Christopher Fang

Dr. Christopher Fang

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
25 January 2022 in The Journal of Arthroplasty
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CFChristopher Fang
Christopher Fang
GSGhulam H. Saadat
Ghulam H. Saadat
BBBennet A. Butler
Bennet A. Butler
FBFaran Bokhari
Faran Bokhari

10 December 2021 in Arthroplasty Today
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CFChristopher Fang
Christopher Fang
JMJohn C. Mazzocco
John C. Mazzocco
DSDaniel C. Sun
Daniel C. Sun
JSJonathan M. Shaker
Jonathan M. Shaker
CTCarl T. Talmo
Carl T. Talmo
ESEric Smith
Eric Smith
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) represents a major national health expenditure. The last decade has seen a surge in robotic-assisted TKA (roTKA); however, literature on the costs of roTKA as compared to conventional TKA (cTKA) is limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the costs associated with roTKA as compared to cTKA. This was a retrospective cohort cost-analysis study of patients undergoing primary, elective roTKA or cTKA from July 2020 to March 2021. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was used to determine granular costs. Patient demographics, medical/surgical details, and costs were compared. A total of 2058 TKAs were analyzed (1795 cTKAs and 263 roTKAs). roTKA patients were more often male (50.2% vs 42.3%; P = .016), and discharged home (98.5% vs 93.7%; P = .017), and had longer operating room (OR) time (144.6 vs 130.9 minutes; P < .0001), and lower length of stay (LOS) (1.8 vs 2.1 days; P < .0001). roTKA costs were 2.17× greater for supplies excluding implant (P < .0001), 1.18× for total supplies (P < .0001), 1.12× for OR personnel (P < .0001), and 1.05× for total personnel (P = .0001). Implant costs were similar (P = .076), but 0.98× cheaper for post-anesthesia care unit personnel (P = .018) and 0.84× for inpatient personnel (P < .0001). Overall hospital costs for roTKA were 1.10× more than cTKA (P < .0001). roTKA had higher total hospital costs than cTKA. Despite a lower LOS, the longer OR time with higher supply and personnel costs resulted in a costlier procedure. Understanding the costs of roTKA is essential when considering the value (ie, outcomes per dollars spent) of this modern technology.

12 February 2020 in Geriatrics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CFChristopher Fang
Christopher Fang
SLSara J. Lim
Sara J. Lim
DTDavid J. Tybor
David J. Tybor
JMJoseph Martin
Joseph Martin
MPMary E. Pevear
Mary E. Pevear
ESEric Smith
Eric Smith
Patients who are discharged home following primary hip and knee arthroplasty have lower associated costs and better outcomes than patients who are discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). However, patients who live alone are more likely to be discharged to an SNF. We studied the factors that determine the discharge destination for patients who live alone after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) at an urban tertiary care academic hospital between April 2016 and April 2017. We identified 127 patients who lived alone: 79 (62.2%) were sent home, and 48 (37.8%) were sent to an SNF after surgery. Patients who went home versus to an SNF differed in age, employment status, exercise/active status, patient expectation of discharge to an SNF, ASA score, and the length of stay. After controlling for expectations of discharge to an SNF (OR: 28.98), patients who were younger (OR: 0.03) and employed (OR: 6.91) were more likely to be discharged home. In conclusion, the expectation of discharge location was the strongest predictor of discharge to an SNF even after controlling for age and employment. Future research should include a multi-hospital approach to strengthen the validity of our findings and investigate additional factors that impact discharge destination.

1 December 2015 in G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PFPatrick Ferree
Patrick Ferree
CFChristopher Fang
Christopher Fang
MMMariah Mastrodimos
Mariah Mastrodimos
BHBruce A Hay
Bruce A Hay
HAHenry Amrhein
Henry Amrhein
OAOmar Akbari
Omar Akbari
The jewel wasp Nasonia vitripennis is a rising model organism for the study of haplo-diploid reproduction characteristic of hymenopteran insects, which include all wasps, bees and ants. We performed transcriptional profiling of the ovary, the female soma, and the male soma of N. vitripennis in order to complement a previously existing transcriptome of the wasp testis. These data were deposited into an open access genome browser for visualization of transcripts relative to their gene models. We used these data to identify the assemblies of genes uniquely expressed in the germ line tissues. We found that one hundred and fifty six protein-coding genes are exclusively expressed in the wasp testis compared to only twenty-two in the ovary. Of the testis-specific genes, eight are candidates for male-specific DNA packaging proteins known as protamines. We found very similar expression patterns of centrosome associated genes in the testis and ovary, arguing that de novo centrosome formation, a key process for development of unfertilized eggs into males, likely does not rely on large scale transcriptional differences between these tissues. In contrast, a number of meiosis-related genes show a bias toward testis-specific expression, despite the lack of true meiosis in N. vitripennis males. These patterns may reflect an unexpected complexity of male gamete production in the haploid males of this organism. Broadly these data add to the growing number of genomic and genetic tools available in N. vitripennis for addressing important biological questions in this rising insect model organism.

12 November 2021 in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CFChristopher Fang
Christopher Fang
JSJonathan M. Shaker
Jonathan M. Shaker
PHPaul-Anthony Hart
Paul-Anthony Hart
CCCharles Cassidy
Charles Cassidy
DMDavid A. Mattingly
David A. Mattingly
ESEric Smith
Eric Smith
Background: As health care shifts to a value-based model with bundled-payment methods, it is important to understand the costs and reimbursements of arthroplasty procedures that represent the largest expenditure of Medicare. The aim of the present study was to characterize the variation in (1) total hospital costs, (2) reimbursement, and (3) profit margin for different arthroplasty procedures. Methods: The total hospital costs of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) were calculated with use of time-driven activity-based costing at an orthopaedic institution from 2018 to 2020. The average reimbursement for each type of procedure was determined. Profit margin, defined as the reimbursement profit after direct costs, was calculated by deducting the average time-drive activity-based total hospital costs from the reimbursement value. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between costs, reimbursement, and profit margins. Results: There were 13,545 arthroplasty procedures analyzed for this study, including 6,636 TKAs, 5,902 THAs, 346 TSAs, 577 RSAs, and 84 TAAs. Costs and reimbursement were highest for TAA. THA and TKA resulted in the highest profit margins, whereas RSA resulted in the lowest. The strongest associations with profit margin were private insurance (0.46547), age (−0.22732), and implant cost (−0.19240). Conclusions: THA and TKA had greater profit margins overall than TAA and upper-extremity arthroplasty in general. Profit margins for RSA, TSA, and TAA were all at least 28% lower than those for TKA or THA. Lower-volume arthroplasty procedures were associated with decreased profit margins. Study findings suggest that optimizing implant costs and length of stay are important for sustaining institutional fiscal health when performing shoulder and ankle arthroplasty surgery.

1 April 2021 in The Journal of Arthroplasty
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CFChristopher Fang
Christopher Fang
JSJonathan M. Shaker
Jonathan M. Shaker
GSGeoffrey E. Stoker
Geoffrey E. Stoker
AJAndrew Jawa
Andrew Jawa
DMDavid A. Mattingly
David A. Mattingly
ESEric L. Smith
Eric L. Smith