Skip to main content
Arthroplasty Today logoLink to Arthroplasty Today
. 2019 Nov 30;5(4):521–524. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.10.007

Surgical selection criteria compliance is associated with a lower risk of periprosthetic joint infection in total hip arthroplasty

Aidan T Morrell a,, Gregory J Golladay b, Stephen L Kates b
PMCID: PMC6921180  PMID: 31886401

Abstract

Background

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patient optimization represents an important target for PJI prevention. Unfortunately, best practice screening guidelines are not consistently followed by all surgeons. Our study aimed to determine both the degree and the effect that compliance with our institutional preoperative surgical selection criteria had on PJI rates for patients undergoing elective primary THA.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on 455 elective primary THA procedures performed at an academic tertiary care center over a 2-year period. Institutional preoperative surgical selection criteria included the following: body mass index ≤40 kg/m2, hemoglobin A1c ≤7.5%, hemoglobin ≥12 g/dL, albumin ≥3.5 g/dL, no smoking within 30 days prior to surgery, and completion of a decolonization protocol if a nasal polymerase chain reaction was positive for Staphylococcus aureus. PJI was assessed for a minimum 1-year follow-up using Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria from 2011. Rates of compliance and PJI were compared using a chi-squared test.

Results

Surgeon compliance with institutional preoperative selection criteria was 62.4% and ranged from 0.0% to 83.9%. Five of 455 patients developed a PJI. The total PJI rate was 1.1%. The compliant patient cohort had a PJI rate of 0.0%, while the noncompliant cohort had a PJI rate of 2.9% (P = .0038).

Conclusions

This study identified a statistically significant decrease in PJI rates among patients who met all preoperative screening criteria.

Keywords: Arthroplasty, Hip, Replacement, Infection, Patient selection

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication for patients and healthcare providers. Despite its low incidence (crude rate complex surgical site infection [SSI] = 0.69 [1], incidence of PJI = 0.88% [2]), postoperative infection remains the costliest complication seen in the 90-day postoperative period, often necessitating readmission and reoperation [3,4]. In an era of publicly reported data and bundled payments, more attention has been directed toward patient optimization as a means to decrease such complications and to improve the value of care [[5], [6], [7], [8], [9]].

Although evidence exists regarding optimization strategies to prevent PJI, there is no universally accepted standard for surgeons to follow [10]. Furthermore, best practice screening guidelines are not consistently followed by all surgeons [11]. This may be, in part, due to a lack of understanding of the importance of adherence to best practice guidelines as it relates to the risk of PJI. Compounding this problem is the lack of an externally validated risk stratification tool that can, with a high predictive ability, inform clinical decision-making given a patient’s specific risk profile [[12], [13], [14]].

The primary aim of this study is to determine the degree of compliance with our institutional surgical selection criteria for patients undergoing elective primary THA. The secondary aim is to determine whether the degree of compliance influenced PJI rates. We hypothesized that compliance with our institution’s surgical selection criteria would influence PJI rates.

Material and methods

A retrospective review was conducted on all elective primary THA procedures performed at an academic tertiary care center over a 2-year period from December 1, 2015 to December 1, 2017. Current Procedural Terminology codes 27130 and 27132 were used to query the electronic medical record and billing database. In total, 670 cases were identified. One hundred two cases were excluded as revision, secondary, or nonelective procedures due to trauma or malignancy, and 113 more were excluded for incomplete or missing data in the medical record, leaving 455 cases for analysis. There were 56 patients who underwent both right and left elective primary THA procedures within the study period. Patients who had 2 procedures performed on the same day were counted as one set of data while those with procedures performed in a staged fashion were considered as separate data sets. A total of 9 surgeons were included in the study. Institutional preoperative selection criteria were determined by a multidisciplinary team of experts following a systematic review of current literature. Data collection was modeled according to our institutional preoperative selection criteria for elective primary THA, including body mass index (BMI) ≤40 kg/m2, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤7.5%, hemoglobin (Hb) ≥12 g/dL, albumin ≥3.5 g/dL, no smoking within 30 days prior to surgery, and completion of a decolonization protocol if a nasal polymerase chain reaction screening was positive for Staphylococcus aureus. These sources dated within 30 days of the day of surgery, otherwise the last recorded value before the operation was used. An estimated HbA1c was calculated for some patients who had no measured HbA1c level using available blood glucose measurements and the estimated average glucose/HbA1c conversion calculator provided by the American Diabetes Association [15]. Verification of smoking status and completion of the decolonization protocol were completed on the day of surgery and entered into the preoperative nursing assessment as a field-based entry into the electronic medical record. PJI was assessed for a minimum of 1 year following the operation and was defined using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria from 2011 as data were collected and analyzed prior to the most recent criteria update [16,17]. Each variable was considered dichotomous for the purposes of analysis and was categorized as compliant or noncompliant. Similarly, subjects were divided into 2 groups for pooled analysis. Compliance was defined as having met all preoperative screening criteria within the guidelines, while noncompliance was defined as having one or more variables outside the guidelines. Compliance with guidelines was also assessed for each surgeon. Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare patient demographics, compliance rates, and rates of PJI. Alpha was set to 5%. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study.

Results

Our study population had no statistically significant difference among gender, BMI, or prevalence of diabetes between the compliant and noncompliant patient cohorts (Table 1). There was, however, a statistically significant difference in age (P = .00049), with the noncompliant patient cohort consisting of a higher proportion of patients in the 18 to 65-year-old category (Table 1). Smoking within 30 days prior to the operation was the most common reason for lack of compliance, present in 19% of cases (Table 2). Anemia (Hb < 12 g/dL) was the second most common reason for lack of compliance, present in 16% of cases (Table 2). Of the 5 patients who developed PJIs, each was noncompliant from either smoking or anemia (Table 3). There were 17 patients noncompliant across more than 1 category. Only 4 of the 5 patients who developed PJI underwent reoperation. The patient who has not undergone reoperation is currently on chronic suppressive antibiotics and has declined surgical intervention due to a lack of constitutional symptoms or significant pain.

Table 1.

Comparison of demographics among compliant and noncompliant patient cohorts who underwent elective primary THA.

Patient demographics
Compliant Noncompliant Total P value
Age .00049
 18-65 178 137 315
 66-85 103 33 136
 86-95 3 1 4
Gender .89
 Male 136 83 219
 Female 148 88 236
BMI .37a
 <30 162 97 259
 30-40 122 61 183
 >40 0 13 13
Diabetes .16
 Yes 39 32 71
 No 245 139 384
Total 284 171 455
a

P-value determined by chi-square of <30 and 30-40 categories.

Table 2.

Compliance and noncompliance (group averages included) to each institutional preoperative screening criteria for elective primary THA.

Institutional preoperative selection criteria
Compliant (average) Noncompliant (average) Compliance rate
BMI (kg/m2)
 ≤40 442 (29.0) 13 (43.1) 97.1
Comorbidity
 HbA1c (%) ≤7.5 446 (5.70) 9 (8.11) 98.0
 Hb (g/dL) ≥12 382 (14.0) 73 (11.0) 84.0
 Albumin (g/dL) ≥3.5 450 (4.33) 5 (3.26) 98.9
Smoking 369 86 81.1
Decolonizationa 125 2 98.4
Total 284 171 62.4
a

All patients were screened for Staphylococcus aureus with nasal polymerase chain reaction. Compliance was defined as having completed a preoperative decolonization protocol only if a nasal polymerase chain reaction was positive.

Table 3.

Combined characteristics of preoperative surgical selection criteria for patients who developed a periprosthetic joint infection.

Characteristics of surgical selection criteria for infected patients
Patient PJI Diabetes Surgeon Age Gender BMI Smoking Albumin HbA1c Hb Decolonized Culture
1 No 1 65-85 Female 52.9 No 4.2 5.8 10.8 N/A Enterococcus faecalis
2 No 1 18-65 Male 31.5 Yes 4.7 5.6 14.1 N/A Propionibacterium acnes
3 No 2 18-65 Female 18.2 No 3.7 5.9 10.7 Yes Staphylococcus aureus
4 No 4 18-65 Male 26.4 Yes 4.2 5.1 9.9 N/A Staphylococcus aureus
5 No 9 18-65 Male 32.4 Yes 4.4 5.7 15.3 Yes Propionibacterium granulosum

N/A, not applicable.

Values in bold indicate noncompliance.

Surgeon compliance with institutional preoperative selection criteria was 62.4% and ranged from 0.0% to 83.9% (Table 4). The compliance rate and corresponding rate of infection of Surgeon 1 was the only one to individually reach statistical significance (P = .0010) (Table 4). Five patients developed a PJI from the 455 cases reviewed and all were noncompliant in at least 1 category (Table 3). The average latency of infection was 34 days. The total PJI rate among the 455 cases was 1.1%, with compliant and noncompliant cohort PJI rates of 0.0% and 2.9%, respectively (Table 4). The difference in PJI rate between compliant and noncompliant patient cohorts was statistically significant (P = .0038) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Comparison of compliance rates to preoperative screening criteria and periprosthetic joint infection by surgeon.

Compliance and infection rates by surgeon
Surgeon Compliance rate (%) PJI rate (%) PJI cases Caseload Cases removed P-value
1 83.9 3.2 2 62 25 .0010
2 78.5 0.6 1 181 23 .056
3 55.8 0.0 0 95 8
4 41.5 2.4 1 41 15 .39
5 38.5 0.0 0 39 16
6 21.1 0.0 0 19 9
7 7.1 0.0 0 14 5
8 0.0 0.0 0 0 11
9 0.0 25 1 4 1
Compliant 100 0.0 0 284 .0038
Noncompliant 0.0 2.9 5 171
Total 62.4 1.1 5 455 113

P-values indicate statistical association between compliance rate and PJI rate.

Discussion

PJI remains a serious threat to patients undergoing elective primary THA [18]. Managing modifiable risk factors is an important step toward reducing a patient’s risk for infection [11,[19], [20], [21]]. Pruzansky et al. [22] reported 300 hip and knee arthroplasties and found the top 5 modifiable risk factors to be obesity (46%), anemia (29%), malnutrition (26%), diabetes mellitus (20%), and smoking (10%). Bullock et al. [20] implemented a bundled protocol for primary THA and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) that included patient optimization of modifiable preoperative risk factors including poor dentition, BMI, diabetes mellitus, HbA1c, tobacco abuse, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening, wound assessment, anticoagulant use, obstructive sleep apnea, history of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolus, and reported a reduction in incidence of PJIs from 1.43% to 0.11% for TKAs and 1.56% to 0.59% for THAs. Nussenbaum et al. [19] implemented preoperative screening criteria for primary elective THAs performed among a population of Veterans and saw a reduction in total complication rates from 42.4% to 14.2% and a reduction in SSI rates from 3.8% to 1.2%. The results of our study further support that compliance with evidence-based institutional preoperative surgical selection criteria is associated with a reduced patient risk of PJI.

Guidelines based on expert consensus outlining risk factors for development of postoperative infection after elective total joint arthroplasty were published in the Proceedings of the International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Significant risk factors reported as contraindications to elective total joint arthroplasty include active infection of the arthritic joint, presence of septicemia, and/or presence of active infection of local cutaneous, subcutaneous, or deep tissue. Potential risk factors include poorly controlled diabetes (glucose >200 mg/L or HbA1c >7%), malnutrition, BMI >40 kg/m2, excessive smoking (>1 pack/d), excessive alcohol consumption (>40 units/wk), intravenous drug abuse, active liver disease, chronic renal disease, recent hospitalization, extended stay in a rehabilitation facility, male gender, diagnosis of post-traumatic arthritis, inflammatory arthropathy, prior surgical procedure in the affected joint, and severe immunodeficiency [23]. Our study focused on preoperative modifiable risk factors to assess if current institutional guidelines are reducing our patients’ risk of PJI and our results suggest they are.

Compliance

Lack of physician and patient compliance to evidence-based guidelines poses a unique and challenging threat to reducing the risk of PJI. Physician barriers to compliance specific to orthopedics are not well studied, but in general include personal factors (deficiencies of physician knowledge or attitudes), guideline-related factors (lack of evidence or applicability), and external factors (organizational constraints, lack of resources or collaboration, or social/clinical norms) [[24], [25], [26]]. Furthermore, in volume-based reimbursement environments such as at our institution, surgeon financial incentives are aligned to procedural volume rather than quality outcomes. In bundled payment environments, value-based decision-making might lead to different behaviors, as monetary accountability to 90-day costs attributed to the episode would include readmission or reoperation for infection, which was identified on average at 34 days postoperatively in this study. Project JOINTS, a bundle-based quality improvement project to reduce SSI conducted by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, reported a compliance rate of 55%, with the top 3 barriers to compliance being lack of physician buy-in and staff resistance, cost of intervention, and logistical difficulty of following the interventions [25].

Barriers to compliance also exist for patients and are typically divided into 5 categories: socioeconomic factors (social support, employment status, social stigma of disease), healthcare team/system-related factors (access to care, physician/patient relationship), condition-related factors (presence of symptoms, disease severity, clinical improvement), therapy-related factors (adverse effects, drug effectiveness, dosing schedule), and patient-related factors (age, gender, marital status, ethnicity) [27,28]. Pressure to overcome these barriers and improve patient outcomes continues to increase with further implementation of value-based compensation models, and the influence of infection rates on hospital ratings by organizations such as Vizient, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and US News and World Report [5,29,30].

Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. First, the strength of evidence provided by a retrospective single-institution study is inherently limited. Future prospective studies will be necessary to more completely assess the impact of our institutional preoperative selection criteria on PJI rates for both elective primary THA and TKA. Another limitation is that some risk factors assessed, such as smoking, relied on self-reported data which may have introduced a response bias. There is also a possibility that risk factors involving preoperative labs could have changed in the days or weeks leading up to surgery. Furthermore, because patients were not directly contacted to assess for loss of follow-up, there is a possibility that some may have developed an infection and went on to receive further care or a reoperation at an outside healthcare facility not included in this study. Despite efforts to standardize data collection and analysis, the 113 patient cases that were excluded due to lack of completeness may have introduced a selection bias. Of note, the excluded patient group had a higher incidence of BMI >40, which was statistically significant (P = .008). Another limitation exists in the variation of compliance and caseload among the multiple surgeons who operated on the patients involved in this study. It is also important to point out that this study relied on the 2011 MSIS criteria for PJI, as the criteria were recently updated after our data had already been collected and analyzed [17]. The 2018 MSIS criteria were reported to have a sensitivity of 97.7% (an increase of 18.4% from the 2011 criteria) with an unchanged specificity of 99.5%. Future studies may improve internal validity by incorporating American Society of Anesthesiologists Score or Charlson Comorbidity Index, and by employing cohort matching techniques to account for confounding differences not controlled for in this study. Finally, while this study did demonstrate significant findings, given the low incidence of PJI, a larger sample size would be needed to adequately power a surgeon-specific correlation between compliance and infection rate, which would potentially be more granularly informative and assist in quality improvement efforts at the institutional level.

Conclusions

This study identified statistically significant lower PJI rates among patients who met all institutional preoperative selection criteria compared to those who did not meet them. These findings support our hypothesis that compliance with our institution’s preoperative selection criteria would influence PJI rates. Future studies will prospectively assess the effects of institutional preoperative selection criteria on PJI rates following both elective primary THA and TKA.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Virginia Commonwealth University, United States School of Medicine Student Summer Research Fellowship Fund.

Footnotes

One or more of the authors of this paper have disclosed potential or pertinent conflicts of interest, which may include receipt of payment, either direct or indirect, institutional support, or association with an entity in the biomedical field which may be perceived to have potential conflict of interest with this work. For full disclosure statements refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.10.007.

Supplementary data

Conflict of Interest Statement for Golladay
mmc1.pdf (664.9KB, pdf)
Conflict of Interest Statement for Kates
mmc2.pdf (111.8KB, pdf)
Conflict of Interest Statement for Morrell
mmc3.pdf (112.7KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Segreti J., Parvizi J., Berbari E., Ricks P., Berríos-Torres S.I. Introduction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection: prosthetic joint arthroplasty section. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2017;18(4):394. doi: 10.1089/sur.2017.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kurtz S.M., Lau E., Schmier J., Ong K.L., Zhao K., Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(7):984. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kurtz S.M., Lau E.C., Ong K.L., Adler E.M., Kolisek F.R., Manley M.T. Which clinical and patient factors influence the national economic burden of hospital readmissions after total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(12):2926. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5244-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bozic K.J., Ries M.D. The impact of infection after total hip arthroplasty on hospital and surgeon resource utilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1746. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lanier D.C., Roland M., Burstin H., Knottnerus J.A. Doctor performance and public accountability. Lancet. 2003;362(9393):1404. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14638-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bozic K.J., Chiu V. Quality measurement and public reporting in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6, Supplement):146. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bozic K.J., Ward L., Vail T.P., Maze M. Bundled payments in total joint arthroplasty: targeting opportunities for quality improvement and cost reduction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):188. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3034-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dummit L.A., Kahvecioglu D., Marrufo G. Association between hospital participation in a Medicare bundled payment initiative and payments and quality outcomes for lower extremity joint replacement episodes. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1267. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Finkelstein A., Ji Y., Mahoney N., Skinner J. Mandatory Medicare bundled payment program for lower extremity joint replacement and discharge to institutional postacute care: interim analysis of the first year of a 5-year randomized trial. JAMA. 2018;320(9):892. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.12346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shohat N., Parvizi J. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: examining the recent guidelines. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7):2040. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ricciardi B.F., Bostrom M.P., Lidgren L., Ranstam J., Merollini K.M.D., W-Dahl A. Prevention of surgical site infection in total joint arthroplasty: an international tertiary care center survey. HSS J. 2014;10(1):45. doi: 10.1007/s11420-013-9369-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Manning D.W., Edelstein A.I., Alvi H.M. Risk prediction tools for hip and knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(1):19. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wingert N.C., Gotoff J., Parrilla E., Gotoff R., Hou L., Ghanem E. The ACS NSQIP risk calculator is a fair predictor of acute periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(7):1643. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4717-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Harris A.H.S., Kuo A.C., Bowe T., Gupta S., Nordin D., Giori N.J. Prediction models for 30-day mortality and complications after total knee and hip arthroplasties for veteran health administration patients with osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(5):1539. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.American Diabetes Association eAG/A1c conversion calculator. https://professional.diabetes.org/diapro/glucose_calc
  • 16.Parvizi J., Zmistowski B., Berbari E.F. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the musculoskeletal Infection society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(11):2992. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Parvizi J., Tan T.L., Goswami K. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(5):1309. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shahi A., Tan T.L., Chen A.F., Maltenfort M.G., Parvizi J. In-hospital mortality in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(3):948. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nussenbaum F.D., Rodriguez-Quintana D., Fish S.M., Green D.M., Cahill C.W. Implementation of preoperative screening criteria lowers infection and complication rates following elective total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in a veteran population. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(1):10. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bullock M.W., Brown M.L., Bracey D.N., Langfitt M.K., Shields J.S., Lang J.E. A bundle protocol to reduce the incidence of periprosthetic joint infections after total joint arthroplasty: a single-center experience. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(4):1067. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pulido L., Ghanem E., Joshi A., Purtill J.J., Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(7):1710. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0209-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pruzansky J.S., Bronson M.J., Grelsamer R.P., Strauss E., Moucha C.S. Prevalence of modifiable surgical site infection risk factors in hip and knee joint arthroplasty patients at an urban academic hospital. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(2):272. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Aggarwal V.K., Tischler E.H., Lautenbach C. Mitigation and education. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(2):19. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fischer F., Lange K., Klose K., Greiner W., Kraemer A. Barriers and strategies in guideline implementation—a scoping review. Healthcare (Basel) 2016;4(3):36. doi: 10.3390/healthcare4030036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Khodyakov D., Ridgely M.S., Huang C., DeBartolo K.O., Sorbero M.E., Schneider E.C. Project JOINTS: what factors affect bundle adoption in a voluntary quality improvement campaign? BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(1):38. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Grol R., Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sabate E., editor. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. World Health Organization; Geneva: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kardas P., Lewek P., Matyjaszczyk M. Determinants of patient adherence: a review of systematic reviews. Front Pharmacol. 2013;4:91. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2013.00091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schilling P.L., Hallstrom B.R., Birkmeyer J.D., Carpenter J.E. Prioritizing perioperative quality improvement in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(9):1884. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative: general information. 2013. http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Bundled-Payments/index.html

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Conflict of Interest Statement for Golladay
mmc1.pdf (664.9KB, pdf)
Conflict of Interest Statement for Kates
mmc2.pdf (111.8KB, pdf)
Conflict of Interest Statement for Morrell
mmc3.pdf (112.7KB, pdf)

Articles from Arthroplasty Today are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES