Routine Histopathologic Examination of Bone Obtained During Elective Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty May Not Be Necessary

Abstract

Background: Many institutions require the routine collection of pathology samples from every primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed. These policies are controversial, and their cost-effectiveness is difficult to define. We sought to judge the cost-effectiveness of one such policy according to World Health Organization recommendations. Methods: We analyzed 3200 consecutive primary TKAs, comparing our presumed preoperative diagnoses against the diagnoses made by the pathologist. Diagnoses were categorized as concordant (matching), discrepant (not matching but without impact to patient management), or discordant (not matching and resulting in a direct change to patient management). An incremental cost-utility ratio analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of our institution’s policy to routinely collect pathology samples from every primary TKA performed. Cost-effectiveness was defined by World Health Organization guidelines as a cost of less than $228,090 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Results: Twelve pathology samples were lost before reaching a pathologist. From the remaining 3188 samples, we identified 3158 concordant cases, 29 discrepant diagnoses, and 1 discordant diagnosis. It cost an estimated $10,522.60 to identify each discrepant diagnosis and an estimated $305,155.36 to diagnose one discordant case in our cohort. Our incremental cost-utility ratio analysis revealed that we spent $305,155.36 to gain 0 quality-adjusted life years for our patients. Conclusions: Routine histopathologic analysis of TKA samples was cost-ineffective in our patient cohort and may not be necessary during routine TKA.

Keywords

• Cost analysis
• Histopathology
• Total knee arthroplasty
• Cost-effective care
• Knee osteoarthritis