Screw Thread Configuration Has No Effect on Outcomes of In Situ Fixation for Stable Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis.

BACKGROUND: No consensus exists regarding the optimal surgical management of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). Treatment goals include avoiding slip progression and sequelae such as avascular necrosis (AVN). Factors associated with surgical implants merit further research. This study investigates the effect of screw thread configuration and the number of screws on surgical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 152 patients undergoing cannulated, stainless steel, in situ screw fixation of SCFE between January 2005 and April 2018 were included. Procedure laterality, screw number and thread configuration (partially threaded/fully threaded), bilateral diagnosis, Loder classification, final follow-up, patient demographics, and endocrinopathy history were analyzed. Primary outcomes were return to the operating room (ROR), AVN, hardware failure/removal, and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). RESULTS: Most patients received a single (86.2%), partially threaded (81.6%) screw; most were unilateral (67.8%) and stable (79.6%). Mean follow-up was 2.0±2.7 years, with a 15.8% rate of ROR, 5.3% exhibiting AVN, 6.6% exhibiting FAI, and 9.2% experiencing hardware failure/removal. Number of screws was the sole predictor of ROR [odds ratio (OR)=3.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-9.49]. Unstable SCFE increased the odds of AVN (OR=38.44; 95% CI: 4.35-339.50) as did older age (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.01-2.03). Female sex increased risk for FAI (OR=4.87, 95% CI: 1.20-19.70), and bilateral SCFE elevated risk for hardware failure/removal versus unilateral SCFE (OR=4.41, 95% CI: 1.39-14.00). Screw thread configuration had no significant effect on any outcome (for each, P ≥0.159). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ROR, AVN, FAI, and hardware failure/removal did not differ between patients treated with partially threaded or fully threaded screws. The use of 2 screws was associated with an increased likelihood of ROR. These findings suggest that screw thread configuration has no impact on complication rates, whereas screw number may be an important consideration in SCFE fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective cohort study.

Implementing an EMR-Based Referral for Smoking Quitline Services with Additional Provider Education, a Cluster-Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of their effectiveness, free smoking quitlines are underused. The best way to educate providers about and encourage use of quitlines is not established. We examined if electronic medical record (EMR)-integrated best practices alerts (BPAs) with or without additional provider education resulted in increased quitline referrals. METHODS: Waitlist-controlled, cluster-randomized trial of primary care practices assigned to three arms. Providers in participating sites received a new EMR-based BPA for quitline referral and additional education outreach visits, the BPA alone, or usual care. The study was conducted in 2 phases: phase 1 from April 17 to October 16, 2017, and phase 2 from November 9, 2017, to May 8, 2018. In phase 2, the usual-care sites were randomized to either of the two intervention arms. The unit of randomization was primary care practice site. All in-office, primary care provider visits with smokers were included. The primary outcome was referral to the quitline. Secondary outcomes included patient acceptance and enrollment in quitline services. RESULTS: Twenty-two practice sites were enrolled. Smoking prevalence at sites ranged from 4.4 to 23%. In phase 1, the BPA-plus-education arm had 5636 eligible encounters and 405 referrals (referral rate 7.2%) while the BPA-only arm had 6857 eligible encounters and 623 referrals (referral rate 9.1%). The usual-care arm had 7434 encounters but no referrals. Comparing the BPA-plus arm to the BPA-only arm, the odds ratio of referral was 0.76 (CI 0.3-1.8). In phase 2, the combined BPA-plus-education sites had 8516 eligible encounters and 475 referrals (rate 5.6%). The BPA-only sites had 9134 eligible encounters and 470 referrals (rate 5.2%). The odds ratio comparing the 2 groups in phase 2 was 1.06 (0.5-2.2). CONCLUSIONS: An EMR-based BPA can improve the number of referrals to quitline services, though more work is needed to improve providers' use of quitlines and low patient acceptance of services. Trial Registration NIH Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03229356.

Cost implications of PSA screening differ by age.

BACKGROUND: Multiple guidelines seek to alter rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening. The costs borne by payers associated with PSA-based screening for men of different age groups-including the costs of screening and subsequent diagnosis, treatment, and adverse events-remain uncertain. We sought to develop a model of PSA costs that could be used by payers and health care systems to inform cost considerations under a range of different scenarios. METHODS: We determined the prevalence of PSA screening among men aged 50 and higher using 2013-2014 data from a large, multispecialty group, obtained reimbursed costs associated with screening, diagnosis, and treatment from a commercial health plan, and identified transition probabilities for biopsy, diagnosis, treatment, and complications from the literature to generate a cost model. We estimated annual total costs for groups of men ages 50-54, 55-69, and 70+ years, and varied annual prostate cancer screening prevalence in each group from 5 to 50% and tested hypothetical examples of different test characteristics (e.g., true/false positive rate). RESULTS: Under the baseline screening patterns, costs of the PSA screening represented 10.1% of the total costs; costs of biopsies and associated complications were 23.3% of total costs; and, although only 0.3% of all screen eligible patients were treated, they accounted for 66.7% of total costs. For each 5-percentage point decrease in PSA screening among men aged 70 and older for a single calendar year, total costs associated with prostate cancer screening decreased by 13.8%. For each 5-percentage point decrease in PSA screening among men 50-54 and 55-69 years old, costs were 2.3% and 7.3% lower respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With constrained financial resources and with national pressure to decrease use of clinically unnecessary PSA-based prostate cancer screening, there is an opportunity for cost savings, especially by focusing on the downstream costs disproportionately associated with screening men 70 and older.