Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CJS
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CJS

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CJS on Twitter
Quill on Scalpel

Reducing arthroplasty costs

Michael Gross
CAN J SURG December 01, 1999 42 (6) 407-408;
Michael Gross
Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. Member, Editorial Board, Canadian Journal of Surgery
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The paper by Johnston and his colleagues in this issue (page 445) on reducing arthroplasty costs through vendor contracts deserves a wide audience. This Edmonton group has initiated and sustained a viable methodology, which creates a win-win scenario for patients, surgeons, health care providers and prostheses manufacturers. It could act as a blueprint for other centres that are also facing cost constraints.

There are some important points to consider.

The process was open, the specific variables were identified for all potential bidders and the evaluation committee comprised a majority of peer-chosen orthopedic suregeons. As be ne fits were identified and made available to all potential partners in the equation, the project continued to be a success. Important allowances were made for new advances and revision procedures not included in this process.

As the practice of joint arthroplasty continues to improve, the numbers necessary to demonstrate clinically and statistically significant differences between arthroplasty components are becoming larger. This means that an individual surgeon’s results are un-likely ever to show a significant difference among components and that groups of surgeons, by pooling their results, will be able to demonstrate a significant difference and have considerable impact on prosthesis selection.

Outcomes collected on behalf of a group allow for individual comparisons or surgical outcomes to be analysed and improved upon. Ten-year results are more likely to be collected when independent study research personnel, reporting to the group rather than to individual surgeons, can follow up patients for that length of time.

The process was also acceptable because with the use of an audited wait list demonstrating significant wait time for joint arthroplasty, the administration was able to free more resources to add to the savings achieved and allow more patients to undergo the operation.

This process is also something that industry should support. Manufacturers no longer have to answer to individual surgeons but to groups of surgeons, and this undoubtedly is a source of some cost savings. They will also be able to get significant results with respect to their arthroplasty products quicker with a group of surgeons than with individuals.

There is one caveat for the future. If a new implant is designed and implanted under trial conditions and demonstrates significantly superior results, then the administration must be prepared to pay more for such an implant, because the costs of proving its efficacy are naturally going to increase if the new product is subjected to a 10-year randomized, controlled study.

We should now ask that such an accounting of costs and outcomes be applied to other areas to enhance efficiency and improve outcomes in other surgical and nonsurgical specialties.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Journal of Surgery: 42 (6)
CAN J SURG
Vol. 42, Issue 6
1 Dec 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CJS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reducing arthroplasty costs
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CJS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CJS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reducing arthroplasty costs
Michael Gross
CAN J SURG Dec 1999, 42 (6) 407-408;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Reducing arthroplasty costs
Michael Gross
CAN J SURG Dec 1999, 42 (6) 407-408;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Submit a manuscript

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CJS represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire