Does Nasal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Prevent Deep Surgical Site Infections for Elective Cervical Spinal Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) testing and surgical site infection (SSI) rates in the setting of primary posterior cervical instrumented spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Preoperative MRSA screening and decolonization has demonstrated success for some orthopedic subspecialties in prevention of SSIs. Spine surgery, however, has seen varied results, potentially secondary to the anatomic and surgical heterogeneity of the patients included in prior studies. Given that prior research has demonstrated greater propensity for gram positive SSIs in the cervical spine, we sought to investigate if MRSA screening would be more impactful in the cervical spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients undergoing primary instrumented posterior cervical procedures from January 2015 to December 2019 were reviewed for MRSA testing <90 days before surgery, preoperative mupirocin, perioperative antibiotics, and SSI defined as operative incision and drainage (I&D) <90 days after surgery. Logistic regression modeling used SSI as the primary outcome, MRSA screening as primary predictor, and clinical and demographic factors as covariates. RESULTS: This study included 668 patients, of whom MRSA testing was performed in 212 patients (31.7%) and 6 (2.8%) were colonized with MRSA. Twelve patients (1.8%) underwent an I&D. On adjusted analysis, preoperative MRSA testing was not associated with postoperative I&D risk. Perioperative vancomycin similarly had no association with postoperative I&D risk. Notably, 6 patients (50%) grew methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus from intraoperative cultures, with no cases of MRSA. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between preoperative nasal MRSA screening and SSIs in primary posterior cervical instrumented procedures, nor was there any association between vancomycin or infection rate. Furthermore, there was a preponderance of gram positive infections but none caused by MRSA. Given these findings, the considerable cost and effort associated with MRSA testing in the setting of primary posterior cervical instrumentation may not be justified. Further research should investigate if higher-risk scenarios demonstrate greater utility of preoperative testing.

Nasal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus does not reduce surgical site infection after primary lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Preoperative methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) testing and decolonization has demonstrated success for arthroplasty patients in surgical site infections (SSIs) prevention. Spine surgery, however, has seen varied results. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of nasal MRSA testing and operative debridement rates on surgical site infection after primary lumbar fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study and/or Consolidated medical enterprise PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients undergoing primary instrumented lumbar fusions from January 2015 to December 2019 were reviewed. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was incision and drainage performed in the operating room within 90 days of surgery. METHODS: MRSA testing <90-day's before surgery, mupirocin prescription <30-day's before surgery, perioperative antibiotics, and Elixhauser comorbidity index were collected for each subject. Bivariate analysis used Wilcoxon rank-sum testing and logistic regression modeling Multivariable logistic regression modeling assessed for associations with MRSA testing, intravenous vancomycin use, and I&D rate. RESULTS: The study included 1,884 patients for analysis, with mean age of 63.1 (SE 0.3) and BMI 29.5 (SE 0.1). MRSA testing was performed in 755 patients (40.1%) and was more likely to be performed in patients with lower Elixhauser index scores (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, p=.021) on multivariable analysis. Vancomycin use increased significantly over time (OR 1.49 and/or year, 95% CI 1.3-1.8, p<.001) despite no change in mupirocin or I&D rates. MRSA testing, mupirocin prescriptions, perioperative parenteral vancomycin use, and intrawound vancomycin powder use had no impact on I&D rates. I&D risk was associated with higher BMI (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.12, p=.009) and higher number of blood product units transfused (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.46, p=.022). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates no impact on surgical I&D rates from the use of preoperative MRSA testing. Increased BMI and transfusions were associated with operative I&D rates for surgical site infection. As a result of the hospital directive, vancomycin use increased over time with no associated change in infection rates, underscoring the need for focused interventions, and engagement with antibiotic stewardship programs.

Current Orthopaedic Residency Letters of Recommendation Are Not Biased by Gender of Applicant.

Letters of recommendation (LORs) are highly influential in the residency selection process. Differences in language and length of LORs by gender have been demonstrated for applicants applying to surgical residencies and fellowships. This had yet to be studied in orthopaedic surgery. Given the gender disparity in the field, we sought to investigate the impact of gender on orthopaedic residency applicant LORs. We hypothesized that differences in length and language would be present for women applicants as compared to men. METHODS: LORs for 2019 to 2020 applicants who applied to a single academic institution were selected for review. Female and male applicants were matched by medical school attended and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score. LORs were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Letters were evaluated for their word count, presence of language terms, and frequency of language terms. A similar subgroup language analysis was performed for standardized LORs (SLORs). RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-six applicants met the initial screening criteria-126 women and 530 men. After matching, 71 female applicants were paired with 111 male applicants. Word count was, on average, longer for female applicants. LORs for female applicants were more likely to contain language terms that characterized their ability, achievement, participation in athletics, awards received, fit, leadership, and personality traits. Of these terms, ability and participation in athletics were also found more frequently in LORs written for women. In addition, language characterizing technical skills was found more frequently in LORs of female applicants. Similar codes were found to be statistically significant in the SLOR subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that current orthopaedic surgery residency LORs do not appear to be biased by applicant gender. LORs were longer for female applicants and described them more positively. Future female orthopaedic residency applicants should be assured that current female candidates are applying with at least similar if not greater subjective qualifications to their male counterparts based on the findings of this study.

Telemedicine Use in Orthopaedic Surgery Varies by Race, Ethnicity, Primary Language, and Insurance Status.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare disparities are well documented across multiple subspecialties in orthopaedics. The widespread implementation of telemedicine risks worsening these disparities if not carefully executed, despite original assumptions that telemedicine improves overall access to care. Telemedicine also poses unique challenges such as potential language or technological barriers that may alter previously described patterns in orthopaedic disparities. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Are the proportions of patients who use telemedicine across orthopaedic services different among (1) racial and ethnic minorities, (2) non-English speakers, and (3) patients insured through Medicaid during a 10-week period after the implementation of telemedicine in our healthcare system compared with in-person visits during a similar time period in 2019? METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative study using electronic medical record data to compare new patients establishing orthopaedic care via outpatient telemedicine at two academic urban medical centers between March 2020 and May 2020 with new orthopaedic patients during the same 10-week period in 2019. A total of 11,056 patients were included for analysis, with 1760 in the virtual group and 9296 in the control group. Unadjusted analyses demonstrated patients in the virtual group were younger (median age 57 years versus 59 years; p < 0.001), but there were no differences with regard to gender (56% female versus 56% female; p = 0.66). We used self-reported race or ethnicity as our primary independent variable, with primary language and insurance status considered secondarily. Unadjusted and multivariable adjusted analyses were performed for our primary and secondary predictors using logistic regression. We also assessed interactions between race or ethnicity, primary language, and insurance type. RESULTS: After adjusting for age, gender, subspecialty, insurance, and median household income, we found that patients who were Hispanic (odds ratio 0.59 [95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.91]; p = 0.02) or Asian were less likely (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.99]; p = 0.04) to be seen through telemedicine than were patients who were white. After controlling for confounding variables, we also found that speakers of languages other than English or Spanish were less likely to have a telemedicine visit than were people whose primary language was English (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.18 to 0.65]; p = 0.001), and that patients insured through Medicaid were less likely to be seen via telemedicine than were patients who were privately insured (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.98]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Despite initial promises that telemedicine would help to bridge gaps in healthcare, our results demonstrate disparities in orthopaedic telemedicine use based on race or ethnicity, language, and insurance type. The telemedicine group was slightly younger, which we do not believe undermines the findings. As healthcare moves toward increased telemedicine use, we suggest several approaches to ensure that patients of certain racial, ethnic, or language groups do not experience disparate barriers to care. These might include individual patient- or provider-level approaches like expanded telemedicine schedules to accommodate weekends and evenings, institutional investment in culturally conscious outreach materials such as advertisements on community transport systems, or government-level provisions such as reimbursement for telephone-only encounters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Access to Orthopaedic Care for Spanish-Speaking Patients in California.

BACKGROUND: Communication is the foundation of any patient-doctor relationship. Patients who are unable to communicate effectively with physicians because of language barriers may face disparities in accessing orthopaedic care and in the evaluation and treatment of musculoskeletal symptoms. We evaluated whether Spanish-speaking patients face disparities scheduling appointments with orthopaedists via the telephone. METHODS: From the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) web site, we randomly selected 50 orthopaedic surgeons' offices in California specializing in knee surgery. The investigator called eligible offices using a script to request an appointment for a hypothetical Spanish-speaking or English-speaking 65-year-old man with knee pain. The caller randomly selected the patient's primary language for this first call. A second call was placed a week later requesting an appointment for an identical patient who spoke the alternate language. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients' access to appointments with an orthopaedic surgeon (p = 0.8256). Thirty-six English-speaking patients and 35 Spanish-speaking patients were offered an appointment. Twenty-eight Spanish-speaking patients were instructed to bring a friend or family member who could translate for them, 3 were told that the provider spoke sufficient Spanish to communicate without the need for an interpreter, and 4 were told that an interpreter would be made available. CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect a disparity between Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients' access to appointments with an orthopaedic surgeon. However, 80% of Spanish-speaking patients were asked to rely on nonqualified interpreters for their orthopaedic appointment. This study suggests that orthopaedic offices in California depend heavily on ad hoc interpreters rather than professional interpretation services. It also highlights potential barriers to the provision of qualified interpreters. Additional study is warranted to assess how this lack of adequate utilization of medical interpreters affects the patient-doctor relationship, the quality of care received, and the financial burden on the health system. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Optimizing the care that we provide to our patients is a goal of every orthopaedic surgeon. We highlight the importance of utilizing professional interpreters as a means to reduce health-care disparities and overall health-care costs, as well as the importance of improving reimbursement and infrastructure for physicians to utilize qualified interpreters in caring for their limited-English-proficient patients.