Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Distal Radius Fractures in Patients aged ≥65 years.

PURPOSE: The ideal management of distal radius fractures (DRFs) in patients aged 65 years and older is debated. Acknowledging the evidence that both nonsurgical and surgical treatment yield similar outcomes one year after injury, a patient decision aid (PDA) could facilitate patient engagement in treatment decision-making. The purpose of this study was to develop a PDA to guide patients in the treatment of DRFs in patients ≥65 years of age. METHODS: The DRF PDA was developed using an established decision sciences framework. The PDA included an overview of DRFs, treatment options (casting vs surgery), risk/benefits, and a values clarification section. During the development phase, hand surgeons and patients reviewed the PDA; then, semistructured interviews were performed with participants to elicit feedback. RESULTS: Eleven patients and 11 hand surgeons participated in the study. All patients found the PDA useful and almost all stated it would make the treatment decision easier. Most patients believed that there was enough information in the PDA, but one desired more information about surgical risks. Almost all surgeons stated the PDA would be easy for patients to use and understand, and approximately half believed that it would help patients make a more informed decision. Most surgeons expressed that the PDA would complement their usual approach to counseling patients, but some noted it would involve changes to their workflow. Most participants believed the information presented was unbiased, but one patient thought it was biased toward surgery, whereas a few surgeons believed that it was biased toward nonsurgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: All patients expressed that the PDA was informative, comprehensive, and easy to understand and would be helpful if they were deciding about DRF treatment. Surgeons believed that patients would find the PDA easy to use and understand, but some had concerns about incorporating it into their clinic workflow. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A decision aid for the treatment of DRFs in patients aged ≥65 years can be used to engage patients in the shared decision-making process.

A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study: One-Year Outcomes of Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition Versus Suture Tape Suspensionplasty for Thumb Carpometacarpal Joint Arthritis.

PURPOSE: We performed a randomized controlled trial assessing patient-reported outcome measures following trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) or suture tape suspensionplasty (STS) for treatment of thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis were prospectively randomized to LRTI or STS. Outcome measures were collected at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year and included visual analog scale pain, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity, return to work/activity, range of motion, grip/pinch strength, and complications. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (32 thumbs) were randomized from 51 patients offered participation over two years. One-year follow-up was 97%. Both groups had a decrease in visual analog scale pain scores at all postoperative time points. The trajectory of postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity scores was similar, and both groups achieved the meaningful clinically important difference for improvement in PROMIS Upper Extremity by three months. Grip strength was substantially increased in both groups at one year. Return to work/activity and surgical complications favored the LRTI group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not suggest any clinically relevant differences in the postoperative patient-reported outcome measures or objective clinical measurements between LRTI and STS, although LRTI patients had a faster return to work/activity and lower complication rates. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective randomized clinical trial, level IIB clinical.

Multi-stakeholder perspectives regarding preferred modalities for mental health intervention delivered in the orthopedic clinic: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although depressive and anxious symptoms negatively impact musculoskeletal health and orthopedic outcomes, a gap remains in identifying modalities through which mental health intervention can realistically be delivered during orthopedic care. The purpose of this study was to understand orthopedic stakeholders' perceptions regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of digital, printed, and in-person intervention modalities to address mental health as part of orthopedic care. METHODS: This single-center, qualitative study was conducted within a tertiary care orthopedic department. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and May 2022. Two stakeholder groups were interviewed using a purposive sampling approach until thematic saturation was reached. The first group included adult orthopedic patients who presented for management of ≥ 3 months of neck or back pain. The second group included early, mid, and late career orthopedic clinicians and support staff members. Stakeholders' interview responses were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding approaches followed by thematic analysis. Patients also performed usability testing of one digital and one printed mental health intervention. RESULTS: Patients included 30 adults out of 85 approached (mean (SD) age 59 [14] years, 21 (70%) women, 12 (40%) non-White). Clinical team stakeholders included 22 orthopedic clinicians and support staff members out of 25 approached (11 (50%) women, 6 (27%) non-White). Clinical team members perceived a digital mental health intervention to be feasible and scalable to implement, and many patients appreciated that the digital modality offered privacy, immediate access to resources, and the ability to engage during non-business hours. However, stakeholders also expressed that a printed mental health resource is still necessary to meet the needs of patients who prefer and/or can only engage with tangible, rather than digital, mental health resources. Many clinical team members expressed skepticism regarding the current feasibility of scalably incorporating in-person support from a mental health specialist into orthopedic care. CONCLUSIONS: Although digital intervention offers implementation-related advantages over printed and in-person mental health interventions, a subset of often underserved patients will not currently be reached using exclusively digital intervention. Future research should work to identify combinations of effective mental health interventions that provide equitable access for orthopedic patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

What Are Orthopaedic Patients' and Clinical Team Members' Perspectives Regarding Whether and How to Address Mental Health in the Orthopaedic Care Setting? A Qualitative Investigation of Patients With Neck or Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Across virtually all orthopaedic subspecialties, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and unhelpful thinking are associated with worse patient-reported satisfaction with orthopaedic treatment and increased postoperative complications. In the orthopaedic community, there is growing interest in patients' mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, but addressing mental health is still not a focus of orthopaedic clinical training. There is a persistent awareness gap about how to address mental health in orthopaedic care in a manner that is simultaneously feasible in a busy orthopaedic practice and acceptable to patients who are presenting for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are orthopaedic patients' and clinical team members' current perceptions and motivators regarding addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (2) What barriers do patients and clinicians face regarding addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (3) What are facilitators for patients and clinicians related to addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (4) What are practical, acceptable implementation strategies to facilitate addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? METHODS: This was a single-center, qualitative study conducted from January through May 2022 in the orthopaedic department of a large, urban, tertiary care academic medical center. Semistructured interviews were conducted with members of two stakeholder groups: orthopaedic patients and orthopaedic clinical team members. We interviewed 30 adult patients (of 85 patients who were eligible and approached) who had presented to our orthopaedic department for management of neck or back pain lasting for 3 or more months. By prescreening clinic schedules, patients were purposively sampled to include representatives from varied sociodemographic backgrounds and with a range of severity of self-reported symptoms of depression and anxiety (from none to severe on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression and Anxiety measures) (mean age 59 ± 14 years, 70% [21 of 30] women, 60% [18 of 30] White, median pain duration 3.3 [IQR 1.8 to 10] years). We also interviewed 22 orthopaedic clinicians and clinical support staff members (of 106 team members who were eligible and 25 who were approached). Team members were purposively sampled to include representatives from the full range of adult orthopaedic subspecialties and early-, mid-, and late-career physicians (11 of 22 were women, 16 of 22 were White, and 13 of 22 were orthopaedic surgeons). Interviews were conducted in person or via secure video conferencing by trained qualitative researchers. The interview guides were developed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model of behavior change. Two study team members used the interview transcripts for coding and thematic analysis, and interviews with additional participants from each stakeholder group continued until two study team members independently determined that thematic saturation of the components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model had been reached. Each participant statement was coded as a perception, motivator, barrier, facilitator, or implementation strategy, and inductive coding was used to identify themes in each category. RESULTS: In contrast to the perceptions of some orthopaedic clinicians, most patients with orthopaedic conditions expressed they would like their mental well-being to be acknowledged, if not addressed, as part of a thoughtful orthopaedic care plan. Motivation to address mental health was expressed the most strongly among orthopaedic clinical team members who were aware of high-quality evidence that demonstrated a negative impact of symptoms of depression and anxiety on metrics for which they are publicly monitored or those who perceived that addressing patients' mental health would improve their own quality of life. Barriers described by patients with orthopaedic conditions that were related to addressing mental health in the context of orthopaedic care included clinical team members' use of select stigmatizing words and perceived lack of integration between responses to mental health screening measures and the rest of the orthopaedic care encounter. Orthopaedic clinical team members commonly cited the following barriers: lack of available mental health resources they can refer patients to, uncertainty regarding the appropriateness for them to discuss mental health, and time pressure and lack of expertise or comfort in discussing mental health. Facilitators identified by orthopaedic clinical teams and patients to address mental health in the context of orthopaedic care included the development of efficient, adaptable processes to deliver mental health interventions that preferably avoid wasted paper resources; initiation of mental health-related discussion by an orthopaedic clinical team member in a compassionate, relevant context after rapport with the patient has been established; and the availability of a variety of affordable, accessible mental health interventions to meet patients' varied needs and preferences. Practical implementation strategies identified as suitable in the orthopaedic setting to increase appropriate attention to patients' mental health included training orthopaedic clinical teams, establishing a department or institution "mental health champion," and integrating an automated screening question into clinical workflow to assess patients' interest in receiving mental health-related information. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic patients want their mental health to be acknowledged as part of a holistic orthopaedic care plan. Although organization-wide initiatives can address mental health systematically, a key facilitator to success is for orthopaedic clinicians to initiate compassionate, even if brief, conversations with their patients regarding the interconnectedness of mental health and musculoskeletal health. Given the unique challenges to addressing mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, additional research should consider use of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to identify effective methods of addressing mental health that are feasible and appropriate for this clinical setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Orthopaedic clinicians who have had negative experiences attempting to address mental health with their patients should be encouraged to keep trying. Our results suggest they should feel empowered that most patients want to address mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, and even brief conversations using nonstigmatizing language can be a valuable component of an orthopaedic treatment plan.

Did the Physical and Mental Health of Orthopaedic Patients Change After the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

BACKGROUND: The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with poor mental health outcomes and widened health disparities in the United States. Given the inter-relationship between psychosocial factors and functional outcomes in orthopaedic surgery, it is important that we understand whether patients presenting for musculoskeletal care during the pandemic were associated with worse physical and mental health than before the pandemic's onset. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Did patients seen for an initial visit by an orthopaedic provider during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate worse physical function, pain interference, depression, and/or anxiety than patients seen before the pandemic, as measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instrument? (2) During the COVID-19 pandemic, did patients living in areas with high levels of social deprivation demonstrate worse patterns of physical function, pain interference, depression, or anxiety on initial presentation to an orthopaedic provider than patients living in areas with low levels of social deprivation, compared with prepandemic PROMIS scores? METHODS: This was a retrospective, comparative study of new patient evaluations that occurred in the orthopaedic department at a large, urban tertiary care academic medical center. During the study period, PROMIS computer adaptive tests were routinely administered to patients at clinical visits. Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, we identified 26,989 new patients; we excluded 4% (1038 of 26,989) for being duplicates, 4% (1034 of 26,989) for having incomplete demographic data, 44% (11,925 of 26,989) for not having a nine-digit home ZIP Code recorded, and 5% (1332 of 26,989) for not completing all four PROMIS computer adaptive tests of interest. This left us with 11,660 patients in the "before COVID-19" cohort. Between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021, we identified 30,414 new patients; we excluded 5% (1554 of 30,414) for being duplicates, 4% (1142 of 30,414) for having incomplete demographic data, 41% (12,347 of 30,414) for not having a nine-digit home ZIP Code recorded, and 7% (2219 of 30,414) for not completing all four PROMIS computer adaptive tests of interest. This left us with 13,152 patients in the "during COVID-19" cohort. Nine-digit home ZIP Codes were used to determine patients' Area Deprivation Indexes, a neighborhood-level composite measure of social deprivation. To ensure that patients included in the study represented our overall patient population, we performed univariate analyses on available demographic and PROMIS data between patients included in the study and those excluded from the study, which revealed no differences (results not shown). In the before COVID-19 cohort, the mean age was 57 ± 16 years, 60% (7046 of 11,660) were women, 86% (10,079 of 11,660) were White non-Hispanic, and the mean national Area Deprivation Index percentile was 47 ± 25. In the during COVID-19 cohort, the mean age was 57 ± 16 years, 61% (8051 of 13,152) were women, 86% (11,333 of 13,152) were White non-Hispanic, and the mean national Area Deprivation Index percentile was 46 ± 25. The main outcome measures in this study were the PROMIS Physical Function ([PF], version 2.0), Pain Interference ([PI], version 1.1), Depression (version 1.0), and Anxiety (version 1.0). PROMIS scores follow a normal distribution with a mean t-score of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Higher PROMIS PF scores indicate better self-reported physical capability, whereas higher PROMIS PI, Depression, and Anxiety scores indicate more difficulty managing pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms, respectively. Clinically meaningful differences in PROMIS scores between the cohorts were based on a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold of 4 points. Multivariable linear regression models were created to determine whether presentation to an orthopaedic provider during the pandemic was associated with worse PROMIS scores than for patients who presented before the pandemic. Regression coefficients (ß) represent the estimated difference in PROMIS scores that would be expected for patients who presented during the pandemic compared with patients who presented before the pandemic, after adjusting for confounding variables. Regression coefficients were evaluated in the context of clinical importance and statistical significance. Regression coefficients equal to or greater than the MCID of 4 points were considered clinically important, whereas p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We found no clinically important differences in baseline physical and mental health PROMIS scores between new patients who presented to an orthopaedic provider before the COVID-19 pandemic and those who presented during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROMIS PF: ß -0.2 [95% confidence interval -0.43 to 0.03]; p = 0.09; PROMIS PI: ß 0.06 [95% CI -0.13 to 0.25]; p = 0.57; PROMIS Depression: ß 0.09 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.33]; p = 0.44; PROMIS Anxiety: ß 0.58 [95% CI 0.33 to 0.84]; p < 0.001). Although patients from areas with high levels of social deprivation had worse PROMIS scores than patients from areas with low levels of social deprivation, patients from areas with high levels of social deprivation demonstrated no clinically important differences in PROMIS scores when groups before and during the pandemic were compared (PROMIS PF: ß -0.23 [95% CI -0.80 to 0.33]; p = 0.42; PROMIS PI: ß 0.18 [95% CI -0.31 to 0.67]; p = 0.47; PROMIS Depression: ß 0.42 [95% CI -0.26 to 1.09]; p = 0.23; PROMIS Anxiety: ß 0.84 [95% CI 0.16 to 1.52]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Contrary to studies describing worse physical and mental health since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we found no changes in the health status of orthopaedic patients on initial presentation to their provider. Although large-scale action to mitigate the effects of worsening physical or mental health of orthopaedic patients may not be needed at this time, orthopaedic providers should remain aware of the psychosocial needs of their patients and advocate on behalf of those who may benefit from intervention. Our study is limited in part to patients who had the self-agency to access specialty orthopaedic care, and therefore may underestimate the true changes in the physical or mental health status of all patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Future longitudinal studies evaluating the impact of specific COVID-19-related factors (for example, delays in medical care, social isolation, or financial loss) on orthopaedic outcomes may be helpful to prepare for future pandemics or natural disasters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

The Responsiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity and Physical Function in Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) and PROMIS Physical Function (PF) are increasingly referenced patient-reported outcomes. To interpret treatment effects with these patient-reported outcomes, investigators must understand magnitudes of change that represent clinically relevant improvement. This study assessed the responsiveness of PROMIS UE and PF in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of PROMIS UE and PROMIS PF computer adaptive test scores was performed for patients treated nonoperatively for cubital tunnel syndrome over 3 years at a tertiary institution. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System UE and PROMIS PF outcome scores were collected at initial and return clinic visits. At follow-up appointments, patients completed clinical anchor questions evaluating their degree of interval clinical improvement. Anchor questions allowed categorization of patients into groups that had experienced "no change," "minimal change," and "much change." Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values were calculated for the PROMIS assessments with anchor-based and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: A total of 304 patients with PROMIS PF scores and 111 with PROMIS UE scores were analyzed. The MCID for the PROMIS UE was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.8) using the anchor-based method and 3.7 (95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.4) using the distribution-based method. These point estimates exceeded the minimal detectable change of 2.3. The MCID for the PROMIS PF was unable to be determined in this patient sample because patients reporting mild change did not have score changes exceeding measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS UE v2.0 computer adaptive test detected minimal change in patients managed nonoperatively for cubital tunnel syndrome with an estimated MCID range of 3.1-3.7. While PROMIS PF has demonstrated acceptable performance in patients with a variety of upper extremity conditions, for cubital tunnel syndrome, it was less able to detect subtle change. PROMIS UE appears more responsive to subtle changes in cubital tunnel syndrome symptoms. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patient-reported outcomes may have varied responsiveness depending on the condition studied.

Study Design and Analysis in Hand Surgery Research: Tips for Success.

Hand surgeons are constantly faced with evaluation of new evidence to identify best practices in clinical care. However, even the most rigorous study designs have limitations due to biases, generalizability, and other flaws. Here, we highlight seven common aspects of study design and analysis that should be considered by hand surgeons when interpreting findings. The evaluation of these practices can optimize the peer-review process and assess the value of evidence to be incorporated into clinical practice.

Factors Influencing Patient Experience After Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Surgery.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use qualitative methodology to better understand patient experiences after cubital tunnel surgery, with the goal of identifying areas of improvement in delivery of care. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery (in situ decompression or anterior transposition) for cubital tunnel syndrome within the last 12 months, which was performed by one of three fellowship-trained hand surgeons, were identified. Participants were invited to an interview regarding "their experiences with ulnar nerve surgery." An interview guide with semistructured, open-ended questions regarding the decision for surgery, treatment goals, and the recovery process was used. Interim data analyses were conducted to assess emerging themes, and interviews were continued until thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Seventeen participants completed interviews; the mean age of study participants was 57 years, and 71% were women. The mean time between surgery and the interview was 6 months. Participants identified the following two key areas that could improve their surgical experience: (1) the need for detailed preoperative education about the surgery and recovery process, (2) and the importance of discussing treatment goals and expectations. Participants suggested providing both written and online resources to patients, including specific details about incision size and recovery process in education materials, and setting expectations for symptom resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall patient experience after cubital tunnel surgery was positive, participants noted that there is a need for providing improved educational resources and counseling before surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Addressing education and counseling needs before cubital tunnel surgery will help surgeons to improve delivery of care.

How Should We Measure Social Deprivation in Orthopaedic Patients?

BACKGROUND: Social deprivation negatively affects a myriad of physical and behavioral health outcomes. Several measures of social deprivation exist, but it is unclear which measure is best suited to describe patients with orthopaedic conditions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Which measure of social deprivation, defined as "limited access to society's resources due to poverty, discrimination, or other disadvantage," is most strongly and consistently correlated with patient-reported physical and behavioral health in patients with orthopaedic conditions? (2) Compared with the use of a single measure alone, how much more variability in patient-reported health does the simultaneous use of multiple social deprivation measures capture? METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 79,818 new patient evaluations occurred within the orthopaedic department of a single, large, urban, tertiary-care academic center. Over that period, standardized collection of patient-reported health measures (as described by the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]) was implemented in a staged fashion throughout the department. We excluded the 25% (19,926) of patient encounters that did not have associated PROMIS measures reported, which left 75% (59,892) of patient encounters available for analysis in this cross-sectional study of existing medical records. Five markers of social deprivation were collected for each patient: national and state Area Deprivation Index, Medically Underserved Area Status, Rural-Urban Commuting Area code, and insurance classification (private, Medicare, Medicaid, or other). Patient-reported physical and behavioral health was measured via PROMIS computer adaptive test domains, which patients completed as part of standard care before being evaluated by a provider. Adults completed the PROMIS Physical Function version 1.2 or version 2.0, Pain Interference version 1.1, Anxiety version 1.0, and Depression version 1.0. Children ages 5 to 17 years completed the PROMIS Pediatric Mobility version 1.0 or version 2.0, Pain Interference version 1.0 or version 2.0, Upper Extremity version 1.0, and Peer Relationships version 1.0. Age-adjusted partial Pearson correlation coefficients were determined for each social deprivation measure and PROMIS domain. Coefficients of at least 0.1 were considered clinically meaningful for this purpose. Additionally, to determine the percentage of PROMIS score variability that could be attributed to each social deprivation measure, an age-adjusted hierarchical regression analysis was performed for each PROMIS domain, in which social deprivation measures were sequentially added as independent variables. The model coefficients of determination (r2) were compared as social deprivation measures were incrementally added. Improvement of the r2 by at least 10% was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Insurance classification was the social deprivation measure with the largest (absolute value) age-adjusted correlation coefficient for all adult and pediatric PROMIS physical and behavioral health domains (adults: correlation coefficient 0.40 to 0.43 [95% CI 0.39 to 0.44]; pediatrics: correlation coefficient 0.10 to 0.19 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.21]), followed by national Area Deprivation Index (adults: correlation coefficient 0.18 to 0.22 [95% CI 0.17 to 0.23]; pediatrics: correlation coefficient 0.08 to 0.15 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.17]), followed closely by state Area Deprivation Index. The Medically Underserved Area Status and Rural-Urban Commuting Area code each had correlation coefficients of 0.1 or larger for some PROMIS domains but neither had consistently stronger correlation coefficients than the other. Except for the PROMIS Pediatric Upper Extremity domain, consideration of insurance classification and the national Area Deprivation Index together explained more of the variation in age-adjusted PROMIS scores than the use of insurance classification alone (adults: r2 improvement 32% to 189% [95% CI 0.02 to 0.04]; pediatrics: r2 improvement 56% to 110% [95% CI 0.01 to 0.02]). The addition of the Medically Underserved Area Status, Rural-Urban Commuting Area code, and/or state Area Deprivation Index did not further improve the r2 for any of the PROMIS domains. CONCLUSION: To capture the most variability due to social deprivation in orthopaedic patients' self-reported physical and behavioral health, insurance classification (categorized as private, Medicare, Medicaid, or other) and national Area Deprivation Index should be included in statistical analyses. If only one measure of social deprivation is preferred, insurance classification or national Area Deprivation Index are reasonable options. Insurance classification may be more readily available, but the national Area Deprivation Index stratifies patients across a wider distribution of values. When conducting clinical outcomes research with social deprivation as a relevant covariate, we encourage researchers to consider accounting for insurance classification and/or national Area Deprivation Index, both of which are freely available and can be obtained from data that are typically collected during routine clinical care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The Utility of the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-6 for Predicting the Outcomes of Carpal Tunnel Release.

PURPOSE: Considering the cost of, discomfort with, and time required for nerve conduction testing, the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-6 (CTS-6) is often used to determine the likelihood of the presence of carpal tunnel syndrome. We sought to determine whether the CTS-6, designed as a diagnostic instrument, could serve a dual purpose and predict the outcome of carpal tunnel release (CTR) based on postoperative changes in the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) score. METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled 118 adults before they underwent open CTR at a tertiary center. A primary regression analysis was used to determine the association between preoperative CTS-6 scores and changes in the BCTQ score at ≥6 months after surgery. Additional demographic, social, electrodiagnostic, and mental health variables were assessed for associations with changes in the BCTQ score. The secondary outcomes included single questions rating satisfaction with the result of CTR as well as symptom changes and the Decision Regret Scale. Noneffective CTR was defined as a BCTQ score change of <1.0 point or reported dissatisfaction. RESULTS: Postoperatively, the BCTQ score improvement averaged 1.38 ± 0.77. Although 102 of 109 patients (94%) noted symptom improvement, 94 of 109 (86%) were satisfied with the result of CTR, and 78 of 109 patients (72%) demonstrated a meaningful change in the BCTQ score. Preoperative CTS-6 scores were not correlated with changes in BCTQ scores. CTS-6 scores were not associated with Decision Regret Scale scores, reported satisfaction, or the single-question assessment of symptom changes. Satisfaction, decision regret, and the single symptom change question were correlated with changes in the BCTQ score and each other. Dissatisfied patients were distinguished by a differential improvement in the BCTQ score (1.5 vs 0.7), but no preoperative variable consistently predicted noneffective CTR. CONCLUSIONS: The CTS-6 score does not predict changes in BCTQ scores after CTR. Patient satisfaction with surgical results is associated with postoperative changes in carpal tunnel symptoms but is not predictable using preoperative information. A single question of symptom change may offer an efficient assessment of CTR outcomes. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

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.

The relationship between depression, anxiety, and pain interference with therapy referral and utilization among patients with hand conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with upper extremity conditions may also experience symptoms of depression, anxiety, and pain that limit functional recovery. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study examined the impact of mental health and pain symptoms on referral rates to therapy and utilization of therapy services to achieve functional recovery among patients with common hand conditions. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients from one orthopedic center. METHODS: Data extraction provided demographics, the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision diagnoses, therapy referral, therapy visit counts, treatment goal attainment, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression, Anxiety, and Pain Interference scores. The chi-square test, t-test, and logistic regression analyses assessed associations between baseline PROMIS depression, anxiety, and pain interference to therapy referral, the number of therapy visits, and goal attainment. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent (172/351) of patients were referred to hand therapy. There was no relationship between three baseline PROMIS scores based on physician referral (t-test P values .32-.67) and no association between PROMIS scores and therapy utilization or goal attainment (Pearson correlation (r): 0.002 to 0.020, P > .05). Referral to therapy was most strongly associated with having a traumatic condition (P < .01). Patients with high depression, anxiety, and pain interference scores on average required one more therapy visit to achieve treatment goals (average visits: 3.7 vs 3.1; 4.1 vs 2.7; 3.4 vs 2.3, respectively). Fewer patients with high depression scores (50%) achieved their long-term goals than patients with low depression scores (69%, P = .20). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' baseline level of depressive symptoms and anxiety do not predict referrals to hand therapy by orthopedic hand surgeons. There is some indication that patients with increased depressive symptoms, anxiety, and pain interference require more therapy with fewer achieving all goals, suggesting that mental health status may affect response to therapy. Therapists may address mental health needs in treatment plans. Future studies should examine if nonreferred patients with depressive symptoms achieve maximal functional recovery.

Is Social Deprivation Associated with PROMIS Outcomes After Upper Extremity Fractures in Children?

BACKGROUND: We previously found that social deprivation was associated with worse perceived function and pain among children presenting with upper extremity fractures. We performed the current study to determine whether this differential in outcome scores would resolve after children received orthopaedic treatment for their fractures. This was needed to understand whether acute pain and impaired function were magnified by worse social deprivation or whether social deprivation was associated with differences in health perception even after injury resolution. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Comparing patients from the least socially deprived national quartile and those from the most deprived quartile, we asked: (1) Are there differences in age, gender, race, or fracture location among children with upper extremity fractures? (2) After controlling for relevant confounding variables, is worse social deprivation associated with worse self-reported Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores before and after the treatment of pediatric upper extremity fractures? (3) Is social deprivation associated with PROMIS score improvements as a result of fracture treatment? METHODS: In this this retrospective, comparative study, we considered data from 1131 pediatric patients (aged 8 to 17 years) treated nonoperatively at a single tertiary academic medical center for isolated upper extremity fractures between June 2016 and June 2017. We used the Area Deprivation Index to define the patient's social deprivation by national quartiles to analyze those in the most- and least-deprived quartiles. After excluding patients with missing zip codes (n = 181), 18% (172 of 950) lived in the most socially deprived national quartile, while 31% (295 of 950) lived in the least socially deprived quartile. Among these 467 patients in the most- and least-deprived quartiles, 28% (129 of 467) were excluded for lack of follow-up and 9% (41 of 467) were excluded for incomplete PROMIS scores. The remaining 297 patients were analyzed (107 most-deprived quartile, 190 least-deprived quartile) longitudinally in the current study; they included 237 from our initial cross-sectional investigation that only considered reported health at presentation (60 patients added and 292 removed from the 529 patients in the original study, based on updated Area Deprivation Index quartiles). The primary outcomes were the self-completed pediatric PROMIS Upper Extremity Function, Pain Interference, and secondarily PROMIS Peer Relationships computer-adaptive tests. In each PROMIS assessment, higher scores indicated more of that domain (such as, higher function scores indicate better function but a higher pain score indicates more pain), and clinically relevant differences were approximately 3 points. Bivariate analysis compared patient age, gender, race, fracture type, and PROMIS scores between the most- and least-deprived groups. A multivariable linear regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with the final PROMIS scores. RESULTS: Between the two quartiles, the only demographic and injury characteristic difference was race, with Black children being overrepresented in the most-deprived group (most deprived: white 53% [57 of 107], Black 45% [48 of 107], other 2% [2 of 107]; least deprived: white 92% [174 of 190], Black 4% [7 of 190), other 5% [9 of 190]; p < 0.001). At presentation, accounting for patient gender, race, and fracture location, the most socially deprived quartile remained independently associated with the initial PROMIS Upper Extremity (ß 5.8 [95% CI 3.2 to 8.4]; p < 0.001) scores. After accounting for patient gender, race, and number of days in care, we found that the social deprivation quartile remained independently associated with the final PROMIS Upper Extremity (ß 4.9 [95% CI 2.3 to 7.6]; p < 0.001) and Pain Interference scores (ß -4.4 [95% CI -2.3 to -6.6]; p < 0.001). Social deprivation quartile was not associated with any differential in treatment impact on change in PROMIS Upper Extremity function (8 ± 13 versus 8 ± 12; mean difference 0.4 [95% CI -3.4 to 2.6]; p = 0.79) or Pain Interference scores (8 ± 9 versus 6 ± 12; mean difference 1.1 [95% CI -1.4 to 3.5]; p = 0.39) from presentation to the conclusion of treatment. CONCLUSION: Delivering upper extremity fracture care produces substantial improvement in pain and function that is consistent regardless of a child's degree of social deprivation. However, as social deprivation is associated with worse perceived health at treatment initiation and conclusion, prospective interventional trials are needed to determine how orthopaedic surgeons can act to reduce the health disparities in children associated with social deprivation. As fractures prompt interaction with our health care system, the orthopaedic community may be well placed to identify children who could benefit from enrollment in proven community health initiatives or to advocate for multidisciplinary care coordinators such as social workers in fracture clinics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

Relevance of Diagnosed Depression and Antidepressants to PROMIS Depression Scores Among Hand Surgical Patients.

PURPOSE: We aimed to test the utility of screening for depressive symptoms in the hand surgical office focusing on chances of heightened depressive symptoms in patients with no history of diagnosed depression and by quantifying ongoing depressive symptoms among patients diagnosed with depression accounting for antidepressant use. The clinical importance of this study was predicated on the documented negative association between depressive symptoms and hand surgical outcomes. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed 351 patients presenting to a tertiary hand center between April 21, 2016, and November 22, 2017. Adult patients completed self-administered Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression computer adaptive tests at registration. Health records were examined for a past medical history of diagnosed depression and whether patients reported current use of prescription antidepressants. Mean PROMIS Depression scores were compared by analysis of variance (groups: no diagnosed depression, depression without medication, depression with medication). Four points represented a clinically relevant difference in PROMIS Depression scores between groups and Depression scores greater than 59.9 were categorized as having heightened depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (18%) had been diagnosed with depression. Thirty-four of these patients (55%) reported taking antidepressant medications. The PROMIS Depression scores indicated greater current depressive symptoms among patients with a history of diagnosed depression when not taking antidepressants (11 points worse than unaffected) and also among patients taking antidepressants (7 points worse than unaffected). Heightened depressive symptoms were detected in all groups but were more prevalent among those diagnosed with depression (36% with no medication, 29% with antidepressant medication) compared with unaffected patients (7%). CONCLUSIONS: Depression screening for heightened depressive symptoms identifies 1 in 14 patients without diagnosed depression and 1 in 3 patients diagnosed with depression as having currently heightened depressive symptoms. Hand surgeons can use PROMIS Depression screening in all patients and using this to guide referrals for depression treatment to ameliorate one confounder of hand surgical outcomes. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Symptom prevalence study II.

Applying the Delphi Method to Define a Focus for the National Outcomes Registry for Tracking the Hand (NORTH).

Surgical registries have provided reliable, generalizable, and applicable clinical data that have shaped many fields. Broad collection of defined data can answer clinical questions with greater numbers of patients and more ability to generalize to routine clinical care than randomized trials. National hand surgical registries exist outside the United States. Before the pursuit of a registry, the focus of such an effort must be defined to ensure that registry goals are feasible. This article presents the consensus process conducted by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand's Registry Task Force exploring potential diagnoses for a hand registry.

Role of strengthening during nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondyle tendinopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Lateral epicondyle tendinopathy (LET) is the most common cause of lateral elbow pain. The literature on rehabilitation of the condition encompasses a plethora of interventions with most current evidence indicating that stretches and some form of strengthening are vital components. However, patient outcomes are infrequently reported further than 12 weeks from the start of therapy and it is unclear which components of a home exercise program are necessary to alleviate symptoms up to one year from the initiation of a therapy program. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of the study is to determine if a therapy program with 4 to 6 visits spaced out over 12 weeks focusing on self-management and strengthening is more effective in reducing pain and improving function long term than the same program without strengthening, for individuals with LET. STUDY DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Ninety-four patients were randomly allocated into two groups: both groups received the interventions of education in pertinent pathoanatomy, stretching, pain management through rest and icing, and activity modification. Group 1 (n = 38) was also provided with a strengthening component to the home exercise program, whereas group 2 did not (n = 21). Our primary outcome measure was pain at rest and pain with activity; our secondary measure was the level of functional impairment as measured by the quick disabilities of arm shoulder and hand. Outcome measurements were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after initiation of therapy. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement with a moderate to large effect size in pain and function scores when compared with previous time point at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Pain continued to decrease for both groups from 24 weeks to 52 weeks, but interestingly, there was a significant increase with moderate effect size in the quick disabilities of arm shoulder and hand score at 52 weeks when compared with week 24. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups at any time point up to 52 weeks from the start of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a therapy program consisting of a low number of visits spaced out over 12 weeks based on education, stretches, activity modification, and pain management techniques is effective at reducing pain and increasing function in patients with LET. The addition of strengthening to this program did not improve outcomes. The therapy approach used in this study is consistent with the International Classification of Function guidelines and focuses on engaging patients in self-management of the condition through patient education and self-empowerment.

Understanding PROMIS.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly emphasized in health care. Some medical and orthopedic specialties have 1 or 2 primary PROs that are used across the discipline, whereas hand surgery has multiple PROs. The multitude of PROs gives hand surgeons flexibility because each provides slightly different information, but the number of options can present a daunting task when choosing which to use. The latest generation of PROs leverages computer adaptive testing and includes assessments of physical, mental, and social health. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System was funded by the National Institutes of Health to include a comprehensive set of health instruments that are not disease-specific; it has undergone several forms of validation and has been found to be comparable across medical specialties. This article discusses the details of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, how it compares with other outcomes instruments, and how it can be used in practice.

What is the Impact of Social Deprivation on Physical and Mental Health in Orthopaedic Patients?

BACKGROUND: The complex interrelationship among physical health, mental health, and social health has gained the attention of the medical community in recent years. Poor social health, also called social deprivation, has been linked to more disease and a more-negative impact from disease across a wide variety of health conditions. However, it remains unknown how social deprivation is related to physical and mental health in patients presenting for orthopaedic care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do patients living in zip codes with higher social deprivation report lower levels of physical function and higher levels of pain interference, depression, and anxiety as measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) at initial presentation to an orthopaedic provider than those from less deprived areas; and if so, is this relationship independent of other potentially confounding factors such as age, sex, and race? (2) Does the relationship between the level of social deprivation of a patient's community and that patient's physical function, pain interference, depression, and anxiety, as measured by PROMIS remain consistent across all orthopaedic subspecialties? (3) Are there differences in the proportion of individuals from areas of high and low levels of social deprivation seen by the various orthopaedic subspecialties at one large, tertiary orthopaedic referral center? METHODS: This cross-sectional evaluation analyzed 7500 new adult patients presenting to an orthopaedic center between August 1, 2016 and December 15, 2016. Patients completed PROMIS Physical Function-v1.2, Pain Interference-v1.1, Depression-v1.0, and Anxiety-v1.0 Computer Adaptive Tests. The Area Deprivation Index, a composite measure of community-level social deprivation, based on multiple census metrics such as income, education level, and housing type for a given nine-digit zip code was used to estimate individual social deprivation. Statistical analysis determined the effect of disparate area deprivation (based on most- and least-deprived national quartiles) for the entire sample as well as for patients categorized by the orthopaedic subspecialty providing care. Comparisons of PROMIS scores among these groups were based on an MCID of 5 points for each PROMIS domain (Effect size 0.5). RESULTS: Patients living in zip codes with the highest levels of social deprivation had worse mean scores across all four PROMIS domains when compared with those living in the least-deprived quartile (physical function 38 +/- 9 versus 43 +/- 9, mean difference 4, 95% CI, 3.7-5.0; p < 0.001; pain interference 64 +/- 8 versus 60+/-8, mean difference -4, 95% CI, -4.8 to -3.7; p < 0.001; depression 50+/-11 versus 45+/-8, mean difference -5, 95% CI, -6.0 to -4.5; p < 0.001; anxiety 56+/-11 versus 50 +/-10, mean difference -6, 95% CI, -6.9 to -5.4; p < 0.001). There were no differences in physical function, pain interference, depression, or anxiety PROMIS scores between patients from the most- and least-deprived quartiles who presented to the subspecialties of spine (physical function, mean 35+/-7 versus 35+/-7; p = 0.872; pain interference, 67+/-7 versus 66+/-7; p = 0.562; depression, 54+/-12 versus 51 +/-10; p = 0.085; and anxiety, 60+/-11 versus 58 +/-9; p = 0.163), oncology (physical function, mean 33+/-9 versus 38 +/-13; p = 0.105; pain interference, 68+/-9 versus 64+/-10; p = 0.144; depression, 51+/-10 versus 52+/-13; p = 0.832; anxiety, 59+/-11 versus 59+/-10 p = 0.947); and trauma (physical function, 35+/-11 versus 32+/-10; p = 0.268; pain interference, 66+/-7 versus 67+/-6; p = 0.566; depression, 52+/-12 versus 53+/-11; p = 0.637; and anxiety, 59+/-12 versus 60+/-9 versus; p = 0.800). The social deprivation-based differences in all PROMIS domains remained for the subspecialties of foot/ankle, where mean differences ranged from 3 to 6 points on the PROMIS domains (p < 0.001 for all four domains), joint reconstruction where mean differences ranged from 4 to 7 points on the PROMIS domains (p < 0.001 for all four domains), sports medicine where mean differences in PROMIS scores ranged from 3 to 5 between quartiles (p < 0.001 for all four domains), and finally upper extremity where mean differences in PROMIS scores between the most- and least-deprived quartiles were five points for each PROMIS domain (p < 0.001 for all four domains). The proportion of individuals from the most- and least-deprived quartiles was distinct when looking across all seven subspecialty categories; only 11% of patients presenting to sports medicine providers and 17% of patients presenting to upper extremity providers were from the most-deprived quartile, while 39% of trauma patients were from the most-deprived quartile (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic patients must be considered within the context of their social environment because it influences patient-reported physical and mental health as well as has potential implications for treatment and prognosis. Social deprivation may need to be considered when using patient-reported outcomes to judge the value of care delivered between practices or across specialties. Further studies should examine potential interventions to improve the perceived health of patients residing in communities with greater social deprivation and to determine how social health influences ultimate orthopaedic treatment outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Mental and Physical Health Disparities in Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Living With High Levels of Social Deprivation.

PURPOSE: Social, mental, and physical health have a complex interrelationship with each influencing individuals' overall health experience. Social circumstances have been shown to influence symptom intensity and magnitude of disability for a variety of medical conditions. We tested the null hypothesis that social deprivation would not impact Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores or objective health factors in patients presenting for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from 367 patients who presented for evaluation of CTS to 1 of 6 hand surgeons at a tertiary academic center between August 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. Patients completed PROMIS Physical Function-v1.2, Pain Interference-v1.1, Depression-v1.0, and Anxiety-v1.0 Computer Adaptive Tests. The Area Deprivation Index was used to quantify social deprivation. Medical record review determined duration of symptoms, tobacco and opioid use, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) for each patient. Sample demographics, PROMIS scores, and objective health measures were compared in groups defined by national quartiles of social deprivation. RESULTS: Patients with CTS living in the most deprived quartile had worse mean scores across all 4 PROMIS domains compared with those living in the least deprived quartile. A higher proportion of individuals from the most deprived quartile had a heightened level of anxiety than those in the least deprived quartile (37.3% vs 12.6%). The mean CCI was higher in the most deprived quartile, as was the proportion of individuals using tobacco. There were no differences in opioid use or symptom duration between patients from each deprivation quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Social deprivation is associated with worse patient-reported health measures in patients with CTS. Compared with those from the least deprived areas, patients from the most deprived areas also have a greater comorbidity burden and higher rates of tobacco use at presentation to a hand surgeon. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.