Is There Value in Pathology Specimens in Routine Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty?

Abstract

BackgroundRoutine analysis of bone specimens in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is mandatory at many institutions. The purpose of this study was to determine if mandatory routine TJA specimen analysis alters patient care or if they represent an unnecessary healthcare expenditure.MethodsA retrospective review was performed of all primary TJA patients between October 2015 and December 2017 at our institution. Pathology results were reviewed to ascertain the number of concordant, discrepant, and discordant results. A diagnosis was considered concordant if the preoperative and pathologic diagnosis matched, discrepant if the preoperative and pathological diagnosis differed but no change in the patient’s plan of care occurred, and discordant if the preoperative and pathologic diagnosis differed and resulted in a change in the patient’s plan of care. Results3,670 total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures (3,613 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. All 3,670 specimens had a concordant diagnosis; there were zero discrepant and zero discordant diagnoses. During the study period, our institution spent $67,246.88 in routine analysis of TJA specimens by a pathologist, with no change in any postoperative patient care plans.ConclusionWith bundled payment reimbursement models and hospitals trying to decrease unnecessary expenditures, the present study helps further demonstrate that routine analysis has limited cost-effectiveness due to the low prevalence of alteration in the management of patient care. The decision for pathological analysis should be left at the discretion of the surgeon in order to maximize the cost-efficiency of TJA procedures.