LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Large Joints and Extremities/Drop Metabolic Panels After TJA?
Large Joints and Extremities

Drop Metabolic Panels After TJA?

October 6, 2020 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Drop Metabolic Panels After TJA?
Source: Wikimedia Commons and Bobjgalindo
Secondary#metabolicpanel#outpatientarthroplasty

Would you stop a routine practice if it did not affect quality and resulted in a substantial savings? But of course!

New work from Johns Hopkins suggests a new way to do just that. The study, “Routine Basic Metabolic Panels Are Not Needed in All Patients After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Opportunity for Cost Reduction,” was published in the August 10, 2020 edition of The Journal of Arthroplasty.

Robert S. Sterling, M.D., associate professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and co-author on the study, explained the impetus for this work to OTW. “Our program routinely reviews our clinical practices to ensure that we are keeping up to date with current best evidence. As we started to transition to some same day discharges at our hospital and with the rise in outpatient arthroplasty across the country, we recognized that routine post-op labs obtained in the hospital on all patients are not part of the outpatient protocol. There are other surgical areas that have explored routine labs and we saw this as an opportunity to provide some evidence to help guide us to a safe practice.”

The authors reviewed 802 cases (758 patients) of primary lower-extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA) performed from January 1 through December 31, 2018 at the Johns Hopkins tertiary care medical center. The researchers calculated the Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index values, as well as the institutional costs of one basic metabolic panel (BMP) and of all basic metabolic panels not prompting intervention.

The team found that their institutional cost for a basic metabolic panel was $36. Of the 1,032 postoperative basic metabolic panels ordered, 958 (93%) prompted no intervention. The authors wrote, “This equated to $34,488 of avoidable BMP costs. We identified 27 cases (3.4%) requiring intervention secondary to abnormal BMPs. Independent predictors of intervention were preoperative renal dysfunction (i.e., abnormal creatinine or glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min), number of current nephrotoxic medications, and AA-CCI [Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index] value.”

Because We’ve Always Done It Like That

We asked Dr. Sterling why this issue hadn’t been more thoroughly explored before and he explained to OTW, “I think that this is both an issue of comfort and routine. We have gone through decades of practice where this was the way it was done. As we have continued to question the rote pieces of practice and develop evidence-based guidelines, everything that we do will continue to come into question. This is simply another facet of practice that was very ingrained in our behavior that it was not much questioned in the past.”

Kidney Alert

“The most important takeaway is that we need studies with a larger number of patients to best define which patients should have post-operative laboratory studies. While criteria for outpatient arthroplasty have been written on extensively, surgeons may need to pay close attention to the number of nephrotoxic medications a patient is on when the patient is being considered for outpatient surgery as we found a significant increase of odds of having an abnormal post-op lab value that required an intervention in this patient group in addition to patients with pre-operative renal dysfunction and an increased age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy