-to-treat approach.ResultsAfter matching, we included 636 patients (315 TKA; 321 THA). Median [interquartile range (IQR)] perioperative costs were CAD 7,417 [6,521–8,109], and hospital costs were CAD 10,293 [9,344–11,304]. Perioperative costs were not significantly different between groups (pseudo-median difference [MD], CAD −47 (95% confidence interval [CI], −214 to −130; P = 0.60); nor were total hospital costs (MD, CAD −78; 95% CI, −340 to 178; P = 0.57). Anesthesia-controlled time and total intraoperative time were significantly shorter for spinal anesthesia (MD, 14.6 min; 95% CI, 13.4 to 15.9; P < 0.001; MD, 15.9; 95% CI, 11.0 to 20.9; P < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in complications.ConclusionSpinal anesthesia in the context of a dedicated block room reduced both anesthesia-controlled time and total OR time. This did not translate into a reduction in incremental cost in the spinal anesthesia group.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-022-02303-3.