Clinical Improvements in Myelopathy Result in Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine if myelopathy severity predicted the magnitude of improvement in health-related quality of life metrics following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery for myelopathy is primarily performed to halt disease progression. However, it is still controversial if these patients can expect significant health-related quality-of life improvements following ACDF. We explore the relationship between modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) improvements and its effect on other health-related quality-of life metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing ACDF for myelopathy were grouped based on preoperative mJOA scores into mild (15-17), moderate (12-14), and severe (<12) groups. Patients were subsequently categorized based on if they attained the minimum clinically detectable improvement (MCID) threshold for mJOA. Multivariate linear regression was performed to determine the magnitude of improvement in ∆patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 374 patients were identified for inclusion. Of those, 169 (45.2%) had mild myelopathy, 125 (33.4%) had moderate, and 80 (21.4%) had severe myelopathy. Only the moderate and severe groups had significant improvements in mJOA following surgery (mild: P =0.073, moderate: P <0.001, severe: P <0.001). There were no significant differences in the magnitude of improvement for any patient-reported outcome measure based on myelopathy severity, except for mJOA (mild: 0.27, moderate: 1.88, severe: 3.91; P <0.001). Patients meeting the MCID for mJOA had better ∆Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score (3.29 vs. -0.21, P =0.007), ∆Short-Form 12 Physical Component Score (6.82 vs. 1.96, P <0.001), ∆Visual Analog Scale Neck (-3.11 vs. -2.17, P =0.001), ∆Visual Analog Scale Arm (-2.92 vs. -1.48, P <0.001), ∆Neck Disability Index (-18.35 vs. -7.86, P <0.001), and ∆mJOA (3.38 vs. -0.56, P <0.001) compared with patients who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Worse baseline myelopathy severity predicts worse postoperative outcomes. However, baseline myelopathy severity is not predictive of the magnitude of postoperative improvement with the exception of mJOA. Patients who attain MCID improvement in mJOA had greater postoperative improvement for other health-related quality of life metrics.

Patients From Socioeconomically Distressed Communities Experience Similar Clinical Improvements Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when categorizing patients based on socioeconomic status. Secondarily, we sought to compare PROMs based on race. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Social determinants of health are believed to affect outcomes following spine surgery, but there is limited literature on how combined socioeconomic status metrics affect PROMs following ACDF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors identified patients who underwent primary elective one-level to four-level ACDF from 2014 to 2020. Patients were grouped based on their distressed community index (DCI) quintile (Distressed, At-Risk, Mid-tier, Comfortable, and Prosperous) and then race (White or Black). Multivariate regression for ∆PROMs was performed based on DCI group and race while controlling for baseline demographics and surgical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1204 patients included in the study, all DCI groups improved across all PROMs, except mental health component score (MCS-12) for the Mid-tier group ( P =0.091). Patients in the Distressed/At-Risk group had worse baseline MCS-12, visual analog scale (VAS) Neck, and neck disability index (NDI). There were no differences in magnitude of improvement between DCI groups. Black patients had significantly worse baseline VAS Neck ( P =0.002) and Arm ( P =0.012) as well as worse postoperative MCS-12 ( P =0.016), PCS-12 ( P =0.03), VAS Neck ( P <0.001), VAS Arm ( P =0.004), and NDI ( P <0.001). Multivariable regression analysis did not identify any of the DCI groupings to be significant independent predictors of ∆PROMs, but being White was an independent predictor of greater improvement in ∆PCS-12 (ß=3.09, P =0.036) and ∆NDI (ß=-7.32, P =0.003). CONCLUSIONS: All patients experienced clinical improvements regardless of DCI or race despite patients in Distressed communities and Black patients having worse preoperative PROMs. Being from a distressed community was not an independent predictor of worse improvement in any PROMs, but Black patients had worse improvement in NDI compared with White patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Research Productivity of Integrated Plastic Surgery Residents: Does Reputation Matter?

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown whether the ranking of plastic surgery residency programs influences resident research output. This study aims to determine whether program reputation and other factors are associated with integrated plastic surgery resident academic productivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Programs were divided into four tiers based on Doximity reputation rankings. Residents from 2019 to 2020 were found through program websites and social media accounts. Works published during residency were identified through PubMed and Scopus from July 1 of each resident's intern year to August 10, 2020. Variables included resident demographics and medical school, residency reputation ranking, geographic region, and medical school affiliation. 'High research output' was defined as having ≥75th percentile of publications adjusted by training year. RESULTS: In total, 921 residents in 80 programs were identified. The median (IQR) number of total publications and original articles was 3 (1-6) and 2 (0-4), respectively. On multivariable analysis, residents in top-20 ranked programs (OR = 2.31, 95% CI [1.55; 3.43], P < 0.001) or from programs associated with top-20 medical schools (OR = 1.61, 95% CI [1.08; 2.41], P = 0.020) were more likely to have higher research output. On the other hand, coming from a top-50 in research medical school (OR = 1.80, 95% CI [1.31; 2.47], P < 0.001) or being in a program affiliated with a top-20 medical school (OR = 2.52, 95% CI [1.69; 3.78], P < 0.001) were associated with higher original article output. Gender and geographic location were not associated with higher research output. CONCLUSIONS: Program reputation and affiliated medical school research rankings are associated with research productivity during integrated plastic surgery residency. Applicants with a particular interest in research careers may consider this as they apply to residency.

Are Opioids Out? Assessing Prescription Patterns in Plastic Surgery Using Medicare Part D Beneficiary Data.

INTRODUCTION: Since 1999, nearly 841,000 individuals have died from overdoses, 29% involving prescription opioids. Use of opioids for postoperative pain lacks evidence-based guidelines, and despite studies showing the efficacy of nonopioid agents in reducing postoperative morbidity, opioids are still routinely prescribed. However, multiple states are adopting prescription drug monitoring programs and prescription drug laws. The authors sought to investigate recent opioid prescription patterns among plastic surgeons. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used "Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D Prescriber" provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2016 to 2018. Entries were filtered to include plastic surgeons. Demographic variables included surgeon sex, geographic region and state, board certification status, and length of experience. The surgeon's practice was designated as academic, private, or both. Outcomes included total opioid claims, opioid prescriber rate, and days per claim. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical comparison (α = .05). RESULTS: From 2016 to 2018, plastic surgeons wrote 289,525 opioid prescriptions for 1,729,523 days (6.0 days per prescription), totaling $3,346,979.39. In 2018, 62.2% of plastic surgeons prescribed 0 to 10 opioids, 36.5% prescribed 11 to 50 opioids, and 1.3% prescribed more than 50. Furthermore, 99.5% of plastic surgeons prescribing opioids are practicing in metropolitan areas (rural-urban commuting area codes 1-3). Plastic surgeons who were male or were board certified had significantly lower opioid prescriber rates (P < 0.001). There were no significant variations in outcomes by length of surgeon experience. Geographic region was significantly associated with opioid prescription rates and days per claim, with Southern plastic surgeons having lower rates (P < 0.001) and those Northeastern ones prescribing shorter courses (P = 0.004). The number of opioid claims, days per claim, and opioid prescriber rates were all significantly lower in 2018 than in 2017 and 2016 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prescriptions written by plastic surgeons may have contributed to the opioid epidemic, but 2018 data suggest opioids are becoming less routine in postoperative pain control. Further studies are warranted to assess factors related to reduced and shorter opioid prescriptions by plastic surgeons in the South and Northeast, respectively. Such insight, if adopted into law and implemented into clinical practice, may help reduce the burden of the opioid epidemic.

Trends in Female Plastic Surgery Resident Authorship - Signs of Changing Times?

OBJECTIVE: Gender discrepancies exist in academia for leadership positions, advancement opportunities, and research. As of 2019, the ratio of total male-to-female attending plastic and reconstructive surgeons was 4.8:1. However, the ratio of male-to-female residents in integrated plastic surgery programs fell to 1.3:1, indicating rising female representation. With more balanced gender distributions of residents, the authors sought to determine whether this translates to greater equality of opportunities and achievements. Specifically, this study compares the academic productivity of male and female integrated plastic surgery residents. METHODS: A list of integrated plastic surgery residency programs was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website and ranked by reputation using the Doximity Residency Navigator. Integrated plastic surgery residents from 2019 to 2020 were identified via program websites and social media accounts. Works published during residency were identified through PubMed and Scopus from July 1 of each resident's intern year through August 10, 2020. Demographic variables for residents, including training class and medical school, as well as for programs, including geographic region, Doximity ranking, and medical school affiliation, were collected. Medical schools were ranked according to US News by research. Research productivity was assessed through the number of total research articles with authorship position (first, second, or last), the number of articles published in plastic surgery journals with the highest impact factors (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Aesthetic Surgery Journal), and H-indices. Chi-Squared tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to make comparisons between male and female residents (α = 0.05). RESULTS: In total, 931 residents in 81 integrated plastic surgery programs were identified, including 534 (57.4%) male and 397 (42.6%) female residents. There were no differences between male and female residents in terms of training year or program geography. Female residents were more likely to come from a top-50 medical school than males (54.7% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.049). There were no significant differences in gender distribution of residents from top-20 programs or programs affiliated with a top-20 medical school. The median (IQR) number of publications in total, and for each gender, was 3 (1-6). There was no difference in the number of total publications by training year by gender, besides the second-year resident class where male residents had a median (IQR) of 2 (1-4) compared to 1 (0-3) (p = 0.028). Male and female residents did not differ with regards to authorship position or proportion of times publishing in top journals. The distribution of H-indices for male residents was slightly higher than female residents (p = 0.003), but the median (IQR) was the same at 3 (1-5). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, male and female integrated plastic surgery residents have similar levels of academic productivity. This suggests that female representation is slowly increasing along the pipeline in academia, representing a paradigm shift from previous trends of gender inequality in plastic surgery.