Optimizing Orthopaedic Trauma Implant Pricing Through a Data-Driven and Surgeon-Integrated Approach.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether market-based pricing could be coupled with surgeon integration into negotiation strategies to achieve lower pricing levels for orthopaedic trauma implants. A secondary aim was to identify specific types of implants that may offer larger opportunities for cost savings. METHODS: Market pricing levels were reviewed from 2 industry implant databases. This information was used by surgeons and supply chain management at our institution to select appropriate target pricing levels (25th percentile) for commonly used orthopaedic trauma implants. Target price values were provided to the existing 12 vendors used by our institution with a clear expectation that vendors meet these thresholds. RESULTS: Benchmark modeling projected a potential savings of 20.0% over our prior annual spend on trauma implants. After 2 rounds of negotiation, savings amounted to 23.0% of prior annual spend. Total savings exceeded 1,000,000 USD with 11 of 12 vendors (91.7%) offering net savings. Total percent savings were highest for external fixators, drill bits, and K-wires. Plates and screws comprised the greatest proportion of our prior annual spend and achieved similar savings. CONCLUSION: A surgeon and supply chain coordinated effort led to major cost savings without a need for consolidation of vendors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Incidence and Management of Articular Impaction in Geriatric Olecranon Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Olecranon fractures are common in the elderly. Articular impaction is encountered occasionally, but the incidence and outcomes after treatment of this injury pattern have not been well characterized. METHODS: We evaluated a cohort of geriatric olecranon fractures to determine the incidence of articular impaction and describe a technique for open reduction and internal fixation. RESULTS: Of the 63 patients in our series, 31 had associated intraarticular impaction (49.2%). Patients with articular impaction did not have significantly different rates of postoperative complications (11/31, 35.5% versus 10/31, 32.3%; P = 1.00) or revision surgery (10/31, 32.3% versus 8/31, 25.8%; P = 0.780) compared with those without articular impaction. CONCLUSION: Articular impaction is a common feature of geriatric olecranon fractures. Surgeons must maintain a high index of suspicion and have a surgical plan in place for managing this component of the injury.

The Impact of Subspecialty Fellows on Orthopaedic Resident Surgical Experience: A Multicenter Study of 51,111 Cases.

INTRODUCTION: Meaningful participation in surgery is important for orthopaedic resident education. This study aimed to quantify the effect of fellows on resident surgical experience. We hypothesized that as fellowship programs expanded, resident caseload would decrease, whereas "double-scrubbed" cases would increase. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included 9 years of surgical caselog data from two orthopaedic residency programs. Six subspecialty services on which fellow number varied over time were included (trauma, spine, foot and ankle, adult reconstruction, and hand). Case volume and personnel composition per case were extracted. Statistical analysis was performed with two-sample equal variance Student t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 51,111 cases were assessed. Surgical volume increased across all sites/services over time. Fellow numbers did not affect average resident caseload. However, in years with more fellows, an 11% decrease in one-on-one resident-attending cases (P = 0.002) and a 17% increase in resident-fellow-attending "double-scrubbed" cases was observed (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Increasing orthopaedic fellows did not affect resident case volume but resulted in fewer one-on-one cases with the attending and more "double-scrubbed" cases with a fellow. The implications of these findings to resident education require further study, but orthopaedic educators should be aware of these findings to try to maximize educational opportunities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Orthopedic Surgeons Have Inadequate Knowledge of the Cost of Trauma-Related Imaging Studies.

Radiographic imaging is integral to the diagnosis and treatment of orthopedic injuries. Previous studies have shown that orthopedists consistently underestimate the price of implants, but their knowledge of imaging charges is unknown. This study evaluated whether orthopedic residents and faculty could accurately estimate charges of imaging modalities at their respective institutions. A survey with 10 common imaging studies was sent to 8 academic level I trauma centers. Participants estimated the total charge of each imaging modality. This was compared with the actual charge at their institution. Seven centers produced 162 responders: 74 faculty and 88 residents. The differences between the estimated cost and the billing charge were calculated and broken down by training level and imaging modality. Overall, imaging charges were underestimated by 31% (P<.001), with 19.4% of estimates being within 20% of actual charges (95% confidence interval, 19.1-19.9). There was no difference between training levels (P=.69). There was greater than 1000% variation in charges between institutions. Orthopedists across training levels underestimate hospital charges associated with common imaging studies, and there is a large variation in charges between centers. Awareness of charges is important because charges affect clinical decision making and are relevant to practicing both cost-conscious and clinically sound medicine. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(5):e454-e459.].

Orthopaedic Trauma Quality Measures for Value-Based Health Care Delivery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the current portfolio of quality measures and candidate quality measures that address orthopaedic trauma surgery. DATA SOURCES: We systematically reviewed the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Quality Payment Program for quality measures relevant to fracture surgery. We also searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase/Scopus, and Cochrane libraries. DATA EXTRACTION: Clinical practice guidelines were included as candidate quality measures if their development was in accordance with the Institute of Medicine criteria for development of clinical practice guidelines, were based on consistent clinical evidence including at least one Level I study, and carried the strongest possible recommendation by the developing body. We categorized the measures as structure, process, or outcome domains according to the framework described by Donabedian. DATA SYNTHESIS: From the 3809 articles initially identified and screened, a total of 189 combined quality or candidate quality measures were extracted from our review. With regard to the Donabedian framework, there were a total of 7% (13/189) structure, 52% process (99/189), and 41% (77/189) outcome measures identified. CONCLUSIONS: As quality measures progressively inform reimbursement in value-based health care models, quality measures evaluating the care of patients sustaining a fracture will become increasingly relevant to orthopaedic trauma surgeons.

Assessment of Open Syndesmosis Reduction Techniques in an Unbroken Fibula Model: Visualization Versus Palpation.

OBJECTIVES: This cadaveric study sought to evaluate the accuracy of syndesmotic reduction using direct visualization via an anterolateral approach compared with palpation of the syndesmosis through a laterally based incision. METHODS: Ten cadaveric specimens were obtained and underwent baseline computed tomography (CT) scans. Subsequently, a complete syndesmotic injury was simulated by transecting the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament, posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament, transverse ligament, interosseous membrane, and deltoid ligament. Three orthopaedic trauma surgeons were then asked to reduce each syndesmosis using direct visualization via an anterolateral approach. Specimens were then stabilized and underwent postreduction CT scans. Fixation was then removed, the anterolateral exposure was closed, and the surgeons were then asked to reduce the syndesmosis using palpation only via a direct lateral approach. Specimens were again instrumented and underwent postreduction CT scans. Two-tailed paired t tests were used to compare reductions with baseline scans with significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between reduction via direct visualization or palpation via lateral approach when compared with baseline scans. Although measurements did not reach significance, there was a tendency toward external rotation, and anteromedial translation with direct visualization, and a trend toward fibular external rotation and posterolateral translation with palpation. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in reduction quality using direct visualization or palpation to assess the syndesmosis. Surgeons may therefore choose either technique when reducing syndesmotic injures based on personal preference and other injury factors.

Prophylactic Fixation Can Be Cost-effective in Preventing a Contralateral Bisphosphonate-associated Femur Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of fractures associated with osteoporosis but increase the risk of atypical subtrochanteric femur fractures. After unilateral atypical femur fracture, there is risk of contralateral fracture, but the indications for prophylactic fixation are controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study is to use Markov modeling to determine whether contralateral prophylactic femur fracture fixation is cost-effective after a bisphosphonate-associated atypical femur fracture and, if so, what patient-related factors may influence that determination. METHODS: Markov modeling was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of contralateral prophylactic fixation after an initial atypical femur fracture. Simulated patients aged 60 to 90 years were included and separated into standard and high fracture risk cohorts. Patients with standard fracture risk were defined as those presenting with one atypical femur fracture but without symptoms or findings in the contralateral femur, whereas patients with high fracture risk were typified as those with more than one risk factor, including Asian ethnicity, prodromal pain, femoral geometry changes, or radiographic findings in the contralateral femur. Outcome probabilities and utilities were derived from studies matching to patient characteristics, and fragility fracture literature was used when atypical femur fracture data were not available. Associated costs were largely derived from Medicare 2015 reimbursement rates. Sensitivity analysis was performed on all model parameters within defined ranges. RESULTS: Prophylactic fixation for a 70-year-old patient with standard risk for fracture costs USD 131,300/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for high-risk patients costs USD 22,400/QALY. Sensitivity analysis revealed that prophylaxis for high-risk patients is cost-effective at USD 100,000/QALY when the cost of prophylaxis was less than USD 29,400, the probability of prophylaxis complications was less than 21%, or if the patient was younger than 89 years old. The parameters to which the model was most sensitive were the cost of prophylaxis, patient age, and probability of prophylaxis-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic fixation of the contralateral side after unilateral atypical femur fracture is not cost-effective for standard-risk patients but is cost-effective among high-risk patients between 60 and 89 years of age with a high risk for an atypical femur fracture defined by patients with more than one risk factor such as Asian ethnicity, prodromal pain, varus proximal femur geometry, femoral bowing, or radiographic changes such as periosteal beaking and a transverse radiolucent line. However, our findings are based on several key assumptions for modeling such as the probability of fractures and complications, the costs associated for each health state, and the risks of surgical treatment. Future research should prospectively evaluate the degree of risk contributed by known radiographic and demographic parameters to guide management of the contralateral femur after a patient presents with an atypical femur fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analyses.

Disparities in Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty in the Management of Geriatric Femoral Neck Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Recent clinical evidence suggests that total hip arthroplasty (THA) provides improved clinical outcomes as compared to hemiarthroplasty (HA) for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly individuals. However, THA is still utilized relatively infrequently. Few studies have evaluated the factors affecting utilization and the role socioeconomics plays in THA versus HA. METHODS: In the United States, the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to identify patients treated surgically for femoral neck fracture, between 2009 and 2010. Patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes for closed, transcervical femoral neck fractures and closed fractures at unspecified parts of the femoral neck. All candidate predictors of THA versus HA were entered into a multilevel mixed-effect regression model. RESULTS: Older patient age, being Asian or Pacific Islander, and having Medicaid payer status were all associated with lower odds of receiving THA. Patients with private insurance including Health Maintenance organization (HMO) had higher odds of THA as did patients with other insurance. Odds of THA were significantly lower among patients in teaching hospitals and higher at hospitals with greater THA volume. DISCUSSION: Ethnicity, payer status, hospital size, and institutional THA volume were all associated with the utilization of THA versus HA in the treatment of geriatric femoral neck fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Retrospective Cohort study.

Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Jones Fractures: A Decision Analysis Model.

Optimal management of metadiaphyseal fifth metatarsal fractures (Jones fractures) remains controversial. Decision analysis can optimize clinical decision-making based on available evidence and patient preferences. We conducted a study to establish the determinants of decision-making and to determine the optimal treatment strategy for Jones fractures using a decision analysis model. Probabilities for potential outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment of Jones fractures were determined from a review of the literature. Patient preferences for outcomes were obtained by questionnaire completed by 32 healthy adults with no history of foot fracture. Derived values were used in the model as a measure of utility. A decision tree was constructed, and fold-back and sensitivity analyses were performed to determine optimal treatment. Nonoperative treatment was associated with a value of 7.74, and operative treatment with an intramedullary screw was associated with a value of 7.88 given the outcome probabilities and utilities studied, making operative treatment the optimal strategy. When parameters were varied, nonoperative treatment was favored when the likelihood of healing with nonoperative treatment rose above 82% and when the probability of healing after surgery fell below 92%. In this decision analysis model, operative fixation is the preferred management strategy for Jones fractures.

Delayed union and nonunions: epidemiology, clinical issues, and financial aspects.

Fracture healing is a critically important clinical event for fracture patients and for clinicians who take care of them. The clinical evaluation of fracture healing is based on both radiographic findings and clinical findings. Risk factors for delayed union and nonunion include patient dependent factors such as advanced age, medical comorbidities, smoking, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory use, various genetic disorders, metabolic disease and nutritional deficiency. Patient independent factors include fracture pattern, location, and displacement, severity of soft tissue injury, degree of bone loss, quality of surgical treatment and presence of infection. Established nonunions can be characterised in terms of biologic capacity, deformity, presence or absence of infection, and host status. Hypertrophic, oligotrophic and atrophic radiographic appearances allow the clinician to make inferences about the degree of fracture stability and the biologic viability of the fracture fragments while developing a treatment plan. Non-unions are difficult to treat and have a high financial impact. Indirect costs, such as productivity losses, are the key driver for the overall costs in fracture and non-union patients. Therefore, all strategies that help to reduce healing time with faster resumption of work and activities not only improve medical outcome for the patient, they also help reduce the financial burden in fracture and non-union patients.

Survey finds few orthopedic surgeons know the costs of the devices they implant.

Orthopedic procedures represent a large expense to the Medicare program, and costs of implantable medical devices account for a large proportion of those procedures' costs. Physicians have been encouraged to consider cost in the selection of devices, but several factors make acquiring cost information difficult. To assess physicians' levels of knowledge about costs, we asked orthopedic attending physicians and residents at seven academic medical centers to estimate the costs of thirteen commonly used orthopedic devices between December 2012 and March 2013. The actual cost of each device was determined at each institution; estimates within 20 percent of the actual cost were considered correct. Among the 503 physicians who completed our survey, attending physicians correctly estimated the cost of the device 21 percent of the time, and residents did so 17 percent of the time. Thirty-six percent of physicians and 75 percent of residents rated their knowledge of device costs "below average" or "poor." However, more than 80 percent of all respondents indicated that cost should be "moderately," "very," or "extremely" important in the device selection process. Surgeons need increased access to information on the relative prices of devices and should be incentivized to participate in cost containment efforts.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of primary arthroscopic stabilization versus nonoperative treatment for first-time anterior glenohumeral dislocations.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of initial observation versus surgery for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. METHODS: The clinical scenario of first-time anterior glenohumeral dislocation was simulated using a Markov model (where variables change over time depending on previous states). Nonoperative outcomes include success (no recurrence) and recurrence; surgical outcomes include success, recurrence, and complications of infection or stiffness. Probabilities for outcomes were determined from published literature. Costs were tabulated from Medicare Current Procedural Terminology data, as well as hospital and office billing records. We performed microsimulation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis running 6 models for 1,000 patients over a period of 15 years. The 6 models tested were male versus female patients aged 15 years versus 25 years versus 35 years. RESULTS: Primary surgery was less costly and more effective for 15-year-old boys, 15-year-old girls, and 25-year-old men. For the remaining scenarios (25-year-old women and 35-year-old men and women), primary surgery was also more effective but was more costly. However, for these scenarios, primary surgery was still very cost-effective (cost per quality-adjusted life-year, <$25,000). After 1 recurrence, surgery was less costly and more effective for all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Primary arthroscopic stabilization is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for first-time anterior shoulder dislocations in the cohorts studied. By use of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, surgery was more cost-effective than nonoperative treatment for the majority of patients studied in the model. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic and decision analysis.

Assessment of compromised fracture healing.

No standard criteria exist for diagnosing fracture nonunion, and studies suggest that assessment of fracture healing varies among orthopaedic surgeons. This variability can be problematic in both clinical and orthopaedic trauma research settings. An understanding of risk factors for nonunion and of diagnostic tests used to assess fracture healing can facilitate a systematic approach to evaluation and management. Risk factors for nonunion include medical comorbidities, age, and the characteristics of the injury. The method of fracture management also influences healing. Comprehensive evaluation includes an assessment of the patient's symptoms, signs, and immune and endocrine status as well as the biologic capacity of the fracture, presence of infection, and quality of reduction and fixation. Diagnostic tests include plain radiography, CT, ultrasonography, fluoroscopy, bone scan, MRI, and several laboratory tests, including assays for bone turnover markers in the peripheral circulation. A systematic approach to evaluating fracture union can help surgeons determine the timing and nature of interventions.

Operative versus nonoperative treatment after primary traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocation: expected-value decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management strategy for primary traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocation remains controversial. Patients have traditionally been managed nonoperatively, but high recurrence rates in certain populations have led to increased interest in early operative stabilization. The purpose of this study was to use expected-value decision analysis to determine the optimal management strategy--nonoperative treatment or arthroscopic stabilization--for a first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Probabilities for the occurrences of the potential outcomes after nonoperative and arthroscopic treatment of a first-time traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocation were determined from a systematic review of the literature. Utilities for these outcomes were obtained from a questionnaire on patient preferences completed by 42 subjects without a history of shoulder injury. A decision tree was constructed, fold-back analysis was performed to determine optimal management, and sensitivity analyses were used to determine the effect on decision making of varying outcome probabilities and utilities. RESULTS: Nonoperative treatment was associated with a utility value of 5.9 and early arthroscopic surgery with a value of 7.6. On sensitivity analysis, it was found that when the rate of recurrence after nonoperative treatment falls below 32% or when the utility value for successful arthroscopic stabilization falls below 6.6, nonoperative treatment is the preferred management strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic stabilization was the preferred strategy after a primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation. In clinical settings where the likelihood of recurrent instability is low after nonoperative care or when an informed patient has an aversion to surgery, nonoperative treatment may be the preferred treatment strategy.

Management of radial nerve palsy associated with humeral shaft fracture: a decision analysis model.

PURPOSE: When managing radial nerve palsy associated with a humerus fracture, both surgeon and patient must balance the risks and benefits of performing an invasive surgical procedure to address a functional deficit that is likely, but not certain, to recover with nonsurgical management. The purpose of this study was to better understand the determinants of optimal management strategy using expected-value decision analysis. METHODS: Probabilities for the occurrences of the potential outcomes after initial observation or early surgery were determined from a systematic review of the literature. Scores for these outcomes were obtained from a questionnaire on patient preferences completed by 82 subjects without a history of humerus fracture and radial nerve palsy and used in the model as a measure of utility. A decision tree was constructed, fold-back analysis was performed to determine optimal treatment, and sensitivity analyses were used to determine the effect on decision making of varying outcome probabilities and utilities. RESULTS: Observation was associated with a value of 8.4 and early surgery a value of 6.7 given the outcome probabilities and utilities studied in this model, making observation the optimal management strategy. When parameters were varied in sensitivity analysis, it was noted that when the rate of recovery after initial observation falls below 40% or when the utility value for successful early surgery rises above 9.4, early surgery is the preferred management strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Initial observation was the preferred strategy. In clinical settings in which the likelihood of spontaneous recovery of nerve function is low or when an informed patient has a strong preference for surgery, early surgery may optimize outcome. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis II.

Operative versus nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon rupture: expected-value decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management strategy for acute Achilles tendon rupture is controversial. PURPOSE: To determine the optimal management by using expected-value decision analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Outcome probabilities were determined from a systematic literature review, and patient-derived utility values were obtained from a visual analog scale questionnaire. A decision tree was constructed, and fold-back analysis was used to determine optimal treatment. Sensitivity analyses were used to determine the effect of varying outcome probabilities and utilities on decision-making. RESULTS: Outcome probabilities (expressed as operative; nonoperative) were as follows: well (0.762; 0.846), rerupture (0.022; 0.121), major complication (0.030; 0.025), moderate complication (0.075; 0.003), and mild complication (0.111; 0.005). Outcome utility values were well operative (7.9), well nonoperative (7.0), rerupture (2.6), major complication (1.0), moderate complication (3.5), and mild complication (4.7). Fold-back analysis revealed operative treatment as the optimal management strategy (6.89 versus 6.30). Threshold values were determined for the probability of a moderate complication from operative treatment (0.21) and the utility of rerupture (6.8). CONCLUSIONS: Operative management was the optimal strategy, given the outcome probabilities and patient utilities we studied. Nonoperative management was favored by increasing rates of operative complications; operative, by decreasing utility of rerupture. We advocate a model of doctor-patient shared decision-making in which both outcome probabilities and patient preferences are considered.