ArticleDer Orthopade2021
[Comparison of DRG revenues between fast and slow-track procedures for a two-stage replacement of prostheses for periprosthetic hip infections in the aG-DRG system 2020].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of periprosthetic hip infections is usually cost intensive, so it is generally not cost effective for hospitals. In chronic infections, a two-stage procedure is often indicated, which can be done as a fast-track procedure with a short prosthetic-free interim interval (2-4 weeks) or as a slow-track procedure with a long prosthetic-free interim interval (over 4 weeks).
aimThe aim of this study was to elucidate the revenue situation of both forms of treatment in the aG-DRG-System 2020, taking into account revenue-relevant influencing factors.
methodsFor fast-track and slow-track procedures with two-stage revision and detection of a staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), treatment cases were simulated using a grouper software (3M KODIP Suite) based on the diagnoses (ICD-10-GM) and procedures (OPS) and then grouped into DRGs. Revenue-relevant parameters, such as length of stay and secondary diagnoses (SD), were taken into account. In addition, two real treatment cases with fast-track and slow-track procedures were compared to each other.
resultsThe total revenues for the slow-track procedure with a length of stay of 25 days (without SD) were 27,551 € and for a length of stay of 42 days (with SD) even 40,699 €, compared to 23,965 € with the fast-track procedure with a length of stay of 25 days (without SD) and 27,283 € for a length of stay of 42 days (with SD). The real treatment cases also showed a big difference in the total revenues of 12,244 € in favor of the slow-track procedure. DISCUSSION: Even in the aG-DRG-System 2020, the two-stage revision procedure with a long interim interval seems to be more interesting from a financial point of view and the hospital perspective compared to the fast-track procedure, especially with multimorbid patients. This creates a financial barrier to the treatment of such patients with a short interim interval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.