Are Commonly Used Geographically Based Social Determinant of Health Indices in Orthopaedic Surgery Research Correlated With Each Other and With PROMIS Global-10 Physical and Mental Health Scores?

BACKGROUND: Geographically based social determinants of health (SDoH) measures are useful in research and policy aimed at addressing health disparities. In the United States, the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), Neighborhood Stress Score (NSS), and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) are frequently used, but often without a clear reason as to why one is chosen over another. There is limited evidence about how strongly correlated these geographically based SDoH measures are with one another. Further, there is a paucity of research examining their relationship with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in orthopaedic patients. Such insights are important in order to determine whether comparisons of policies and care programs using different geographically based SDoH indices to address health disparities in orthopaedic surgery are appropriate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among new patients seeking care at an orthopaedic surgery clinic, (1) what is the correlation of the NSS, ADI, and SVI with one another? (2) What is the correlation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 physical and mental health scores and the NSS, ADI, and SVI? (3) Which geographically based SDoH index or indices are associated with presenting PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores when accounting for common patient-level sociodemographic factors? METHODS: New adult orthopaedic patient encounters at clinic sites affiliated with a tertiary referral academic medical center between 2016 and 2021 were identified, and the ADI, NSS, and SVI were determined. Patients also completed the PROMIS Global-10 questionnaire as part of routine care. Overall, a total of 75,335 new patient visits were noted. Of these, 62% (46,966 of 75,335) of new patient visits were excluded because of missing PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores. An additional 2.2% of patients (1685 of 75,335) were excluded because they were missing at least one SDoH index at the time of their visit (for example, if a patient only had a Post Office box listed, the SDoH index could not be determined). This left 35% of the eligible new patient visits (26,684 of 75,335) in our final sample. Though only 35% of possible new patient visits were included, the diversity of these individuals across numerous characteristics and the wide range of sociodemographic status-as measured by the SDoH indices-among included patients supports the generalizability of our sample. The mean age of patients in our sample was 55 ± 18 years and a slight majority were women (54% [14,366 of 26,684]). Among the sample, 16% (4381of 26,684) of patients were of non-White race. The mean PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores were 43.4 ± 9.4 and 49.7 ± 10.1, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated among the three SDoH indices and between each SDoH index and PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores. In addition, regression analysis was used to assess the association of each SDoH index with presenting functional and mental health, accounting for key patient characteristics. The strength of the association between each SDoH index and PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores was determined using partial r-squared values. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: There was a poor correlation between the ADI and the NSS (ρ = 0.34; p < 0.001). There were good correlations between the ADI and SVI (ρ = 0.43; p < 0.001) and between the NSS and SVI (ρ = 0.59; p < 0.001). There was a poor correlation between the PROMIS Global-10 physical health and NSS (ρ = -0.14; p < 0.001), ADI (ρ = -0.24; p < 0.001), and SVI (ρ = -0.17; p < 0.001). There was a poor correlation between PROMIS Global-10 mental health and NSS (ρ = -0.13; p < 0.001), ADI (ρ = -0.22; p < 0.001), and SVI (ρ = -0.17; p < 0.001). When accounting for key sociodemographic factors, the ADI demonstrated the largest association with presenting physical health (regression coefficient: -0.13 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.12]; p < 0.001) and mental health (regression coefficient: -0.13 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.12]; p < 0.001), as confirmed by the partial r-squared values for each SDoH index (physical health: ADI 0.04 versus SVI 0.02 versus NSS 0.01; mental health: ADI 0.04 versus SVI 0.02 versus NSS 0.01). This finding means that as social deprivation increases, physical and mental health scores decrease, representing poorer health. For further context, an increase in ADI score by approximately 36 and 39 suggests a clinically meaningful (determined using distribution-based minimum clinically important difference estimates of one-half SD of each PROMIS score) worsening of physical and mental health, respectively. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, and other stakeholders looking to address SDoH factors to help alleviate disparities in musculoskeletal care should try to avoid interchanging the ADI, SVI, and NSS. Because the ADI has the largest association between any of the geographically based SDoH indices and presenting physical and mental health, it may allow for easier clinical and policy application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We suggest using the ADI as the geographically based SDoH index in orthopaedic surgery in the United States. Further, we caution against comparing findings in one study that use one geographically based SDoH index to another study's findings that incorporates another geographically based SDoH index. Although the general findings may be the same, the strength of association and clinical relevance could differ and have policy ramifications that are not otherwise appreciated; however, the degree to which this may be true is an area for future inquiry.

Are Detailed, Patient-level Social Determinant of Health Factors Associated With Physical Function and Mental Health at Presentation Among New Patients With Orthopaedic Conditions?

BACKGROUND: It is well documented that routinely collected patient sociodemographic characteristics (such as race and insurance type) and geography-based social determinants of health (SDoH) measures (for example, the Area Deprivation Index) are associated with health disparities, including symptom severity at presentation. However, the association of patient-level SDoH factors (such as housing status) on musculoskeletal health disparities is not as well documented. Such insight might help with the development of more-targeted interventions to help address health disparities in orthopaedic surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of patients presenting for new patient visits in an orthopaedic surgery clinic who were unemployed but seeking work reported transportation issues that could limit their ability to attend a medical appointment or acquire medications, reported trouble paying for medications, and/or had no current housing? (2) Accounting for traditional sociodemographic factors and patient-level SDoH measures, what factors are associated with poorer patient-reported outcome physical health scores at presentation? (3) Accounting for traditional sociodemographic factor patient-level SDoH measures, what factors are associated with poorer patient-reported outcome mental health scores at presentation? METHODS: New patient encounters at one Level 1 trauma center clinic visit from March 2018 to December 2020 were identified. Included patients had to meet two criteria: they had completed the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 at their new orthopaedic surgery clinic encounter as part of routine clinical care, and they had visited their primary care physician and completed a series of specific SDoH questions. The SDoH questionnaire was developed in our institution to improve data that drive interventions to address health disparities as part of our accountable care organization work. Over the study period, the SDoH questionnaire was only distributed at primary care provider visits. The SDoH questions focused on transportation, housing, employment, and ability to pay for medications. Because we do not have a way to determine how many patients had both primary care provider office visits and new orthopaedic surgery clinic visits over the study period, we were unable to determine how many patients could have been included; however, 9057 patients were evaluated in this cross-sectional study. The mean age was 61 ± 15 years, and most patients self-reported being of White race (83% [7561 of 9057]). Approximately half the patient sample had commercial insurance (46% [4167 of 9057]). To get a better sense of how this study cohort compared with the overall patient population seen at the participating center during the time in question, we reviewed all new patient clinic encounters (n = 135,223). The demographic information between the full patient sample and our study subgroup appeared similar. Using our study cohort, two multivariable linear regression models were created to determine which traditional metrics (for example, self-reported race or insurance type) and patient-specific SDoH factors (for example, lack of reliable transportation) were associated with worse physical and mental health symptoms (that is, lower PROMIS scores) at new patient encounters. The variance inflation factor was used to assess for multicollinearity. For all analyses, p values < 0.05 designated statistical significance. The concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was used to assess clinical importance. Regression coefficients represent the projected change in PROMIS physical or mental health symptom scores (that is, the dependent variable in our regression analyses) accounting for the other included variables. Thus, a regression coefficient for a given variable at or above a known MCID value suggests a clinical difference between those patients with and without the presence of that given characteristic. In this manuscript, regression coefficients at or above 4.2 (or at and below -4.2) for PROMIS Global Physical Health and at or above 5.1 (or at and below -5.1) for PROMIS Global Mental Health were considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Among the included patients, 8% (685 of 9057) were unemployed but seeking work, 4% (399 of 9057) reported transportation issues that could limit their ability to attend a medical appointment or acquire medications, 4% (328 of 9057) reported trouble paying for medications, and 2% (181 of 9057) had no current housing. Lack of reliable transportation to attend doctor visits or pick up medications (ß = -4.52 [95% CI -5.45 to -3.59]; p < 0.001), trouble paying for medications (ß = -4.55 [95% CI -5.55 to -3.54]; p < 0.001), Medicaid insurance (ß = -5.81 [95% CI -6.41 to -5.20]; p < 0.001), and workers compensation insurance (ß = -5.99 [95% CI -7.65 to -4.34]; p < 0.001) were associated with clinically worse function at presentation. Trouble paying for medications (ß = -6.01 [95% CI -7.10 to -4.92]; p < 0.001), Medicaid insurance (ß = -5.35 [95% CI -6.00 to -4.69]; p < 0.001), and workers compensation (ß = -6.07 [95% CI -7.86 to -4.28]; p < 0.001) were associated with clinically worse mental health at presentation. CONCLUSION: Although transportation issues and financial hardship were found to be associated with worse presenting physical function and mental health, Medicaid and workers compensation insurance remained associated with worse presenting physical function and mental health as well even after controlling for these more detailed, patient-level SDoH factors. Because of that, interventions to decrease health disparities should focus on not only sociodemographic variables (for example, insurance type) but also tangible patient-specific SDoH characteristics. For example, this may include giving patients taxi vouchers or ride-sharing credits to attend clinic visits for patients demonstrating such a need, initiating financial assistance programs for necessary medications, and/or identifying and connecting certain patient groups with social support services early on in the care cycle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Self-Reported Physical Function and Grit Are Not Correlated in Patients Who Undergo Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Distal Radius Fractures.

PURPOSE: "Grit" is defined as the perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Thus, grittier patients may have a better function after common hand procedures; however, this is not well-documented in the literature. Our purpose was to assess the correlation between grit and self-reported physical function among patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for distal radius fractures (DRFs). METHODS: Between 2017 and 2020, patients undergoing ORIF for DRFs were identified. They were asked to complete the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire before surgery and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery. The first 100 patients with at least 1-year follow-up also completed the 8-question GRIT Scale, a validated measure of passion and perseverance for long-term goals measured on a scale of 0 (least grit) to 5 (most grit). The correlation between the QuickDASH and GRIT Scale scores was calculated using Spearman rho (ρ). RESULTS: The average GRIT Scale score was 4.0 (SD, 0.7), with a median of 4.1 (range, 1.6-5.0). The median QuickDASH scores at the preoperative, 6-week postoperative, 6-month postoperative, and 1-year postoperative time points were 80 (range, 7-100), 43 (range, 2-100), 20 (range, 0-100), and 5 (range, 0-89), respectively. No significant correlation was found between the GRIT Scale and QuickDASH scores at any time. CONCLUSIONS: We found no correlation between self-reported physical function and GRIT levels in patients undergoing ORIF for DRFs, suggesting no correlation between grit and patient-reported outcomes in this context. Future studies are needed to investigate the influence of individual differences in character traits other than grit on patient outcomes, which may help better align resources where needed and further the ability to deliver individualized, quality health care. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Surgeon idiosyncrasy is a key driver of cost in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a time-driven activity-based costing analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delivering high-value orthopedic care requires optimizing value, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent. Published literature is stippled with inaccurate proxies for cost, including negotiated reimbursement rates, fees paid, or listed prices. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) offers a more robust and accurate approach to calculating cost, including shoulder care. In the present study, we sought to determine the drivers of total cost in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) using TDABC. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing aRCR at multiple sites associated with a large urban health care system between January 2019 and September 2021 were identified. Total cost was determined using TDABC methodology. The episode of care was defined by 3 phases: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. Patient, procedure, rotator cuff tear morphology, and surgeon characteristics were collected. Bivariate analysis was performed across all characteristics between high-cost (top decile) and all other aRCRs. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify the key cost drivers. RESULTS: In total, 625 aRCRs performed by 24 orthopedic surgeons and 572 aRCRs performed by 13 orthopedic surgeons were included in the bivariate and multivariable linear regression analyses, respectively. By TDABC analysis, total aRCR cost varied 6-fold (5.9×) from least to most costly. Intraoperative costs accounted for 91% of average total cost, followed by preoperative costs and postoperative costs (6% and 3%, respectively). Biologic adjuncts (regression coefficient [RC] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.58, P < .001) and surgeon idiosyncrasy (RC of highest-cost surgeon 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.73, P < .001) were the major cost drivers in aRCR. Patient age, comorbidities, number of rotator cuff tendons torn, and revision surgery were not significantly associated with total cost. The amount of tendon retraction (RC 0.0012, 95% CI 0.000020-0.0024, P = .046), average Goutallier grade (RC 0.029, 95% CI 0.0086-0.049, P = .005), and the number of anchors used (RC 0.039, 95% CI 0.032-0.046, P < .001) were also significantly associated with cost, but with far smaller effect sizes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Episode of care costs vary nearly 6-fold in aRCR and are almost exclusively dictated by the intraoperative phase. Tear morphology and repair technique contribute to cost, although the largest cost drivers of aRCR are the use of biologic adjuncts and surgeon idiosyncrasy, defined as something a surgeon does or does not do that impacts total cost and is not controlled for in the current analysis. Future work should seek to better delineate what these surgeon idiosyncrasies may represent.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function and Global Physical Health Subscale Strongly Correlate and Perform Similarly to the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form.

BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty surgeons use a variety of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess functional well-being, including the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Physical Function short form (KOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PROMIS PF SF 10a), and PROMIS Global-10 Physical Health subscale. However, there is a paucity of literature assessing their concurrent validity and performance. METHODS: Between June 2016 and December 2020, patient visits at an arthroplasty clinic for knee concerns were identified. Patients who completed KOOS-PS, PROMIS PF SF 10a, and PROMIS Global-10, including its physical and mental health subscales, at the same visit were identified. Spearman rho (ρ) correlations were calculated and ceiling and floor effects identified. Overall, 5,303 patient encounters were included. RESULTS: Among physical function domains, strong correlation existed between the KOOS-PS and PROMIS PF SF 10a (ρ = 0.76, P < .001), KOOS-PS and PROMIS Global Physical Health (ρ = 0.71, P < .001), and PROMIS PF SF 10a and PROMIS Global Physical Health (ρ = 0.78, P < .001). No physical function-focused PROM had an appreciable floor effect (ie, at or more than 1%). The KOOS-PS had a small but measurable ceiling effect (n = 105 [2.0%]). CONCLUSIONS: All of the examined PROMs are acceptable to measure the functional status of patients with knee pathology, with the PROMIS Global-10 also being able to capture elements of mental health too. The PROMIS Global-10 may be of most value of the PROMs assessed, as the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services already incorporate the mental health component into new alternative payment models.

What Is the Clinical Benefit of Common Orthopaedic Procedures as Assessed by the PROMIS Versus Other Validated Outcomes Tools?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), are increasingly used to measure healthcare value. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a metric that helps clinicians determine whether a statistically detectable improvement in a PROM after surgical care is likely to be large enough to be important to a patient or to justify an intervention that carries risk and cost. There are two major categories of MCID calculation methods, anchor-based and distribution-based. This variability, coupled with heterogeneous surgical cohorts used for existing MCID values, limits their application to clinical care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In our study, we sought (1) to determine MCID thresholds and attainment percentages for PROMIS after common orthopaedic procedures using distribution-based methods, (2) to use anchor-based MCID values from published studies as a comparison, and (3) to compare MCID attainment percentages using PROMIS scores to other validated outcomes tools such as the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). METHODS: This was a retrospective study at two academic medical centers and three community hospitals. The inclusion criteria for this study were patients who were age 18 years or older and who underwent elective THA for osteoarthritis, TKA for osteoarthritis, one-level posterior lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis or rotator cuff arthropathy, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This yielded 14,003 patients. Patients undergoing revision operations or surgery for nondegenerative pathologies and patients without preoperative PROMs assessments were excluded, leaving 9925 patients who completed preoperative PROMIS assessments and 9478 who completed other preoperative validated outcomes tools (HOOS, KOOS, numerical rating scale for leg pain, numerical rating scale for back pain, and QuickDASH). Approximately 66% (6529 of 9925) of patients had postoperative PROMIS scores (Physical Function, Mental Health, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, and Upper Extremity) and were included for analysis. PROMIS scores are population normalized with a mean score of 50 ± 10, with most scores falling between 30 to 70. Approximately 74% (7007 of 9478) of patients had postoperative historical assessment scores and were included for analysis. The proportion who reached the MCID was calculated for each procedure cohort at 6 months of follow-up using distribution-based MCID methods, which included a fraction of the SD (1/2 or 1/3 SD) and minimum detectable change (MDC) using statistical significance (such as the MDC 90 from p < 0.1). Previously published anchor-based MCID thresholds from similar procedure cohorts and analogous PROMs were used to calculate the proportion reaching MCID. RESULTS: Within a given distribution-based method, MCID thresholds for PROMIS assessments were similar across multiple procedures. The MCID threshold ranged between 3.4 and 4.5 points across all procedures using the 1/2 SD method. Except for meniscectomy (3.5 points), the anchor-based PROMIS MCID thresholds (range 4.5 to 8.1 points) were higher than the SD distribution-based MCID values (2.3 to 4.5 points). The difference in MCID thresholds based on the calculation method led to a similar trend in MCID attainment. Using THA as an example, MCID attainment using PROMIS was achieved by 76% of patients using an anchor-based threshold of 7.9 points. However, 82% of THA patients attained MCID using the MDC 95 method (6.1 points), and 88% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (3.9 points). Using the HOOS metric (scaled from 0 to 100), 86% of THA patients reached the anchor-based MCID threshold (17.5 points). However, 91% of THA patients attained the MCID using the MDC 90 method (12.5 points), and 93% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (8.4 points). In general, the proportion of patients reaching MCID was lower for PROMIS than for other validated outcomes tools; for example, with the 1/2 SD method, 72% of patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy reached the MCID on PROMIS Physical Function compared with 86% on KOOS. CONCLUSION: MCID calculations can provide clinical correlation for PROM scores interpretation. The PROMIS form is increasingly used because of its generalizability across diagnoses. However, we found lower proportions of MCID attainment using PROMIS scores compared with historical PROMs. By using historical proportions of attainment on common orthopaedic procedures and a spectrum of MCID calculation techniques, the PROMIS MCID benchmarks are realizable for common orthopaedic procedures. For clinical practices that routinely collect PROMIS scores in the clinical setting, these results can be used by individual surgeons to evaluate personal practice trends and by healthcare systems to quantify whether clinical care initiatives result in meaningful differences. Furthermore, these MCID thresholds can be used by researchers conducting retrospective outcomes research with PROMIS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Double-Row Repair With Platelet-Rich Plasma Optimizes Retear Rates After Small to Medium Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To compare the different interventions described in the literature for the surgical treatment of small and medium complete rotator cuff tears. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of small-medium, full-thickness rotator cuff tears published since 2000 was performed. Clinical characteristics, re-tear rates, range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data were collected. Interventions were compared via arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis in a random-effects model. Interventions were ranked for each domain (re-tear risk, pain, ROM, and PROs) via surface under the cumulative ranking curves. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies comprising 2046 shoulders (47% females, mean age 61 ± 3 years, mean follow-up 21 ± 5 months) were included. Interventions that ranked highest for minimizing re-tear risk included arthroscopic single-row repair (A+SR) or double-row repair (A+DR) with or without platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Open repair and A+SR repair with acromioplasty (ACP) ranked highest for pain relief. Interventions that ranked highest for ROM improvement included open repair, PT, and A+DR with or without ACP. Interventions that ranked highest for PROs included arthroscopic footprint microfracture with or without SR, open repair, and A+SR with or without ACP. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a network meta-analysis of level 1 studies, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a SR or DR construct demonstrates similar retear rates, PROs, and clinical outcomes. The highest-ranking treatment for minimizing retears was arthroscopic repair with DR constructs and PRP augmentation, although open repair and arthroscopic SR remain reliable options with excellent clinical outcomes. Addition of PRP to DR constructs trended toward a 56% decreased risk of retear as compared to DR repair alone. Although no single treatment emerged superior, several interventions offered excellent clinical improvements in pain, ROM, and PROs that exceeded minimal clinically important difference thresholds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I, systematic review and meta-analysis of level I studies.

The Association Between Depression and Antidepressant Use and Outcomes After Operative Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures at 1 Year.

PURPOSE: Depression has been linked to inferior clinical outcomes among upper extremity patients. It often is challenging to distinguish the symptoms of depression, symptoms of injury, and the interaction between these 2 entities after a patient has been injured. We aimed to study the differences in clinical outcomes after surgical fixation of distal radius fractures between patients with and without a documented history and treatment for depression. METHODS: All subjects with an isolated, acute distal radius fracture undergoing operative fixation in a 10-year period at a level 1 academic trauma center were screened. Baseline demographic data were collected, and psychiatric history and antidepressant use were recorded and verified with a pharmacy database. Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), range of motion, and grip strength were assessed at 12 months after surgery. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to assess the association of depression with QuickDASH scores at 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients were available for 1-year follow-up, 50 of whom were being treated actively for depression with medication at the time of injury and 161 were without a known diagnosis of, or treatment for, depression. Demographic and injury characteristics were similar between both groups. In a multivariable linear regression model controlling for age, sex, and a history of osteoporosis, active treatment for depression was associated with a slight mean increase in QuickDASH scores, 6.5 (1.3-11.8), 1 year after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a small increase in QuickDASH scores between subjects with a confirmed diagnoses of depression compared with all others after surgical fixation of distal radius fracture at 1-year follow-up. We suggest that a history of depression may portend worse clinical outcomes, although other factors, such as underreporting of depression may influence results. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Value-Based Health Care in Hand Surgery: Where Are We & Where Do We Go From Here?

Health care delivery is broken. The cost of care continues to skyrocket and the outcomes most important to patients are often a mystery. Further, care is often delivered via a fee-for-service model where surgeons are rewarded for the quantity, not the quality, of services provided. Such a health care delivery system is not sustainable and does not incentivize stakeholders to focus on the most important element of the health care delivery "puzzle": the patient. Fortunately, we are in the midst of transforming our health care delivery system, with a focus on optimizing the value of care delivery (ie, health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full care cycle). In hand surgery, progress has been made as part of this health system evolution. However, there remains much to accomplish. In this article, the authors review the 6 components of a strategic agenda for moving to a high-value health care delivery system for hand surgery, focusing on where we are today and where we need to go from here.

Telemedicine Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Experience During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Although telemedicine visits were essential and adopted by providers and patients alike, few studies have been conducted evaluating orthopedic patient perception of the care delivered during these visits. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated specific factors that affected patient satisfaction with telemedicine and the receptiveness to continue virtual visits post COVID-19 in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients. Thus, the purposes of our study are to determine the following: (1) patient satisfaction with using TJA telemedicine services, (2) whether patient characteristics might be associated with satisfaction, and (3) whether virtual clinic visits may be used post-COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional survey study was completed by 126 TJA patients who participated in telemedicine visits with TJA surgeons from May 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. The survey consisted of questions regarding demographics, satisfaction, and telemedicine experiences. RESULTS: One hundred one (80.2%) patients were satisfied with their telemedicine visit, with patients <80 years old (P = .008) and those with a longer commute time (P = .01) being more satisfied P = .01. There was a significant preference for in-person visits when meeting arthroplasty surgeons for the first time (P < .001), but patients were equally amenable to follow-up telemedicine visits once there was an established relationship with the surgeon. CONCLUSION: Younger patients, patients with longer commute distances, and patients who had established relationships with their provider expressed higher satisfaction with telemedicine arthroplasty visits. Although >80% of patients were satisfied with their telemedicine visit, an established patient-provider relationship may be integral to the success of an arthroplasty telemedicine practice.

Forearm Flexor Tendon Injury in Adolescent Athletes: Risk Factors, Treatment, and Prevention.

ABSTRACT: Injury to the flexor pronator mass is a common condition that is especially prevalent in overhead throwing athletes. The increasing incidence of these injuries has promoted considerable efforts in research to better understand the pathology, risk factors, and potential mechanisms to prevent injury in these athletes. While there are numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors associated with injury, a common theme involves chronic overuse and microtrauma with inadequate resting intervals between performances. The purpose of this review is to discuss medial elbow injuries in young athletes with a particular focus on the flexor pronator mass.

Spine surgeon perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine: an international study.

INTRODUCTION: While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. METHODS: Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses. CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation.

What Factors Are Associated with Increased Financial Burden and High Financial Worry For Patients Undergoing Common Hand Procedures?

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined whether orthopaedic surgery, including hand surgery, is associated with patients' financial health. We sought to understand the level of financial burden and worry for patients undergoing two common hand procedures-carpal tunnel release and open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radius fracture-as well as to determine factors associated with a higher financial burden and worry. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In patients undergoing operative treatment for isolated carpal tunnel syndrome with carpal tunnel release or open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radius fracture, we used validated financial burden and worry questionnaires to ask: (1) What percentage of patients report some level of financial burden, and what is the median financial burden composite score? (2) What percentage of patients report some level of financial worry, and what percentage of patients report a high level of financial worry? (3) When accounting for other assessed factors, what patient- and condition-related factors are associated with financial burden? (4) When accounting for other assessed factors, what patient- and condition-related factors are associated with high financial worry? METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey study, a hand and upper extremity database at a single tertiary academic medical center was reviewed for patients 18 years or older undergoing operative treatment in our hand and upper extremity division for an isolated distal radius fracture between October 2017 and October 2019. We then selected all patients undergoing carpal tunnel release during the first half of that time period (given the frequency of carpal tunnel syndrome, a 1-year period was sufficient to ensure comparable patient groups). A total of 645 patients were identified (carpal tunnel release: 60% [384 of 645 patients]; open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radius fracture: 40% [261 of 645 patients). Of the patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, 6% (24 of 384) were excluded because of associated injuries. Of the patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radius fracture, 4% (10 of 261) were excluded because of associated injuries. All remaining 611 patients were approached. Thirty-six percent (223 of 611; carpal tunnel release: 36% [128 of 360]; open reduction and internal fixation: 38% [95 of 251]) of patients ultimately completed two validated financial health surveys: the financial burden composite and financial worry questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were calculated to report the percentage of patients who had some level of financial burden and worry. Further, the median financial burden composite score was determined. The percentage of patients who reported a high level of financial worry was calculated. A forward stepwise regression model approach was used; thus, variables with p values < 0.10 in bivariate analysis were included in the final regression analyses to determine which patient- and condition-related factors were associated with financial burden or high financial worry, accounting for all other measured variables. RESULTS: The median financial burden composite score was 0 (range 0 [lowest possible financial burden] to 6 [highest possible financial burden]), and 13% of patients (30 of 223) reported a high level of financial worry. After controlling for potentially confounding variables like age, insurance type, and self-reported race, the number of dependents (regression coefficient 0.15 [95% CI 0.008 to 0.29]; p = 0.04) was associated with higher levels of financial burden, while retired employment status (regression coefficient -1.24 [95% CI -1.88 to -0.60]; p < 0.001) was associated with lower levels of financial burden. In addition, the number of dependents (odds ratio 1.77 [95% CI 1.21 to 2.61]; p = 0.004) and unable to work or disabled employment status (OR 3.76 [95% CI 1.25 to 11.28]; p = 0.02) were associated with increased odds of high financial worry. CONCLUSION: A notable number of patients undergoing operative hand care for two common conditions reported some degree of financial burden and worry. Patients at higher risk of financial burden and/or worry may benefit from increased resources during their hand care journey, including social work consultation and financial counselors. This is especially true given the association between number of dependents and work status on financial burden and high financial worry. However, future research is needed to determine the return on investment of this resource utilization on patient clinical outcomes, overall quality of life, and well-being. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Is There An Association Between Bundled Payments and "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping" in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

Editorial Commentary: Fixing Health Care Requires Us to Evaluate Policy Through an Ethical and Societal (And Not Just a Financial) Lens.

Health care systems globally, including in the United States, continue to undergo a much-needed transformation focused on optimizing value-or health outcomes per dollar spent across a full cycle of care-for patients. Given the traditionally high cost and use of orthopaedic surgery services, the field is ripe for in-depth assessment and comparison of interventions to ensure that evidence-based, high-value care is prioritized. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) provide an important framework from which to begin effective policy discussions, and a recent study suggests that current orthopaedic economic literature is of high quality. However, the same study demonstrated that no authors published CEAs that also provided commentary on how their work can actually guide policy decisions. Furthermore, the ethical implications of their research or insight into the larger consequences of their findings within and outside the health care sector was not discussed. We must be better at "connecting the dots" between CEAs and value-based health care research and practical policy initiatives while also considering how such proposals promote health equity and address systemic injustices currently found in our health care system.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Provides a Lower and More Accurate Assessment of Costs in the Field of Orthopaedic Surgery Compared With Traditional Accounting Methods.

PURPOSE: To analyze the implementation and benefits of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) in the field of orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: We performed a search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase in March 2020, using the following terms: "Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing," "TDABC," "Orthopaedic Surgery," and "Cost." Then we selected the studies that used the TDABC methodology to generate costs for a particular aspect of orthopaedic surgery. The included studies were divided into the following 5 main categories for ease of analysis: joint arthroplasty, trauma, hand, electronic medical record (EMR) implementation, and pediatric. We analyzed the overall ability of TDABC in the field of orthopaedic surgery, compared to the standard costing methods. RESULTS: We included a total of 19 studies that implemented the TDABC methodology to generate a cost, which was compared to traditional accounting methods. The orthopaedic subspecialty with the most amount of TDABC implementation has been the field of joint arthroplasty. In these studies, the authors have noted that TDABC has provided a more granular breakdown of costs and has calculated a lower cost compared with traditional accounting methods. CONCLUSION: TDABC is a powerful cost analysis method that has demonstrated benefit over the activity-based costing (ABC) approach in determining a lower and more accurate cost of orthopaedic procedures. Furthermore, the TDABC method generates an average cost reduction of $10,000 and $12,000 for total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty, respectively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: TDABC can allow health care administration to better determine and understand the cost drivers of particular orthopaedic procedures at their institutions. With improved estimates on the true cost of an activity, hospital administrators and department chairs can adjust to ensure cost-effective, patient-centered health care.

Pain Is the Primary Factor Associated With Satisfaction With Symptoms for New Patients Presenting to the Orthopedic Clinic.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to (1) determine the percentage of new orthopedic patients reporting their symptoms to be acceptable at presentation, as measured by the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) question, and (2) evaluate whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) or Upper Extremity, Pain Interference (PI), and Depression (D), or sociodemographic factors are associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation. METHODS: Between February 7, 2020, and March 16, 2020, new orthopedic patients who completed PROMs were identified. Patient records were reviewed for those who also completed the PASS question, a yes/no question about whether a patient's current symptom state is satisfactory. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare patient characteristics, such as area deprivation index (ADI), between those reporting acceptable symptoms and those who did not. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation. RESULTS: A total of 570 patients were included, with one-fourth (n = 143 [25%]) reporting acceptable symptoms at presentation. In multivariable regression analysis, only pain, as measured by the PROMIS PI, was associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation (non-upper extremity patient regression: PROMIS PI: odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.90, P < .01; upper extremity patient regression: PROMIS PI: OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98, P < .01). In both multivariable regression analyses, insurance type (private, Medicare, Medicaid, other), visit subspecialty (sports, hand, joints, foot and ankle, spine, other), PROMIS PF, PROMIS D, and national ADI were not associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: One-fourth of new orthopedic patients reported their symptoms to be acceptable at presentation. Of those who considered their symptom state unsatisfactory, pain-not functional status, mental health, or sociodemographic factors-was the primary determinant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic.

Impact of Insurance Type on Self-Reported Symptom Severity at the Preoperative Visit for Carpal Tunnel Release.

PURPOSE: Prior studies evaluated the impact of insurance type on access to hand care. However, there is limited literature quantifying whether patient symptoms are worse at the time of intervention. Our primary null hypothesis was that insurance type would not be associated with Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System (PROMIS) Upper-Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression scores at the preoperative visit before carpal tunnel release (CTR). METHODS: Between December 2016 and November 2018, patients with known carpal tunnel syndrome presenting to a tertiary academic hand clinic for the preoperative visit within 3 months of CTR, completed PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression computer adaptive tests. Patient characteristics were recorded, including insurance type as commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, or workers' compensation. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine which variables were associated with PROMIS scores at the preoperative visit before CTR. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients were included in the analysis. All PROMIS domains were significantly different by insurance type; Medicaid patients had the worst preoperative score for all domains in bivariate analysis. In multivariable linear regression modeling, commercial insurance was associated with better preoperative PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression scores. CONCLUSIONS: Commercial insurance is associated with significantly better preoperative PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression scores compared with other insurance types (ie, Medicaid, Medicare, and Workers' compensation). This may be the result of a number of factors, including differences in access to hand care or life circumstances that allow for only certain individuals to seek hand care early on in the disease process. However, further research is warranted to determine more definitively why this association exists. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Evaluation of PROMIS' Ability to Detect Immediate Postoperative Symptom Improvement Following Carpal Tunnel Release.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether subjective clinical improvement immediately after carpal tunnel release (CTR) was captured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression. METHODS: Between September 2018 and January 2020, patients presenting to a single academic medical center hand clinic were asked to complete PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression computer adaptive tests. In addition, patients who had CTR were asked to answer the following at their first postoperative clinic visit: "Since my last clinic visit, my condition is: (1) much better; (2) mildly better; (3) no change; (4) mildly worse; (5) much worse." For each patient, the last clinic visit was the final preoperative visit. The PROMIS domain scores were compared before and after surgery using paired t tests. The percentage of patients subjectively reporting better symptoms was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients fit our inclusion criteria. The average number of days between the final preoperative visit and CTR was 7 (range, 0-30), and the average number of days between CTR and the first postoperative visit was 9 (range, 3-21). A total of 116 patients (74%) reported their carpal tunnel syndrome was better at their first postoperative visit. However, PROMIS UE, PF, and PI scores were significantly worse at the first postoperative visit, although not at clinically appreciable levels. There was no statistical or clinical difference in PROMIS Depression scores from pre- to postoperative time points. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 75% of patients subjectively report their carpal tunnel syndrome is better at their first follow-up visit within 3 weeks of CTR; however, PROMIS does not capture this improvement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hand surgeons evaluating patients shortly following CTR should be aware of the potential limitation of PROMIS to accurately capture immediate postoperative clinical outcomes. Disease-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, such as the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire, may be preferred during this immediate postoperative timeframe.

Risk Factors for Failed Nonsurgical Treatment Resulting in Surgery on Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthritis.

PURPOSE: The thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) joint is the second most common site of osteoarthritis in the hand, yet reported symptoms and ultimate treatment decisions are not simply a function of radiographic appearance. This study aimed to determine the patient- and/or disease-related factors associated with patients undergoing surgical treatment of thumb CMC arthritis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 1,994 patients with thumb CMC arthritis treated at 2 institutions between February 2015 and November 2018. Patient demographic and clinical information was obtained from medical records to characterize treatment modalities before hand surgeon evaluation, mental and physical comorbidities, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessments. After bivariate analysis, a multivariable logistic regression model evaluated factors associated with undergoing thumb CMC surgery. RESULTS: This cohort was predominately female (70%) and white (91%), mean age at first appointment, 62 ± 10 years. A total of 170 patients underwent surgery for thumb CMC arthritis (9%) at a median of 114 days (interquartile range, 27-328) after the first visit. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression scores correlated with Pain Interference and Physical Function scores. A history of diagnosed depression or anxiety was associated with less perceived Physical Function at presentation. However, only prior contralateral thumb CMC surgery, younger patient age, and treating institution were associated with undergoing surgery in regression modeling. CONCLUSIONS: Pain and functional limitations associated with thumb CMC arthritis are influenced by mental health comorbidities, but these factors do not predict surgical treatment. Instead, patients' prior surgical experience and surgeon attitudes toward thumb CMC arthritis appear to have a strong influence on the odds of patients undergoing surgery for thumb CMC arthritis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.