Preferred Single-Vendor Program for Total Joint Arthroplasty Implants

Background: In total joint arthroplasty, variation in implant use can be driven by vendor relationships, surgeon preference, and technological advancements. Our institution developed a preferred single-vendor program for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. We hypothesized that this initiative would decrease implant costs without compromising performance on quality metrics.

Methods: The utilization of implants from the preferred vendor was evaluated for the first 12 months of the contract (September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018; n = 4,246 cases) compared with the prior year (September 1, 2016, to August 31, 2017; n = 3,586 cases). Per-case implant costs were compared using means and independent-samples t tests. Performance on quality metrics, including 30-day readmission, 30-day surgical site infection (SSI), and length of stay (LOS), was compared using multivariable-adjusted regression models.

Results: The utilization of implants from the preferred vendor increased from 50% to 69% (p < 0.001), with greater use of knee implants than hip implants from the preferred vendor, although significant growth was seen for both (from 62% to 81% for knee, p < 0.001; and from 38% to 58% for hip, p < 0.001). Adoption of the preferred-vendor initiative was greatest among low-volume surgeons (from 22% to 87%; p < 0.001) and lowest among very high-volume surgeons (from 61% to 62%; p = 0.573). For cases in which implants from the preferred vendor were utilized, the mean cost per case decreased by 23% in the program’s first year (p < 0.001), with an associated 11% decrease in the standard deviation. Among all cases, there were no significant changes with respect to 30-day readmission (p = 0.449) or SSI (p = 0.059), while mean LOS decreased in the program’s first year (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The creation of a preferred single-vendor model for hip and knee arthroplasty implants led to significant cost savings and decreased cost variability within the program’s first year. Higher-volume surgeons were less likely to modify their implant choice than were lower-volume surgeons. Despite the potential learning curve associated with changes in surgical implants, there was no difference in short-term quality metrics.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.