The impact of insurance status on patient placement into inpatient and outpatient orthopaedic surgical centers.

BACKGROUND: Innovation has fueled the shift from inpatient to outpatient care for orthopaedic joint arthroplasty. Given this transformation, it becomes imperative to understand what factors help assign care-settings to specific patients for the same procedure. While the comorbidities suffered by patients are important considerations, recent research may point to a more complex determination. Differences in reimbursement structures and patient characteristics across various insurance statuses could potentially influence these decisions. METHODS: Retrospective binary logistic and ordinary least square (OLS) regression analyses were employed on de-identified inpatient and outpatient orthopaedic arthroplasty data from Albany Medical Center from 2018 to 2022. Data elements included surgical setting (inpatient vs. outpatient), covariates (age, sex, race, obesity, smoking status), Elixhauser comorbidity indices, and insurance status. RESULTS: Patients insured by Medicare were significantly more likely to be placed in inpatient care-settings for total hip, knee, and ankle arthroplasty when compared to their privately insured counterparts even after Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) removed each individual surgery from its inpatient-only-list (1.65 (p < 0.05), 1.27 (p < 0.05), and 12.93 (p < 0.05) times more likely respectively). When compared to patients insured by the other payers, Medicare patients did not have the most comorbidities (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare patients were more likely to be placed in inpatient care-settings for hip, knee, and ankle arthroplasty. However, Medicaid patients were shown to have the most comorbidities. It is of value to note Medicare patients billed for outpatient services experience higher coinsurance rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Trends in inpatient orthopedic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: a nationwide data study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality globally. The National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB) covers 99.9% of health insurance claim receipts by general practitioners. The purpose of this study is to investigate the nationwide number of inpatient orthopedic surgeries in Japan during the effect of state of emergency (SoE) due to COVID-19. METHOD: The NDB has been publicly available since 2014. We retrospectively reviewed the NDB from April 2019 to March 2022. We gathered the monthly number of all inpatient orthopedic surgeries. We also classified orthopedic surgeries into the following 11 categories by using K-codes, Japanese original surgery classification: fracture, arthroplasty, spine, arthroscopy, hardware removal, hand, infection/amputation, ligament/tendon, tumor, joint, and others. By using the average number from April to December 2019 as the reference period, we investigated the increase or decrease orthopedic surgeries during the pandemic period. RESULTS: The NDB showed that the average number of total inpatient orthopedic surgeries during the reference period was 115,343 per month. In May 2020, monthly inpatient orthopedic surgeries decreased by 29.6% to 81,169 surgeries, accounting for 70.3% of the reference period. The second SoE in 2021 saw no change, while the third and fourth SoEs showed slight decreases compared to the reference period. Hardware removal and tumor surgeries in May 2020 decreased to 45.3% and 45.5%, respectively, while fracture surgeries had relatively small decreases. CONCLUSION: According to NDB, approximately 1.3 million orthopedic inpatient surgeries were performed or claimed in a year in Japan. In May 2020, the first SoE period of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of inpatient orthopedic surgeries in Japan decreased by 30%. Meanwhile, the decrease was relatively small during the SoE periods in 2021.

Racial Disparities Exist in 90-Day Unplanned Return to the Emergency Department Following Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Racial disparities in healthcare outcomes exist, including in orthopaedic trauma care. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of race, social deprivation, and payor status on 90-day emergency department (ED) revisits among orthopaedic trauma surgery patients at a Level 1 trauma academic medical center. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review analysis. SETTING: Level 1 trauma academic center in Durham, NC. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients undergoing orthopaedic trauma surgery between 2017 and 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: The primary outcome of this retrospective cohort study was 90-day return to the ED. Logistic regression analysis was performed for variables of interest [race, social deprivation (measured by the Area Deprivation Index), and payor status] separately and combined, with each model adjusting for distance to the hospital. Results were interpreted as odds ratios (ORs) of 90-day ED revisits comparing levels of the respective variables. Statistical significance was assessed at α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 3120 adult patients who underwent orthopaedic trauma surgery between 2017 and 2021 were included in the analysis. Black race (OR = 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-1.84, P < 0.001) and Medicaid coverage (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.20-2.21, P = 0.002) were significantly associated with higher odds of return to ED compared with non-Black or non-Medicaid-covered patients. While ethnic minority (Hispanic/Latino or non-White) was statistically significant while adjusting only for distance to the hospital (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.00-1.50, P = 0.047), it was no longer significant after adjusting for the other sociodemographic variables (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.91-1.39, P = 0.27). The weighted Area Deprivation Index was not associated with a difference in odds of return to ED in any adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the presence of racial and socioeconomic disparities in ED utilization, with Black race and Medicaid coverage significantly associated with higher odds of return to the ED. Future research should delve deeper into comprehending the root causes contributing to these racial and socioeconomic utilization disparities and evaluate the effectiveness of targeted interventions to reduce them. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Evaluating the risk of return to the operating room across all elective orthopaedic procedures.

BACKGROUND: Although elective procedures have life-changing potential, all surgeries come with an inherent risk of reoperation. There is a gap in knowledge investigating the risk of reoperation across orthopaedics. We aimed to identify the elective orthopaedic procedures with the highest rate of unplanned reoperation and the reasons for these procedures having such high reoperation rates. METHODS: Patients in the NSQIP database were identified using CPT and ICD-10 codes. We isolated 612,815 orthopaedics procedures from 2018 to 2020 and identified the 10 CPT codes with the greatest rate of unplanned return to the operating room. For each index procedure, we identified the ICD-10 codes for the reoperation procedure and categorized them into infection, mechanical failure, fracture, wound disruption, hematoma or seroma, nerve pathology, other, and unspecified. RESULTS: Below knee amputation (BKA) (CPT 27880) had the highest reoperation rate of 6.92% (37 of 535 patients). Posterior-approach thoracic (5.86%) or cervical (4.14%) arthrodesis and cervical laminectomy (3.85%), revision total hip arthroplasty (5.23%), conversion to total hip arthroplasty (4.33%), and revision shoulder arthroplasty (4.22%) were among the remaining highest reoperation rates. The overall leading causes of reoperation were infection (30.1%), mechanical failure (21.1%), and hematoma or seroma (9.4%) for the 10 procedures with the highest reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully identified the elective orthopaedic procedures with the highest 30-day return to OR rates. These include BKA, posterior thoracic and cervical spinal arthrodesis, revision hip arthroplasty, revision total shoulder arthroplasty, and cervical laminectomy. With this data, we can identify areas across orthopaedics in which revising protocols may improve patient outcomes and limit the burden of reoperations on patients and the healthcare system. Future studies should focus on the long-term physical and financial impact that these reoperations may have on patients and hospital systems. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: IV.

Demographics and risk for containment surgery in patients with unilateral Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease: a national population-based cohort study of 309 patients from the Swedish Pediatric Orthopedic Quality Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is controversial as to which patients affected by Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD) benefit from containment surgery. This population-based study based on data from a national quality registry aims to assess the incidence of LCPD and to explore which factors affect the decision for surgical intervention. METHODS: This observational study involved 309 patients with unilateral LCPD reported between 2015 and 2023 to the Swedish Pediatric Orthopedic Quality Register (SPOQ). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used for analysis. RESULTS: In 2019, the assessed incidence of LCPD in the Swedish population of 2-12-year-olds was 4.2 per 105. 238 (77%) were boys with a mean age of 6 years. At diagnosis, 55 (30%) were overweight or obese, rising to 17 patients (39%) and 16 patients (40%) at 2-year follow-up for surgically and non-surgically treated groups, respectively. At diagnosis, affected hips had reduced abduction compared with healthy hips, and their abduction remained restricted at the 2-year follow-up. Surgically treated patients had inferior abduction compared with non-surgically treated ones at diagnosis. The adjusted risk for containment surgery increased with age and in the presence of a positive Trendelenburg sign but decreased with greater hip abduction. CONCLUSION: We found a lower national yearly incidence (4.2 per 105) than previously reported in Swedish studies. A higher proportion of overweight or obese patients compared with the general Swedish population of 4-9-year-olds was identified. Increasing age, positive Trendelenburg sign, and limited hip abduction at diagnosis correlated with increased surgical intervention likelihood.

Major Metropolitan Area COVID-19 - Positive Patients Undergoing Emergency and Elective Orthopaedic Surgeries: A Case-matched Control Study.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected surgical management in Orthopaedics. This study explores the effect of COVID-19-positive patients on time to surgery from admission, total time spent in preoperative preparation, costs of orthopaedic care, and inpatient days in COVID-19-positive patients. The authors' case-matched study was based on the surgeon, procedure type, and patient demographics. The authors reviewed 58 cases, 23 males and 35 females. The results for the COVID-19-positive and -negative groups are time to admission (362.9; 388.4), time in preparation (127.8; 122.3), inpatient days to surgery (0.2; 0.2), and orthopaedic cost ($81,938; $86,352). With available numbers, no significant difference could be detected for inpatient days until surgery, any associated time to surgery, or orthopaedic costs for operating on COVID-19-positive patients during the pandemic. Perceived increased time and cost of care of COVID-19-positive patients were not proven in this study. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 33(1):014-016, 2024).

Automating Patient-reported Data Collection: Does it Work?

OBJECTIVE: There are several electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) vendors that are being used at institutions to automate data collection. However, there is little known about their success in collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and it is unknown which patients are more likely to complete these surveys. In this study, we assessed rates of PRO completion, as well as determined factors that contributed to the completion of baseline and follow-up surveys. METHODS: We queried our ePRO platform to assess rates of completion for baseline and follow-up surveys for patients from October 2019 to June 2022. All baseline surveys were administered before pediatric orthopaedic procedures, and follow-up surveys were sent at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery to patients with baseline data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess differences in patients who did and did not complete surveys. RESULTS: This study included 1313 patients during the study period. Baseline surveys were completed by 66% of the cohort (n = 873 patients). There was a significant difference in race/ethnicity and language spoken in the patients who did and did not complete baseline surveys ( P < 0.01) with lower rates of completion in African American, Hispanic, and Spanish-speaking patients. At least one follow-up was obtained for 68% of patients with baseline surveys (n = 597 patients). There were significant differences in completion rates based on race/ethnicity ( P = 0.03) and language spoken ( P = 0.01). There were lower rates of baseline completion for patients with government insurance in our multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 0.6, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Baseline and follow-up PRO data can be obtained from the majority of patients using automated ePRO platforms. However, additional focus is needed on collecting data from traditionally underrepresented patient groups to better understand outcomes in these patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective cohort study.

Handling 'carbon footprint' in orthopaedics.

INTRODUCTION: The National Health Service contributes 4%-5% of England and Wales' greenhouse gases and a quarter of all public sector waste. Between 20% and 33% of healthcare waste originates from a hospital's operating room, and up to 90% of waste is sent for costly and unneeded hazardous waste processing. The goal of this study was to quantify the amount and type of waste produced during a selection of common trauma and elective orthopaedic operations, and to calculate the carbon footprint of processing the waste. METHODS: Waste generated for both elective and trauma procedures was separated primarily into clean and contaminated, paper or plastic, and then weighed. The annual carbon footprint for each operation at each site was subsequently calculated. RESULTS: Elective procedures can generate up to 16.5kg of plastic waste per procedure. Practices such as double-draping the patient contribute to increasing the quantity of waste. Over the procedures analysed, the mean total plastic waste at the hospital sites varied from 6 to 12kg. One hospital site undertook a pilot of switching disposable gowns for reusable ones with a subsequent reduction of 66% in the carbon footprint and a cost saving of £13,483.89. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds new light on the environmental impact of waste produced during trauma and elective orthopaedic procedures. Mitigating the environmental impact of the operating room requires a collective drive for a culture change to sustainability and social responsibility. Each clinician can have an impact upon the carbon footprint of their operating theatre.

Examining differences in trends in the orthopedic surgery match for osteopathic and allopathic medical graduates after the transition to single accreditation.

CONTEXT: The landscape of medical education in the United States has undergone significant changes, particularly with the rise of osteopathic medical students, constituting a substantial portion of medical school entrants. The merger of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) in 2020 opened residency slots to allopathic graduates that were previously historically allocated to osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) physicians. This has impacted various medical specialties, notably orthopedic surgery. Despite an increase in orthopedic surgery applicants, the match rates for DO candidates have faced challenges, raising concerns about the impact of this merger on the future of orthopedic training for DO students. OBJECTIVES: This research aims to analyze the trends in orthopedic surgery match rates for DO vs MD applicants since the single accreditation merger, which began in 2015 with a 5-year transition period that was finalized by 2020. By examining factors such as application numbers, research output, standardized test scores, and program director preferences, the study seeks to identify disparities and challenges faced by DO applicants in securing orthopedic surgery residencies. METHODS: This study utilized publicly available data from the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) 2018, 2020, and 2022 reports. Data encompassed applicant characteristics, including standardized test scores, research experiences, and match outcomes. The study also incorporated insights from NRMP program director surveys, focusing on interview and ranking practices. The analysis involved comparisons of application numbers, match rates, research productivity, and test scores between DO and MD applicants. Statistical analysis was employed to identify any statistically significant differences among the examined variables for the 3 years included in the study. RESULTS: The research revealed a consistent increase in orthopedic surgery applicants from both DO and MD backgrounds. However, MD applicants consistently had higher match rates compared to their DO counterparts, with the gap narrowing over the years. Notably, disparities persisted in research output, with MD applicants demonstrating a significant advantage in publications and presentations. Standardized test scores, although slightly higher for MD applicants, did not significantly impact the differences in match rates. MD applicants had statistically significantly higher numbers of applicants (P = .0010), number of publications (P = .0091), and number of research experiences (P = .0216) over the years examined. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the scores on Step 1 (P = .5038) or Step 2 (P = .4714) between MD and DO candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in the acceptance and ranking of DO applicants by program directors, the study highlights enduring challenges in orthopedic surgery match rates between DO and MD candidates. The lack of research opportunities for DO students stands out as a crucial area for improvement, necessitating systemic changes within medical education. Addressing this disparity and ensuring equal access to research experiences could mitigate the gap in match rates, promoting a more equitable environment for all aspiring orthopedic surgeons, regardless of their medical background. Such efforts are vital to fostering inclusivity and enhancing opportunities for osteopathic medical students pursuing competitive specialties like orthopedic surgery.

Reducing post-operative length of stay, is it worth the effort?

BACKGROUND: Studies show that reducing the length of hospital stay (LOS) for surgical patients leads to cost savings. We hypothesize that LOS has a nonlinear relationship to cost of care and reduction may not have a meaningful impact on it. We have attempted to define the relationship of LOS to cost of care. We utilized the itemized bill, generated in real time, for hospital services. MATERIALS: Adult patients admitted under General, Neuro, and Orthopedic surgery over a 3-month period, with an LOS between 4 and 14 days, were the study population. Itemized bill details were analyzed. Charges in Pakistani rupees were converted to US dollar. Ethical exemption for study was obtained. RESULTS: Of the 853 patients, 38% were admitted to General Surgery, 27% to Neurosurgery, and 35% to Orthopedics. A total of 64% of the patients had an LOS between 4 and 6 days; 36% had an LOS between 7 and 14 days. Operated and conservatively managed constituted 82% and 18%, respectively. Mean total charge for operated patients was higher $3387 versus $1347 for non-operated ones. LOS was seen to have a nonlinear relationship to in-hospital cost of care. The bulk of cost was centered on the day of surgery. This was consistent across all services. The last day of stay contributed 2.4%-3.2% of total charge. CONCLUSIONS: For surgical patients, the cost implications rapidly taper in the postoperative period. The contribution of the last day of stay cost to total cost is small. For meaningful cost containment, focus needs to be on the immediate perioperative period.

Are orthopedic clinical trials representative? An analysis of race and ethnicity reported in clinical trials between 2007 and 2022 : Running title: representation of clinical trials in orthopedic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies investigating the racial and ethnic representation of orthopedic trial participants have found low rates of reporting, but these studies are dated due to the passing of the National Institutes of Health Final Rule in 2017 requiring the reporting of racial and ethnic data among clinical trials. Therefore, we evaluated the representativeness of orthopedic clinical trials before and after the Final Rule. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of orthopaedic clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov between October 1, 2007 and May 20, 2023 was conducted. After identifying and screening 23,752 clinical trials, 1564 trials were included in the analysis. Trials started before the implementation of the Final Rule on January 18, 2017 were grouped and compared to trials that began after. Odds ratios (OR) were utilized to identify trial characteristics associated with reporting race/ethnicity data. One-proportion z tests compared the representation of each racial and ethnic category to the 2020 United States Census. RESULTS: In total, 34% (544 of 1564) of orthopedic clinical trials evaluated reported the race of participants, while 28% (438 of 1564) reported ethnicity. Trials registered after the Final Rule were more likely to report racial (OR: 5.15, 95%CI: 3.72-7.13, p < 0.001) and ethnic (OR: 3.23, 95%CI: 2.41-4.33, p < 0.001) representation of participants. Compared with the distribution of race and ethnicity reported by the United States 2020 Census, orthopedic trials had 16.6% more White participants (95% CI 16.4%, 16.8%; p < 0.001), 3.2% fewer Black participants (95%CI 3.1%, 3.3%; p < 0.001), and 5.7% fewer Hispanic/Latino participants (95%CI 5.2%, 6.2%; p < 0.001). Trials with enrollment sizes over 100 participants were also more likely to report race and ethnicity, with odds increasing with increased sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The Final Rule marginally improved the reporting of race and ethnicity in orthopedic clinical trials, and underrepresentation of Black or African American, Multiracial, and Hispanic populations persists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

National Trends in Orthopaedic Pain Management from 2016 to 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Effective pain management is vital in orthopaedic care, impacting postoperative recovery and patient well-being. This study aimed to discern national and regional pain prescription trends among orthopaedic surgeons through Medicare claims data, using geospatial analysis to ascertain opioid and nonopioid usage patterns across the United States. METHODS: Physician-level Medicare prescription databases from 2016 to 2020 were filtered to orthopaedic surgeons, and medications were categorized into opioids, muscle relaxants, anticonvulsants, and NSAIDs. Patient demographics were extracted from a Medicare provider demographic data set, while county-level socioeconomic metrics were obtained primarily from the American Community Survey. Geospatial analysis was conducted using Geoda software, using Moran I statistic for cluster analysis of pain medication metrics. Statistical trends were analyzed using linear regression, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariate logistic regression, focusing on prescribing rates and hotspot/coldspot identification. RESULTS: Analysis encompassed 16,505 orthopaedic surgeons, documenting more than 396 million days of pain medication prescriptions: 57.42% NSAIDs, 28.57% opioids, 9.84% anticonvulsants, and 4.17% muscle relaxants. Annually, opioid prescriptions declined by 4.43% ( P < 0.01), while NSAIDs rose by 3.29% ( P < 0.01). Opioid prescriptions dropped by 210.73 days yearly per surgeon ( P < 0.005), whereas NSAIDs increased by 148.86 days ( P < 0.005). Opioid prescriptions were most prevalent in the West Coast and Northern Midwest regions, and NSAID prescriptions were most prevalent in the Northeast and South regions. Regression pinpointed spine as the highest and hand as the lowest predictor for pain prescriptions. DISCUSSION: On average, orthopaedic surgeons markedly decreased both the percentage of patients receiving opioids and the duration of prescription. Simultaneously, the fraction of patients receiving NSAIDs dramatically increased, without change in the average duration of prescription. Opioid hotspots were located in the West Coast, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, the Northern Midwest, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Future directions could include similar examinations using non-Medicare databases.

An Inclusive Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Orthopedic Surgery Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing attention, disparities in outcomes for Black and Hispanic patients undergoing orthopedic surgery are widening. In other racial-ethnic minority groups, outcomes often go unreported. We sought to quantify disparities in surgical outcomes among Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients across multiple orthopedic subspecialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify all surgical procedures performed by an orthopedic surgeon from 2014 to 2020. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the impact of race and ethnicity on 30-day medical complications, readmission, reoperation, and mortality, while adjusting for orthopedic subspecialty and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Across 1,512,480 orthopedic procedures, all patients who were not White were less likely to have arthroplasty-related procedures (P<.001), and Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian or Alaskan Native patients were more likely to have trauma-related procedures (P<.001). American Indian or Alaskan Native (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.005; 95% CI, 1.001-1.009; P=.011) and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (AOR, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.005-1.014; P<.001) patients had higher odds of major medical complications compared with White patients. American Indian or Alaskan Native patients had higher risk of reoperation (AOR, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.002-1.008; P=.002) and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients had higher odds of mortality (AOR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.005; P=.019) compared with White patients. CONCLUSION: Disparities regarding surgical outcome and utilization rates persist across orthopedic surgery. American Indian or Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients, who are under-represented in research, have lower rates of arthroplasty but higher odds of medical complication, reoperation, and mortality. This study highlights the importance of including these patients in orthopedic research to affect policy-related discussions. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):e131-e138.].

Individuals with musculoskeletal conditions awaiting orthopaedic surgery consultation: an untapped opportunity for patient health management?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the health characteristics, condition-specific measures, chronic disease risk factors, and healthcare and medication use over time of individuals with musculoskeletal conditions awaiting orthopaedic surgical consultation. Study importance: Musculoskeletal conditions are highly prevalent in the general population and often coexist with chronic diseases. However, little is documented about the overall health of this group. This study describes the health of these individuals, with particular emphasis on modifiable risk factors of chronic disease. STUDY TYPE: A repeated measures longitudinal cohort study of individuals referred for orthopaedic consultation across three time points (2014, 2015 and 2016). METHODS: This study was undertaken in the orthopaedic outpatient service of a public tertiary referral hospital in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were aged 18 years and older and were referred for and awaiting orthopaedic surgical consultation for a musculoskeletal condition (back, neck, hand or wrist pain, or hip or knee osteoarthritis). Measures included patient demographics, condition-specific indicators (e.g. pain, disability, quality of life [QoL]) and chronic disease risk factors (e.g., excess weight, smoking). RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 57.7 years, and 7.3% identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Back (43.1%) and knee (35.0%) pain were the most prevalent conditions. At baseline (N = 1052), participants reported moderate pain (mean numerical pain rating scale score of 6.4, standard deviation [SD] 2.4) and QoL (Physical Component Score of 32.7, SD 10.7; Mental Component Score of 46.6, SD 13.3). Chronic disease risk factors were highly prevalent, with 74.6% of participants having three or more. For most measures, there were only small changes over time. CONCLUSION: Individuals with musculoskeletal conditions who are awaiting orthopaedic surgical consultation have a complex clinical picture and numerous chronic disease risk factors. Given the modifiable nature of many of these risk factors, identifying and addressing them before or while awaiting consultation may improve the health of these individuals.

Risk Factors of Emergency Department Utilization After Outpatient Surgery for Sports-Related Injuries.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to identify the most common reasons for and risk factors associated with postoperative emergency department (ED) utilization after orthopaedic procedures for sports-related injuries. METHODS: Using the 2014 to 2016 New York and Florida State Databases from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, outpatient procedures for sports-related injuries were identified. Patient records were tracked across care settings within each state to determine the rate and reasons of postoperative ED utilization within 90 days after the index surgery. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors associated with ED visits at 0 to 7 days, 8 to 30 days, 31 to 90 days postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 28,192 surgery visits for sports-related injuries were identified, with knee arthroscopy with partial meniscectomy (18.48%) and arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (17.04%) as the two most common procedures treating sports injuries. The overall postoperative ED utilization rates were 1.6% (0 to 7 days postoperative), 1.3% (8 to 30 days) and 2.1% (31 to 90 days). The main cause of ED visits was markedly different during each postoperative period: mainly musculoskeletal pain (36.3%) during 0 to 7 days, either musculoskeletal pain (17%) or injury (16.6%) during 8 to 30 days, and injury (24.2%) during 31 to 90 days. Sports with the highest ED utilization in descending order were basketball, football, ice/snow sports, walking/running, cycling, and soccer. Relative to open procedures, arthroscopic procedures were 0.71 times as likely to result in a postoperative ED visit. Independent predictors of ED utilization up to 90 days postoperatively included renal failure, chronic pulmonary disease, psychosis, diabetes, and alcohol abuse. DISCUSSION: Rate of ED utilization after outpatient surgery for sports-related injuries is low (<2.2%), with postoperative musculoskeletal pain and reinjury as the two most common causes, highlighting the importance of postoperative pain management and injury prevention. Arthroscopic procedures showed markedly lower ED utilization compared with open surgery, although not indicative of overall superiority. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Incidence, etiology and time course of delays to adult spinal deformity surgery: a single-center experience.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the incidence, origin, and timeframe of delays to adult spinal deformity surgery so that institutions using preoperative multidisciplinary patient assessment teams might better anticipate and address these potential delays. METHODS: Complex spine procedures for treatment of adult spinal deformity from 1/1/18 to 8/31/21 were identified. Procedures for infection, tumor, and urgent/emergent cases were excluded. Operations delayed due to COVID or those that were performed outside of our established perioperative care pathway were also excluded. The electronic health record was used to identify the etiology and timeline of all pre- and peri-operative delays. RESULTS: Of 235 patients scheduled for complex spine surgery, 193 met criteria for inclusion. Of these patients, 35 patients experienced a surgical delay (18.1%) with a total of 41 delays recorded. Reasons for delay include medically unoptimized (25.6%), intraoperative complication (17.9%), patient directed delay (17.9%), patient illness/injury (15.4%), scheduling complication (10.3%), insurance delay/denial (5.1%), and unknown (2.6%). Twenty-four delays experienced by 22 individuals occurred within 7 days of their scheduled surgery date. CONCLUSION: At a single multidisciplinary center, most delays to adult spinal deformity surgery occur before a patient is admitted to the hospital, and for recommendations of additional medical workup/clearance. We suspect that the preoperative protocol might increase pre-admission delays for unoptimized patients, as the protocol is intended to ensure patients receive surgery only when they are medically ready. Further research is needed to determine the economic and system impact of delays related to a preoperative optimization protocol weighed against the reduction in adverse events these protocols can provide.

Representation of Women in Academic Orthopaedic Leadership: Where Are We Now?

BACKGROUND: Women have long been underrepresented in orthopaedic surgery; however, there is a lack of quantitative data on the representation of women in orthopaedic academic program leadership. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of women in leadership roles in orthopaedic surgery departments and residency programs in the United States (specifically, chairs, vice chairs, program directors, assistant program directors, and subspecialty division chiefs)? (2) How do women and men leaders compare in terms of years in position in those roles, years in practice, academic rank, research productivity as represented by publications, and subspecialty breakdown? (3) Is there a difference between men and women in the chair or program director role in terms of whether they are working in that role at institutions where they attended medical school or completed their residency or fellowship? METHODS: We identified 161 academic orthopaedic residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website. Data (gender, length of time in position, length of time in practice, professorship appointment, research productivity as indirectly measured via PubMed publications, and subspecialty) were collected for chairs, vice chairs, program directors, assistant program directors, and subspecialty division chiefs in July 2020 to control for changes in leadership. Information not provided by the ACGME and PubMed was found using orthopaedic program websites and the specific leader's curriculum vitae. Complete data were obtained for chairs and program directors, but there were missing data points for vice chairs, assistant program directors, and division chiefs. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS using independent t-tests for continuous variables and the Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables, with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Three percent (4 of 153) of chairs, 8% (5 of 61) of vice chairs, 11% (18 of 161) of program directors, 27% (20 of 75) of assistant program directors, and 9% (45 of 514) of division chiefs were women. There were varying degrees of missing data points for vice chairs, assistant program directors, and division chiefs as not all programs reported or have those positions. Women chairs had fewer years in their position than men (2 ± 1 versus 9 ± 7 [95% confidence interval -9.3 to -5.9]; p < 0.001). Women vice chairs more commonly specialized in hand or tumor compared with men (40% [2 of 5] and 40% [2 of 5] versus 11% [6 of 56] and 4% [2 of 56], respectively; X2(9) = 16; p = 0.04). Women program directors more commonly specialized in tumor or hand compared with men (33% [6 of 18] and 17% [3 of 18] versus 6% [9 of 143] and 11% [16 of 143], respectively; X2(9) = 20; p = 0.02). Women assistant program directors had fewer years in practice (9 ± 4 years versus 14 ± 11 years [95% CI -10.5 to 1.6]; p = 0.045) and fewer publications (11 ± 7 versus 30 ± 48 [95% CI -32.9 to -5.8]; p = 0.01) than men. Women division chiefs had fewer years in practice and publications than men and were most prevalent in tumor and pediatrics (21% [10 of 48] and 16% [9 of 55], respectively) and least prevalent in spine and adult reconstruction (2% [1 of 60] and 1% [1 of 70], respectively) (X2(9) = 26; p = 0.001). Women program directors were more likely than men to stay at the same institution they studied at for medical school (39% [7 of 18] versus 14% [20 of 143]; odds ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.4 to 11.3]; p = 0.02) and trained at for residency (61% [11 of 18] versus 42% [60 of 143]; OR 2.2 [95% CI 0.8 to 5.9]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The higher percentage of women in junior leadership positions in orthopaedic surgery, with the data available, is a promising finding. Hand, tumor, and pediatrics appear to be orthopaedic subspecialties with a higher percentage of women. However, more improvement is needed to achieve gender parity in orthopaedics overall, and more information is needed in terms of publicly available information on gender representation in orthopaedic leadership. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Proportional representation of women in orthopaedics is essential for quality musculoskeletal care, and proportional representation in leadership may help encourage women to apply to the specialty. Our findings suggest movement in an improving direction in this regard, though more progress is needed.

Opioid Reduction Through Postoperative Pain Management in Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal with this initiative was to reduce discharge opioid prescriptions while maintaining optimal pain management through the use of standardized pain prescribing guidelines for pediatric patients after orthopedic surgical procedures. METHODS: Through analysis of established yet inconsistent prescribing practices, we created a 4-tiered guideline for pediatric orthopedic postoperative pain management prescription ordering. Following the Model for Improvement methodology including iterative plan-do-study-act cycles, the team created an electronic medical record order set to be used at discharge from the hospital. The provider compliance with this order set was monitored and analyzed over time by using provider-level and aggregate control charts. A secondary measure of opioid prescriptions (morphine milligram Eq [MME] dosage per patient) was tracked over time. The balancing measure was the analysis of unanticipated opioid prescription refills. RESULTS: Greater than 90% compliance with the guidelines was achieved and sustained for 20 months. This resulted in a 54% reduction in opioids prescribed during the improvement period (baseline = 71 MME per patient; postintervention = 33 MME per patient) and has been sustained for 12 months. The percentage of unanticipated opioid prescription refills did not significantly change from the period before the institution of the guidelines and after institution of the guidelines (2017 = 3%; 2019 = 3%). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of these guidelines has led to a significant reduction in the number of opioids prescribed while maintaining effective postoperative pain management.