RESUMO
Background Current research is limited in exploring the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on the discharge location within elective spine surgery. Further understanding of the influence of SDOH on disposition is necessary to improve outcomes. This study explores how SDOH influence discharge disposition for patients undergoing one- or two-level posterior interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF). Methods This was a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. Patients who underwent TLIF/PLIF between 2017 and 2020 at a single academic medical center were identified. The chart review gathered demographics, perioperative characteristics, intra/post-operative complications, discharge disposition, and 90-day outcomes. Discharge dispositions included subacute nursing facility (SNF), home with self-care (HSC), home with health services (HHS), and acute rehab facility (ARF). Demographic, perioperative, and disposition outcomes were analyzed by chi-square analysis and one-way ANOVA based on gender, race, and income quartiles. Results Propensity score matching for significant demographic factors isolated 326 patients. The rate of discharge to SNF was higher in females compared to males (25.00% vs 10.56%; p=0.001). Men were discharged to home at a higher rate than women (75.4% vs 61.95%; p=0.010). LatinX patients had the highest rate of home discharge, followed by Asians, Caucasians, and African Americans (83.33% vs 70.31% vs 66.45% vs 65.90%; p<0.001). The post hoc Tukey test demonstrated statistically significant differences between Asians and all other races in the context of age and BMI. Additionally, patients discharged to SNF showed the highest Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score, followed by those at ARF, HHS, and HSC (4.36 vs 4.05 vs 2.87 vs 2.37; p<0.001). The estimated median income for the cohort ranged from $52,000 to $250,001, with no significant differences in income seen across comparisons. Conclusion Discharge disposition following one- or two-level TLIF/PLIF shows significant association with gender and race. No association was seen when comparing discharge rates among zip code-level median income quartiles.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The popularity of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for the treatment of orthopaedic conditions has grown markedly. We sought to better define the trends in the usage of orthopaedic PRP injections across an insured US population over the past decade. METHODS: The PearlDiver M91Ortho commercial administrative claims database was queried for all patients receiving PRP injections for orthopaedic conditions from 2010 through the first quarter of 2020 (Q1.2020). Trends in PRP use, reimbursement charges, demographics, joints injected, and administering physicians were assessed over time and reported as year-over-year (YOY) changes. RESULTS: Over the study period, 14,096 unique patients had 17,759 orthopaedic PRP injections. The number of PRP injections administered had a YOY increase of 7.1% (144 injections/year, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 89 to 199, Ptrend = 0.0009). A YOY increase of 895% was observed in total nonsurgical charges ($683,974/yr, 95% CI 441,504 to 926,444, Ptrend = 0.0009). The median age of PRP recipients increased (YOY change = +0.6 years, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.8, Ptrend = 0.0005). Injections to the elbow (YOY change = -0.8%, 95% CI -0.10% to [-0.06%], Ptrend = 0.005) and foot/ankle (YOY change = -1.0%, 95% CI -1.4% to [-0.06%], Ptrend = 0.002) decreased, whereas hip (YOY change = +0.4%, 95% CI 0.2% to 0.6%, Ptrend = 0.019), knee (YOY change = +0.9%, 95% CI 0.3% to 1.2%, Ptrend = 0.016), and spine (YOY change = +0.2%, 95% CI 0.0% to 0.4%, Ptrend = 0.033) injections increased. PRP injections given by sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons (YOY change = +0.8%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.2%, Ptrend <0.0001) increased over time, whereas those by general orthopaedic surgeons decreased (YOY change = -0.9, 95% CI -1.2 to [-0.6%], Ptrend = 0.001). CONCLUSION: PRP injections quadrupled in prevalence from 2010 to Q1.2020, with a projected increase in annual usage in this data set of 66% by 2030. As greater evidence-based indications for PRP use are identified, more specialists and insurance providers may consider expanding their involvement in this growing field. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.