How many sites should an orthopedic trauma prospective multicenter trial have? A marginal analysis of the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium completed trials.

BACKGROUND: Multicenter trials in orthopedic trauma are costly, yet crucial to advance the science behind clinical care. The number of sites is a key cost determinant. Each site has a fixed overhead cost, so more sites cost more to the study. However, more sites can reduce total costs by shortening the study duration. We propose to determine the optimal number of sites based on known costs and predictable site enrollment. METHODS: This retrospective marginal analysis utilized administrative and financial data from 12 trials completed by the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium. The studies varied in size, design, and clinical focus. Enrollment across the studies ranged from 1054 to 33 patients. Design ranged from an observational study with light data collection to a placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Initial modeling identified the optimal number of sites for each study and sensitivity analyses determined the sensitivity of the model to variation in fixed overhead costs. RESULTS: No study was optimized in terms of the number of participating sites. Excess sites ranged from 2 to 39. Excess costs associated with extra sites ranged from $17K to $330K with a median excess cost of $96K. Excess costs were, on average, 7% of the total study budget. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that studies with higher overhead costs require more sites to complete the study as quickly as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support that this model may be used by clinical researchers to achieve future study goals in a more cost-effective manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Please see Table 1 for individual trial registration numbers and dates of registration.

Effect of Aspirin Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Thromboprophylaxis on Medication Satisfaction and Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after orthopaedic trauma. However, recent evidence suggests that aspirin is similar in efficacy and safety. To understand patients' experiences with these medications, we compared patients' satisfaction and out-of-pocket costs after thromboprophylaxis with aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of the PREVENTion of CLots in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREVENT CLOT) trial, conducted at 21 trauma centers in the U.S. and Canada. We included adult patients with an operatively treated extremity fracture or a pelvic or acetabular fracture. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) twice daily or 81 mg of aspirin twice daily for thromboprophylaxis. The duration of the thromboprophylaxis, including post-discharge prescription, was based on hospital protocols. The study outcomes included patient satisfaction with and out-of-pocket costs for their thromboprophylactic medication measured on ordinal scales. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 12,211 patients (mean age and standard deviation [SD], 45 ± 18 years; 62% male), 9725 of whom completed the question regarding their satisfaction with the medication and 6723 of whom reported their out-of-pocket costs. The odds of greater satisfaction were 2.6 times higher for patients assigned to aspirin than those assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (odds ratio [OR]: 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.39 to 2.80; p < 0.001). Overall, the odds of incurring any out-of-pocket costs for thromboprophylaxis medication were 51% higher for patients assigned to aspirin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.37 to 1.66; p < 0.001). However, patients assigned to aspirin had substantially lower odds of out-of-pocket costs of at least $25 (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.18; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of aspirin substantially improved patients' satisfaction with their medication after orthopaedic trauma. While aspirin use increased the odds of incurring any out-of-pocket costs, it protected against costs of ≥$25, potentially improving health equity for thromboprophylaxis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Finding Your Job in Orthopaedic Trauma: A Survey Revealing the Cold Hard Facts.

OBJECTIVES: Finding a first job after fellowship can be stressful due to the uncertainty about which resources to use, including fellowship program directors, residency faculty, and other sources. There are more than 90 orthopaedic trauma fellows seeking jobs annually. We surveyed orthopaedic trauma fellows to determine the job search process. DESIGN: An anonymous 37-question survey. SETTING: Online Survey. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Orthopaedic trauma fellows from the 5 fellowship-cycle years of 2016-2021. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: The primary questions were related to the job search process, current job, and work details. The secondary questions addressed job satisfaction. Data analysis was performed using STATA 17. RESULTS: There were 159 responses (40%). Most of the respondents completed a fellowship at an academic program (84%). Many (50%) took an academic job and 24% were hospital employed. Sixteen percent had a job secured before fellowship and 49% went on 2-3 interviews. Word of mouth was the top resource for finding a job (53%) compared with fellowship program director (46%) and residency faculty (33%). While 82% reported ending up in their first-choice job, 34% of respondents felt they "settled." The number of trauma cases was important (62%), ranked above compensation (52%) as a factor affecting job choice. Surgeons who needed to supplement their practice (46%) did so with primary and revision total joints (37%). CONCLUSIONS: Jobs were most often found by word of mouth. Most fellows landed their first job choice, but still a third of respondents reporting settling on a job. Case volume played a significant role in factors affecting job choice.

Musculoskeletal Infection in Orthopaedic Trauma: Assessment of the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection.

Fracture-related infections (FRIs) are among the most common complications following fracture fixation, and they have a huge economic and functional impact on patients. Because consensus guidelines with respect to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this major complication are scarce, delegates from different countries gathered in Philadelphia in July 2018 as part of the Second International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection. This paper summarizes the discussion and recommendations from that consensus meeting, using the Delphi technique, with a focus on FRIs. A standardized definition that was based on diagnostic criteria was endorsed, which will hopefully improve reporting and research on FRIs in the future. Furthermore, this paper provides a grade of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, or consensus) for strategies and practices that prevent and treat infection. The grade of evidence is based on the quality of evidence as utilized by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The guidelines presented herein focus not only on the appropriate use of antibiotics, but also on practices for the timing of fracture fixation, soft-tissue coverage, and bone defect and hardware management. We hope that this summary as well as the full document by the International Consensus Group are utilized by those who are charged with musculoskeletal care internationally to optimize their management strategies for the prevention and treatment of FRIs.

Patient Reported Outcomes: The Foundation of Value.

As we transition from volume-based to value-based health care, orthopedic surgeons must understand the role of outcomes in measuring value. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer a number of advantages in orthopedic trauma compared with traditional clinical and radiographic results while also being an important indicator of the patient's perception of their condition. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, developed and funded by the National Institutes of Health, has a number of features that make PRO date collection less burdensome for providers and patients. Patient-specific factors, including comorbidities, mental health, social support, and preinjury function need to be accounted for in our assessment, because all of these factors have demonstrated an impact on outcomes. Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of how they can transition their practice in an era of value-based health care in a manner that will benefit their patients and provide insight into their own clinical practice. Prospective collection of PROs is no longer limited to academic surgeons conducting research, and all orthopedic surgeons should consider incorporating PROs into their daily clinical practice. Orthopedic surgeons must maintain an active role in the development of policies and reimbursement models to advocate for and serve our patients.

Patient Outcomes in Orthopaedic Trauma: How to Evaluate if Your Treatment Is Really Working?

Outcomes are critical to gauge the success of our treatments and, in particular, surgical interventions in orthopaedic trauma. Patient-reported outcomes have evolved to become the primary measurement of success in surgery. This article reviews the concepts relevant to understanding these outcomes including general health outcomes, extremity- and disease-specific outcomes, minimum clinically important difference, economic analysis of treatment cost/benefit, and the impact of psychosocial factors on outcomes. An understanding of these concepts is important to allow for effective interpretation and critical analysis of the literature as well as to facilitate the practice of evidence-based medicine.

2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection: Research Priorities from the General Assembly Questions.

Musculoskeletal infections (MSKI) remain the bane of orthopedic surgery, and result in grievous illness and inordinate costs that threaten healthcare systems. As prevention, diagnosis, and treatment has remained largely unchanged over the last 50 years, a 2nd International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection (ICM 2018, https://icmphilly.com) was completed. Questions pertaining to all areas of MSKI were extensively researched to prepare recommendations, which were discussed and voted on by the delegates using the Delphi methodology. The questions, including the General Assembly (GA) results, have been published (GA questions). However, as critical outcomes include: (i) incidence and cost data that substantiate the problems, and (ii) establishment of research priorities; an ICM 2018 research workgroup (RW) was assembled to accomplish these tasks. Here, we present the result of the RW consensus on the current and projected incidence of infection, and the costs per patient, for all orthopedic subspecialties, which range from 0.1% to 30%, and $17,000 to $150,000. The RW also identified the most important research questions. The Delphi methodology was utilized to initially derive four objective criteria to define a subset of the 164 GA questions that are high priority for future research. Thirty-eight questions (23% of all GA questions) achieved the requisite > 70% agreement vote, and are highlighted in this Consensus article within six thematic categories: acute versus chronic infection, host immunity, antibiotics, diagnosis, research caveats, and modifiable factors. Finally, the RW emphasizes that without appropriate funding to address these high priority research questions, a 3rd ICM on MSKI to address similar issues at greater cost is inevitable.

Damage Control Plating in Open Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Cheaper and Equally Effective Alternative to Spanning External Fixation.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate damage control plating (DCP) as an alternative to external fixation (EF) in the provisional stabilization of open tibial shaft fractures. Through retrospective analysis, the study found 445 patients who underwent operative fixation for tibial shaft fractures from 2008 to 2012. Twenty patients received DCP or EF before intramedullary nailing with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. Charts and radiographs were reviewed for postoperative complications. Hospital charges were reviewed for implant costs. Nine patients (45%) with DCP and 11 patients (55%) with EF were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the complication rates. The mean implant cost of DCP was $1028, whereas mean EF construct cost was $4204. Therefore, DCP resulted in significant cost savings with no difference in complication rates, making it a valuable alternative to EF for the provisional stabilization of open tibial shaft fractures.

Does Physician Reimbursement Correlate to Risk in Orthopaedic Trauma?

This study investigated whether current Medicare reimbursements for orthopaedic trauma procedures correlate with complications. A total of 18,510 patients representing 33 orthopaedic trauma procedures from 2005 to 2011 were studied. Adverse events and Medicare payments for each orthopaedic trauma procedure were collected. Linear regressions determined correlations between complications and Medicare payments for orthopaedic trauma procedures. A weak correlation between Medicare payments and complications was found for all procedures (r = .399, p = .021). A 1.0% increase in complications was associated with a payment increase of only $100. There were no correlations between complications and reimbursements for upper extremity (p = .878) and lower extremity (p = .713) procedures. A strong correlation (r = .808, p = .015) existed for hip and pelvic fractures, but a 1.1% increase in hip and pelvic complications correlated with only an increase of $100 in reimbursements. This study is the first to show that Medicare payments are not strongly correlated with complications, therefore demonstrating the potential risks of a bundled payment system for orthopaedic trauma surgeons.

Staged Columnar Fixation of Bicondylar Tibial Plateaus: A Cheaper Alternative to External Fixation.

The objective of this study was to compare complication rates and costs of staged columnar fixation (SCF) to external fixation for bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Patients who received SCF or temporary external fixation across a 3-year period at a major level I trauma center underwent a retrospective chart review for associated complications. Fisher's exact analysis was used to determine any statistical difference in complication rates between both groups. However, there was no significant difference in complication rates between the SCF and external fixator groups. Average medial plate costs for SCF were $2131 compared with an average external fixator cost of $4070 (p < .0001). Given that all patients with external fixation undergo eventual medial and lateral plating, savings with SCF include $4070 plus operative costs for removing the fixator. As our health care system focuses on cost-cutting efforts, orthopaedic trauma surgeons must explore cheaper and equally effective treatment alternatives.

Locking Versus Nonlocking Implants in Isolated Lower Extremity Fractures: Analysis of Cost and Complications.

The purpose of this study was to investigate operative costs and postoperative complication rates in relation to utilization of locking versus nonlocking implants in isolated, lower limb fractures. Seventy-seven patients underwent plate fixation of isolated bicondylar tibial plateau, bimalleolar ankle, and trimalleolar ankle fractures at a large tertiary care center. Fixation with locking versus nonlocking implants was compared to incidence of postsurgical complications. Costs of these implants were directly compared. No significant correlation was found between locking versus nonlocking implants and incidence of complications. However, the cost of fixation with locking implants was significantly greater than nonlocking for all fractures. Utilization of more costly locking implants was not associated with reduced postoperative complications compared with nonlocking implants. More attention must be dedicated toward maximizing cost efficiency, since uniform usage of nonlocking implants has the potential to reduce surgical costs without compromising patient outcomes in isolated lower extremity fractures.

Pre-operative labs: Wasted dollars or predictors of post-operative cardiac and septic events in orthopaedic trauma patients?

PURPOSE: As US healthcare expenditures continue to rise, there is significant pressure to reduce the cost of inpatient medical services. Studies have estimated that over 70% of routine labs may not yield clinical benefits while adding over $300 in costs per day for every inpatient. Although orthopaedic trauma patients tend to have longer inpatient stays and hip fractures have been associated with significant morbidity, there is a dearth of data examining pre-operative labs in predicting post-operative adverse events in these populations. The purpose of this study was to assess whether pre-operative labs significantly predict post-operative cardiac and septic complications in orthopaedic trauma and hip fracture patients. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2013, 56,336 (15.6%) orthopaedic trauma patients were identified and 27,441 patients (7.6%) were diagnosed with hip fractures. Pre-operative labs included sodium, BUN, creatinine, albumin, bilirubin, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, white count, hematocrit, platelet count, prothrombin time, INR, and partial thromboplastin time. For each of these labs, patients were deemed to have normal or abnormal values. Patients were noted to have developed cardiac or septic complications if they sustained (1) myocardial infarction (MI), (2) cardiac arrest, or (3) septic shock within 30 days after surgery. Separate regressions incorporating over 40 patient characteristics including age, gender, pre-operative comorbidities, and labs were performed for orthopaedic trauma patients in order to determine whether pre-operative labs predicted adverse cardiac or septic outcomes. RESULTS: 749 (1.3%) orthopaedic trauma patients developed cardiac complications and 311 (0.6%) developed septic shock. Multivariate regression demonstrated that abnormal pre-operative platelet values were significantly predictive of post-operative cardiac arrest (OR: 11.107, p=0.036), and abnormal bilirubin levels were predictive (OR: 8.487, p=0.008) of the development of septic shock in trauma patients. In the hip fracture cohort, abnormal partial thromboplastin time was significantly associated with post-operative myocardial infarction (OR: 15.083, p=0.046), and abnormal bilirubin (OR: 58.674, p=0.002) significantly predicted the onset of septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate the utility of pre-operative labs in predicting perioperative cardiac and septic adverse events in orthopaedic trauma and hip fracture patients. Particular attention should be paid to haematologic/coagulation labs (platelets, PTT) and bilirubin values. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Surgical site infection in orthopedic trauma: A case-control study evaluating risk factors and cost.

BACKGROUND: With the shift of our healthcare system toward a value-based system of reimbursement, complications such as surgical site infections (SSI) may not be reimbursed. The purpose of our study was to investigate the costs and risk factors of SSI for orthopedic trauma patients. METHODS: Through retrospective analysis, 1819 patients with isolated fractures were identified. Of those, 78 patients who developed SSIs were compared to 78 uninfected control patients. Patients were matched by fracture location, type of fracture, duration of surgery, and as close as possible to age, year of surgery, and type of procedure. Costs for treatment during primary hospitalization and initial readmission were determined and potential risk factors were collected from patient charts. A Wilcoxon test was used to compare the overall costs of treatment for case and control patients. Costs were further broken down into professional fees and technical charges for analysis. Risk factors for SSIs were analyzed through a chi-squared analysis. RESULTS: Median cost for treatment for patients with SSIs was $108,782 compared to $57,418 for uninfected patients (p < 0.001). Professional fees and technical charges were found to be significantly higher for infected patients. No significant risk factors for SSIs were determined. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate the potential for financial losses in our new healthcare system due to uncompensated care. SSIs nearly double the cost of treatment for orthopedic trauma patients. There is no single driver of these costs. Reducing postoperative stay may be one method for reducing the cost of treating SSIs, whereas quality management programs may decrease risk of infection.

Adverse Events in Orthopaedics: Is Trauma More Risky? An Analysis of the NSQIP Data.

OBJECTIVES: As our healthcare system moves toward bundling payments, orthopaedic trauma surgeons will be increasingly benchmarked on perioperative complications. We therefore sought to determine financial risks under bundled payments by identifying adverse event rates for (1) orthopaedic trauma patients compared with general orthopaedic patients and (2) based on anatomic region and (3) to identify patient factors associated with complications. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Multicenter. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 146,773 orthopaedic patients (22,361 trauma) from 2005 to 2011 NSQIP data were identified. INTERVENTIONS: Minor and major adverse events, demographics, surgical variables, and patient comorbidities were collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Multivariate regressions determined significant risk factors for the development of complications. RESULTS: The complication rate in the trauma group was 11.4% (2554/22,361) versus 4.1% (5137/124,412) in the general orthopaedic group (P = 0.001). When controlling for all variables, trauma was a risk factor for developing complications [odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-1.81]. After controlling for several patient factors, hip and pelvis patients were 4 times more likely to develop any perioperative complication than upper extremity patients (OR: 3.79, 95% CI: 3.01-4.79, P = 0.01). Lower extremity patients are 3 times more likely to develop any complication versus upper extremity patients (OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 2.30-3.46, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to show that orthopaedic trauma patients are 2 times more likely than general orthopaedic patients to sustain complications, despite controlling for identical risk factors. There is also an alarming difference in complication rates among anatomic regions. Orthopaedic trauma surgeons will face increased financial risk with bundled payments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Operative intervention for geriatric hip fracture: does type of surgery affect hospital length of stay?

Hip fractures are the most costly fall-related fractures. Differences in hospital length of stay (LOS) based on type of surgery could have major financial implications in a potential bundled payment system in which all hip fractures are reimbursed a standard amount. We conducted a study to analyze differences in hospital LOS and costs for total hip arthroplasty (THA), hemiarthroplasty (HA), cephalomedullary nailing, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP). Through retrospective chart review, 615 patients over age 60 years across a 9-year period at an urban level I trauma center were identified. Mean LOS and costs for hip fracture repair were 6.91 days and $30,011.25, respectively. HA/THA was associated with the longest mean LOS (7.43 days) and highest costs ($33,657.90). After several patient factors were adjusted for, ORIF was associated with 0.84 fewer in-patient days and $3805.20 less in hospitalization costs compared with HA/THA (P=.042). CRPP was associated with 1.63 fewer days and $7383.90 less in costs than HA/THA (P=.0076). Our results provide insight into the financial implications of hip fracture fixation and identify targets for quality improvement initiatives to improve efficiency of resource utilization.

Ankle Fractures and Modality of Hospital Transport at a Single Level 1 Trauma Center: Does Transport by Helicopter or Ground Ambulance Influence the Incidence of Complications?

In an era of concern over the rising cost of health care, cost-effectiveness of auxiliary services merits careful evaluation. We compared costs and benefits of Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) with Ground Emergency Medical Service (GEMS) in patients with an isolated ankle fracture. A medical record review was conducted for patients with an isolated ankle fracture who had been transported to a level 1 trauma center by either HEMS or GEMS from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2010. We abstracted demographic data, fracture grade, complications, and transportation mode. Transportation costs were obtained by examining medical center financial records. A total of 303 patients was included in the analysis. Of 87 (28.71%) HEMS patients, 53 (60.92%) had sustained closed injuries and 34 (39.08%) had open injuries. Of the 216 (71.29%) GEMS patients, 156 (72.22%) had closed injuries and 60 (27.78%) had open injuries. No significant difference was seen between the groups regarding the percentage of patients with open fractures or the grade of the open fracture (p = .07). No significant difference in the rate of complications was found between the 2 groups (p = 18). The mean baseline cost to transport a patient via HEMS was $10,220 + a $108/mile surcharge, whereas the mean transport cost using GEMS was $976 per patient + $16/mile. Because the HEMS mode of emergency transport did not significantly improve patient outcomes, health systems should reconsider the use of HEMS for patients with isolated ankle fractures.

Relationship between the Charlson Comorbidity Index and cost of treating hip fractures: implications for bundled payment.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to investigate how the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores contribute to increased length of stay (LOS) and healthcare costs in hip fracture patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through retrospective analysis at an Urban level I trauma center, charts for all patients over the age of 60 years who presented with low-energy hip fracture were evaluated. 615 patients who underwent operative fixation of hip fracture or hemiarthroplasty secondary to hip fracture were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes search and included in the study. Data was collected on patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and hospitalization length; from this, the CCI score and the cost to the institution (with an average cost/day of inpatient stay of $4,530) were calculated. RESULTS: Multivariate linear regression analysis modeled the length of stay as a function of CCI score. Each unit increase in the CCI score corresponded to an increase in length of hospital stay and hospital costs incurred [effect size = 0.21; (0.0434-0.381); p = 0.014]. Patients with a CCI score of 2 (compared to a baseline CCI score of 0), on average, stayed 1.92 extra days in the hospital, and incurred $8,697.60 extra costs. CONCLUSIONS: The CCI score is associated with length of stay and hospital costs incurred following treatment for hip fracture. The CCI score may be a useful tool for risk assessment in bundled payment plans. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Geographic variations in hospital charges and Medicare payments for major joint arthroplasty.

National data on hospital-level charges and Medicare payments have shown that joint arthroplasty is the most common surgical procedure among the elderly. Yet, no study has investigated micro and macro level geographic variations in hospital charges and payment. We used the Medicare Provider Charge Data to investigate Medicare payments and charges for 2750 hospitals accounting for 427,207 patients who underwent major joint arthroplasty and 932 hospitals for 18,714 patients who had a complication/comorbidity. We found a significant difference in hospital charges and payments based on geographic region (P<0.001). We concluded that hospital charges demonstrate a high variability even when using areas to control for differences in hospital wages and high variation in reimbursements in some areas remains unexplained by Medicare's current method of calculating reimbursement.

ASA score as a predictor of 30-day perioperative readmission in patients with orthopaedic trauma injuries: an NSQIP analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to identify the impact of the physical status of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) on the 30-day readmission of patients receiving operative management of orthopaedic fractures using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. METHODS: We analyzed all patients with orthopaedic trauma injuries in the American College of Surgeons NSQIP database from 2005 to 2011. A total of 8761 patients representing 91 orthopaedic trauma procedures were identified and included in analysis after selection. Logistic regressions were conducted to identify the predictive ability of ASA on the likelihood of readmission for patients in each anatomic category (upper extremity, pelvis/acetabulum, lower extremity) and the combined study population. RESULTS: The ASA physical status proved the strongest predictor of 30-day readmission for the selected orthopaedic trauma procedures. After controlling for age, gender, race, and medical comorbidities that were shown to be significant independent risk factors for readmission, ASA score continued to have a significant association on 30-day readmissions in the combined population (odds ratio = 1.45, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-1.88, P = 0.001). For the combined analysis, compared with patients with an ASA score of 1, patients with an ASA score of 2 were 1.04 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001), patients with an ASA score of 3 were 3.77 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001), and patients with an ASA score of 4 were 13.7 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ASA classification is an indicator for variance in readmission for patients receiving operative treatment of orthopaedic fractures. Given that ASA classification is a universally collected data point, this method can be used in almost any hospital system and for any operative service. This model may be used to more accurately predict a patient's postoperative course and the expected risk for readmission, such that hospitals can target these "at-risk" individuals and reduce 30-day readmissions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.