Advertisement

Der Orthopäde

, Volume 48, Issue 11, pp 963–968 | Cite as

Process optimization in total knee arthoplasty procedures

Impact of size-specific instrument sets on costs and revenue
  • Maximilian C. von Eiff
  • Wilfried von Eiff
  • Andreas Roth
  • Mohamed GhanemEmail author
Originalie

Abstract

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a frequent operation in Germany and in 2017 a total of 191,272 interventions were carried out. These interventions are associated with high costs and involve complex clinical workflow organization and time-consuming instrument logistics. With this in mind, the aim of this study was to identify the economic potential of the instrument configuration in order to optimize the entire process in TKA. Changing the composition of the set of instruments used in the operating theater for TKA resulted in time and cost saving for the complete TKA procedure, including all personnel and off-shoot procedures. In addition, the operating time saved by the introduction of a patient-specific instrumentation set meant that the operating theater could be used for more or other surgical procedures, also generating additional revenue.

Keywords

Surgical instruments Cost analysis Economics Operating rooms Efficiency 

Abbreviations

CMI

Case mix index

CSSD

Central sterile service department

DRG

Diagnosis-related groups

InEK

Institute for Remuneration in Hospitals

MIS

Minimal invasive surgery

OR

Operating room

TKA

Total knee arthroplasty

Prozessoptimierung bei der Implantation von Knietotalendoprothesen

Auswirkung größenspezifischer Instrumentensets auf Kosten und Einnahmen

Zusammenfassung

Die Implantation einer Knietotalendoprothese (Knie-TEP) ist eine häufige Operation in Deutschland, und im Jahr 2017 wurden insgesamt 191.272 Eingriffe durchgeführt. Diese Operationen sind mit hohen Kosten und einer komplexen klinischen Ablauforganisation sowie einer zeitaufwändigen Instrumentenlogistik verbunden. In Anbetracht dessen war es das Ziel dieser Studie, das ökonomische Potenzial der Instrumentenkonfiguration zu identifizieren, um den gesamten Prozess der Implantation einer Knie-TEP zu optimieren. Die veränderte Zusammensetzung des im Operationssaal verwendeten Instrumentensets für eine Knie-TEP resultierte in einer Zeit- und Kostenersparnis für den gesamten Eingriff, einschließlich aller personellen und sonstigen damit verbundenen Prozesse. Zudem bedeutete die Zeitersparnis bei der Operation durch ein patientenspezifisches Instrumentarium, dass der Operationssaal für mehr bzw. andere chirurgische Eingriffe genutzt werden konnte und damit auch zusätzliche Einnahmen erwirtschaftet werden konnten.

Schlüsselwörter

Operationsinstrumentarium Kostenanalyse Ökonomie Operationssaal Effizienz 

Notes

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

M.C. von Eiff, W. von Eiff, A. Roth and M. Ghanem declare that they have no competing interests.

This study was conducted at a university clinic, department of orthopedics, traumatology and plastic surgery. Authorization was granted by the administration of the department. All data related to this study did not include patient, personnel or department-specific data. Also, the works council consented to the study.

References

  1. 1.
    von Eiff MC, von Eiff W (2018) Qualität im Medizinbetrieb: Ziele, Dimensionen, Bewertungskriterien und Erfolgsfaktoren. In: Busch HP (ed) Qualitätsorientiertes Krankenhausmanagement, pp 55–79Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    von Eiff W (2018) Monitoring des Beschaffungsmanagements im Krankenhaus. Holzmann, Bad Wörishofen, p 79Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schmid R, Schmidt AJ (eds) (2018) Modernes Beschaffungsmanagement im Gesundheitswesen. medhochzwei, Heidelberg (p. 24, 193–204)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farrokhi FR, Gunther M, Williams B, Blackmore CC (2015) Application of lean methodology for improved quality and efficiency in operating room instrument availability. J Healthc Qual 37(5):277–286.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jhq.12053 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lunardini D, Arington R, Canacari EG, Gamboa K, Wagner K, McGuire KJ (2014) Lean principles to optimize instrument utilization for spine surgery in an academic medical center: An opportunity to standardize, cut costs, and build a culture of improvement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(20):1714–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanamori S, Sow S, Castro MC, Matsuno R, Tsuru A, Jimba M (2015) Implementation of 5S management method for lean healthcare at a health center in Senegal: A qualitative study on staff perception. Glob Health Action 8:27256.  https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v8.27256 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moraros J, Lemstra M, Nwankwo C (2016) Lean interventions in healthcare: Do they actually work? A systematic literature review. Int J Qual Health Care 28(2):150–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Avansino JR, Goldin AB, Risley R, Waldhausen JHT, Sawin RS (2013) Standardization of operative equipment reduces cost. J Pediatr Surg 48:1843–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cichos KH, Linsky PL, Wei B, Minnich DJ, Cerfolio RJ (2017) Cost savings of standardization of thoracic surgical instruments: The process of lean. Ann Thorac Surg 104:1889–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodriguez AST, Gutierres AP (2017) Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Should we adopt it? Rev Bras Ortop 52(3):242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watters TS, Mather RC 3rd, Browne JA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Bolognesi MP (2011) Analysis of procedure-related costs and proposed benefits of using patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv 20(2):112–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mhlaba JM, Christianson LW, Davidson SJ, Graves SN, Still BR, Silas MR, Fong AJ, Nassiri AM, Pariser JJ, Langerman AJ (2016) Field research in the operating room. Ergon Des 24(4):10–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804616642916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Statistisches Bundesamt (2019) Homepage. www.destatis.de. Accessed 8 Apr 2019Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hauser A (2019) Krankenhausrecht kompakt 2019. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart (Fallpauschalenvereinbarung)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus (2019) InEK Datenportal. www.g-drg.de/InEK_Datenportal. Accessed 3 July 2019Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Ruh EL, Williams BB, Foreman K, Ford AD, Barrack RL (2011) Are patient-specific cutting blocks cost-effective for total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Slover JD, Rubash HE, Malchau H, Bosco JA (2012) Cost-effectiveness analysis of custom total knee cutting blocks. J Arthroplasty 27:180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mont MA, McElroy MJ, Johnson AJ, Pivec R (2013) Single-use instruments, cutting blocks, and trials increase efficiency in the operating room during total knee arthroplasty. A prospective comparison of navigated and non-navigates cases. J Arthroplasty 28:1135–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Healy WL, Rana AJ, Iorio R (2011) Hospital economics of primary total knee arthroplasty at a teaching hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tibesku CO, Hofer P, Portegies W, Ruys CJM, Fennema P (2014) Benefits of using customized instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: Results from an activity-based costing model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sassoon A, Nam D, Nunley R, Barrack R (2015) Systematic review of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: New but not improved. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(1):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Molicnik A, Naranda J, Dolinar D (2015) Patient-matched instruments versus standard instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomized study. Wien Klin Wochenschr 127(Suppl 5):S235–S240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stockert EW, Langermann A (2014) Assessing the magnitude and costs of intraoperative inefficiencies attributable to surgical instrument trays. J Am Coll Surg 219(4):646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Macario A (2010) What does one minute of operating room time cost? J Clin Anesth 22:233–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zapp W, Dues C, Kempenich E, Oswald J (2017) Rechnungswesen und Finanzierung in Krankenhäusern und Pflegeeinrichtungen, pp 190–191Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus (2019) InEK Datenportal. www.g-drg.de/InEK_Datenportal. Accessed 3 July 2019Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thienpont E, Paternostre F, Van Wymeersch C (2015) The indirect cost of patient-specific instruments. Acta Orthop Belg 81(3):462–470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    DeHaan AM, Adams JR, DeHart ML, Huff TW (2014) Patient-specific versus conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: Peri-operative and cost differences. J Arthroplasty 29(11):2065–2069.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.06.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Noble JW Jr., Moore CA, Liu N (2012) The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(1):153–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Porter ME (2010) What is value in health care? N Engl J Med 363(26):2477–2481.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1011024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Porter ME, Kaplan RS (2017) Value-based healthcare in 2017. HealthManagement 17(1):1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian C. von Eiff
    • 1
  • Wilfried von Eiff
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andreas Roth
    • 4
  • Mohamed Ghanem
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.St. Josef HospitalHammGermany
  2. 2.Center for Hospital ManagementUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  3. 3.HHL Leipzig Graduate School of ManagementCenter for Health Care Management and RegulationLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedics, Traumatology and Plastic SurgeryUniversity Hospital of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations