Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Sep;25(6 Suppl):58-61. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.006. Epub 2010 Jun 8.

The validity of using administrative claims data in total joint arthroplasty outcomes research.

Author information

1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate concordance between administrative and clinical diagnosis and procedure codes for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Concordance between administrative and clinical records was determined for 764 consecutive revision TJA procedures from 4 hospitals. For revision total hip arthroplasty, concordance between clinical diagnoses and administrative claims was very good for dislocation, mechanical loosening, and periprosthetic joint infection (all kappa > 0.6), but considerably lower for prosthetic implant failure/breakage and other mechanical complication (both kappa < 0.25). Similarly, for revision total knee arthroplasty diagnoses, concordance was very good for periprosthetic fracture, periprosthetic joint infection, mechanical loosening, and osteolysis (all kappa > 0.60), but much lower for implant failure/breakage and other mechanical complication (both kappa < 0.24). Concordance for TJA-specific procedure codes was very good only for revision total knee arthroplasty patellar component revisions and tibial insert exchange procedures. Total (all-component) revisions were overcoded for hips (00.70) and undercoded for knees (00.80). Improved clinical documentation and continued education are needed to enhance the value of these codes.

PMID:
20570479
DOI:
10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.006
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center