National Trends in Orthopaedic Pain Management from 2016 to 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Effective pain management is vital in orthopaedic care, impacting postoperative recovery and patient well-being. This study aimed to discern national and regional pain prescription trends among orthopaedic surgeons through Medicare claims data, using geospatial analysis to ascertain opioid and nonopioid usage patterns across the United States. METHODS: Physician-level Medicare prescription databases from 2016 to 2020 were filtered to orthopaedic surgeons, and medications were categorized into opioids, muscle relaxants, anticonvulsants, and NSAIDs. Patient demographics were extracted from a Medicare provider demographic data set, while county-level socioeconomic metrics were obtained primarily from the American Community Survey. Geospatial analysis was conducted using Geoda software, using Moran I statistic for cluster analysis of pain medication metrics. Statistical trends were analyzed using linear regression, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariate logistic regression, focusing on prescribing rates and hotspot/coldspot identification. RESULTS: Analysis encompassed 16,505 orthopaedic surgeons, documenting more than 396 million days of pain medication prescriptions: 57.42% NSAIDs, 28.57% opioids, 9.84% anticonvulsants, and 4.17% muscle relaxants. Annually, opioid prescriptions declined by 4.43% ( P < 0.01), while NSAIDs rose by 3.29% ( P < 0.01). Opioid prescriptions dropped by 210.73 days yearly per surgeon ( P < 0.005), whereas NSAIDs increased by 148.86 days ( P < 0.005). Opioid prescriptions were most prevalent in the West Coast and Northern Midwest regions, and NSAID prescriptions were most prevalent in the Northeast and South regions. Regression pinpointed spine as the highest and hand as the lowest predictor for pain prescriptions. DISCUSSION: On average, orthopaedic surgeons markedly decreased both the percentage of patients receiving opioids and the duration of prescription. Simultaneously, the fraction of patients receiving NSAIDs dramatically increased, without change in the average duration of prescription. Opioid hotspots were located in the West Coast, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, the Northern Midwest, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Future directions could include similar examinations using non-Medicare databases.

Recommendations for Orthopedic Surgeons during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Toward the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began to create turmoil for global health organizations. The illness, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), spreads by droplets and fomites and can rapidly lead to life-threatening lung disease, especially for the old and those with health co-morbidities. Treating orthopedic patients, who presented with COVID-19 while avoiding nosocomial transmission, became of paramount importance. OBJECTIVES: To present relevant methods for pandemic control and hospital accommodation with emphasis on orthopedic surgery. METHODS: We searched search PubMed and Google Scholar electronic databases using the following keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, screening tools, personal protective equipment, and surgery triage. RESULTS: We included 25 records in our analysis. The recommendations from these records were divided into the following categories: COVID-19 disease, managing orthopedic surgery in the COVID-19 era, general institution precautions, triage of orthopedic surgeries, preoperative assessment, surgical room setting, personal protection equipment, anesthesia, orthopedic surgery technical precautions, and department stay and rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Special accommodations tailored for each medical facility, based on disease burden and available resources can improve patient and staff safety and reduce elective surgery cancellations. This article will assist orthopedic surgeons during the COVID-19 medical crisis, and possibly for future pandemics.

Comparative study between admission, orthopaedic surgery, and economic trends during Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 pandemic in an Italian tertiary hospital: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the most massive health emergencies in the last century and has caused millions of deaths worldwide and a massive economic and social burden. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic-during the Italian lockdown period between 8 March and 4 May 2020-influenced orthopaedic access for traumatic events to the Emergency Department (ER). METHODS: A retrospective review of the admission to the emergency room and the discharge of the trauma patients' records was performed during the period between 8 March and 4 May 2020 (block in Italy), compared to the same period of the previous year (2019). Patients accesses, admissions, days of hospitalisation, frequency, fracture site, number and type of surgery, the time between admission and surgery, days of hospitalisation, and treatment cost according to the diagnosis-related group were collected. Chi-Square and ANOVA test were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: No significant statistical difference was found for the number of emergency room visits and orthopaedic hospitalisations (p < 0.53) between the year 2019 (9.5%) and 2020 (10.81%). The total number of surgeries in 2019 was 119, while in 2020, this was just 48 (p < 0.48). A significant decrease in the mean cost of orthopaedic hospitalisations was detected in 2020 compared (261.431 euros, equal to - 52.07%) relative to the same period in 2019 (p = 0.005). Although all the surgical performances have suffered a major decline, the most frequent surgery in 2020 was intramedullary femoral nailing. CONCLUSION: We detected a decrease in traumatic occasions during the lockdown period, with a decrease in fractures in each district and a consequent decrease in the diagnosis-related group (DRG).

COVID-19 Impact on Orthopedic Surgeons: Elective Procedures, Telehealth, and Income.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the response in orthopedic surgery to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic across the United States by surveying surgeons about their care setting, timing of restrictions on elective surgery, use of telehealth, and estimated economic impact. METHODS: A survey was distributed via REDCap through state orthopedic organizations between April and July 2020. The 22-question digital survey collected information regarding restrictions on elective procedures, location of care, utilization of telehealth, and estimated reductions in annual income. RESULTS: In this study, 192 participants responded to the survey (average age 49.9 ± 11.0 years, 92.7% male). Responses primarily originated from Alabama (30.2%), Georgia (30.2%), and Missouri (16.1%). The remainder of the responses were grouped into the category "other." Respondents did not vary significantly by state in operative setting or income type (salary, work relative value units, or collections). Most of the participants documented elective procedure restrictions in hospital and ambulatory settings. The highest frequency of closures occurred between March 18 and 20 (47% in hospital, 51% in ambulatory). Of the participants, financial loss estimates varied across states (P = 0.005), with 50% of physicians claiming >50% losses of income in Alabama (24% Georgia, 10% Missouri, 31% other). Regarding telehealth, practices set up for these services before 2020 varied across states. None of the orthopedic practices in Alabama had telehealth before the COVID-19 pandemic (Missouri 25%, Georgia 9%, other 8%, P = 0.06); however, respondents generally were split when considering the anticipation of implementing telehealth into routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: Most practices did implement restrictions for elective clinic visits and procedures early during the pandemic. COVID-19 ultimately will result in a large revenue loss for elective orthopedic practices. Services such as telehealth may help offset these losses and help deliver orthopedic care to patients remotely.

How Long Will It Take to Reach Gender Parity in Orthopaedic Surgery in the United States? An Analysis of the National Provider Identifier Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have evaluated how the proportion of women in orthopaedic surgery has changed over time, these analyses have been limited by small sample sizes, have primarily used data on residents, and have not included information on growth across subspecialties and geographic regions. QUESTION/PURPOSE: We used the National Provider Identifier registry to ask: How have the (1) overall, (2) regional, and (3) subspecialty percentages of women among all currently practicing orthopaedic providers changed over time in the United States? METHODS: The National Provider Identifier Registry of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was queried for all active providers with taxonomy codes pertaining to orthopaedic subspecialties as of April 2020. Women orthopaedic surgeons were identified among all physicians with subspecialty taxonomy codes. As all providers are required to provide a gender when applying for an NPI, all providers with queried taxonomy codes additionally had gender classification. Our final cohort consisted of 31,296 practicing orthopaedic surgeons, of whom 8% (2363 of 31,296) were women. A total of 11,714 (37%) surgeons possessed taxonomy codes corresponding with a specific orthopaedic subspecialty. A univariate linear regression analysis was used to analyze trends in the annual proportions of women who are active orthopaedic surgeons based on NPI enumeration dates. Specifically, annual proportions were defined using cross-sections of the NPI registry on December 31 of each year. Linear regression was similarly used to evaluate changes in the annual proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across United States Census regions and divisions, as well as orthopaedic subspecialties. The national growth rate was then projected forward to determine the year at which the representation of women orthopaedic surgeons would achieve parity with the proportion of all women physicians (36.3% or 340,018 of 936,254, as determined by the 2019 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile) and the proportion of all women in the United States (50.8% or 166,650,550 of 328,239,523 as determined by 2019 American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau). Gender parity projections along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Holt-Winters forecasting algorithm. The proportions of women physicians and women in the United States were assumed to remain fixed at 2019 values of 36.3% and 50.8%, respectively. RESULTS: There was a national increase in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons between 2010 and 2019 (r2 = 0.98; p < 0.001) at a compound annual growth rate of 2%. Specifically, the national proportion of orthopaedic surgeons who were women increased from 6% (1670 of 26,186) to 8% (2350 of 30,647). Assuming constant growth at this rate following 2019, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession (that is, to achieve 36.3% women in orthopaedic surgery) is projected to be 217 years, or by the year 2236. Likewise, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall US population (which is 50.8% women) is projected to be 326 years, or by the year 2354. During our study period, there were increases in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across US Census regions. The lowest growth was in the West (17%) and the South (19%). Similar growth was demonstrated across census divisions. In each orthopaedic subspecialty, we found increases in the proportion of women surgeons throughout the study period. Adult reconstruction (0%) and spine surgery (1%) had the lowest growth. CONCLUSION: We calculate that at the current rate of change, it will take more than 200 years for orthopaedic surgery to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession. Although some regions and subspecialties have grown at comparably higher rates, collectively, there has been minimal growth across all domains. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given this meager growth, we believe that substantive changes must be made across all levels of orthopaedic education and leadership to steepen the current curve. These include mandating that all medical school curricula include dedicated exposure to orthopaedic surgery to increase the number of women coming through the orthopaedic pipeline. Additionally, we believe the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and individual programs should require specific benchmarks for the proportion of orthopaedic faculty and fellowship program directors, as well as for the proportion of incoming trainees, who are women. Furthermore, we believe there should be a national effort led by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and orthopaedic subspecialty societies to foster the academic development of women in orthopaedic surgery while recruiting more women into leadership positions. Future analyses should evaluate the efficacy of diversity efforts among other surgical specialties that have achieved or made greater strides toward gender parity, as well as how these programs can be implemented into orthopaedic surgery.

Recent Trends in Medicare Utilization and Reimbursement for Orthopaedic Procedures Performed at Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

BACKGROUND: As part of a market-driven response to the increasing costs of hospital-based surgical care, an increasing volume of orthopaedic procedures are being performed in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). The purpose of the present study was to identify recent trends in orthopaedic ASC procedure volume, utilization, and reimbursements in the Medicare system between 2012 and 2017. METHODS: This cross-sectional, national study tracked annual Medicare claims and payments and aggregated data at the county level. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate trends in procedure volume, utilization rates, and reimbursement rates, and to identify demographic predictors of ASC utilization. RESULTS: A total of 1,914,905 orthopaedic procedures were performed at ASCs in the Medicare population between 2012 and 2017, with an 8.8% increase in annual procedure volume and a 10.5% increase in average reimbursements per case. ASC orthopaedic procedure utilization, including utilization across all subspecialties, is strongly associated with metropolitan areas compared with rural areas. In addition, orthopaedic procedure utilization, including for sports and hand procedures, was found to be significantly higher in wealthier counties (measured by average household income) and in counties located in the South. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated increasing orthopaedic ASC procedure volume in recent years, driven by increases in hand procedure volume. Medicare reimbursements per case have steadily risen and outpaced the rate of inflation over the study period. However, as orthopaedic practice overhead continues to increase, other Medicare expenditures such as hospital payments and operational and implant costs also must be evaluated. These findings may provide a source of information that can be used by orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, investors, and other stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the costs and benefits of the use of ASCs for orthopaedic procedures.

Factors Predicting Chronic Opioid Use after Orthopedic Surgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Opioid abuse has been an increasing problem since the 1990s. With over 47,000 opioid related deaths recorded in 2017 alone, concerns have been raised regarding the dangers of introducing opioids perioperatively to patients undergoing major surgeries. OBJECTIVES: The present study proposes to examine the frequency, amount, and trends in post-operative opioid consumption in patients undergoing orthopedic surgical procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized, retrospective questionnaire-based study. SETTING: Patients who underwent any type of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pennsylvania Presbyterian Hospital from 1/1/2018 to 3/12/2019 were randomly selected and called during the summer of 2019. METHODS: In this retrospective questionnaire-based study, 828 patients were called by telephone in the summer of 2019. These patients were asked a variety of questions involving opioid consumption behavior post-surgery. The study ended after receiving responses from 200 patients. RESULTS: Nineteen (9.5%) patients reported positively for experiencing euphoria while taking opioids post-surgery. Of the 200 patients contacted, 6 patients (3%) reported switching to marijuana instead of opioids. Thirty-eight (19%) patients preferred to take no opioids at all post-surgery, and one patient was found to have given their prescription to a family member or friend. Twenty-one patients (10.5%) were found to have been taking opioids for non-severe pain. Blacks and whites were the most common racial demographics, making up 84 and 109 of the totals, respectively. The odds ratios for all of the predictors showed that the relative risk for opioid misuse was higher for black patients than white patients (OR = 3.034). There was no relationship between the intra- and post-operative opioid administration and long-term opioid misuse. LIMITATIONS: Patients are self-selected and had the option to opt out of the study when contacted. Some patients may not have been available to answer the phone when our study was being conducted. This study was only conducted for orthopedic patients and for patients who received surgery at the University of Pennsylvania Presbyterian Hospital, thus affecting the demographics for our research. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription opioid misuse is more common among the black population. The total opioid consumption is frequently lower than the quantity prescribed. Patients frequently use opioids even though they feel that pain is insufficient to deserve such an intervention. Euphoria is experienced by a significant number of patients taking prescription opioids Often patients do not take any opioids, although they had prescriptions.

The effect of COVID-19 on a Major Trauma Network. An analysis of mechanism of injury pattern, referral load and operative case-mix.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in both mechanism and diagnoses of injuries presenting to the orthopaedic department during this lockdown period, as well as to observe any changes in operative case-mix during this time. METHODS: A study period of twelve weeks following the introduction of the nationwide "lockdown period", March 23rd - June 14th, 2020 was identified and compared to the same time period in 2019 as a "baseline period". A retrospective analysis of all emergency orthopaedic referrals and surgical procedures performed during these time frames was undertaken. All data was collected and screened using the 'eTrauma' management platform (Open Medical, UK). The study included data from a five NHS Foundation Trusts within North West London. A total of 6695 referrals were included for analysis. RESULTS: The total number of referrals received during the lockdown period fell by 35.3% (n=2631) compared to the same period in 2019 (n=4064). Falls remained proportionally the most common mechanism of injury across all age groups in both time periods. The proportion sports related injuries compared to the overall number of injuries fell significantly during the lockdown period (p<0.001), however, the proportion of pushbike related accidents increased significantly (p<0.001). The total number of operations performed during the lockdown period fell by 38.8% (n=1046) during lockdown (n=1732). The proportion of patients undergoing operative intervention for Neck of Femur (NOF) and ankle fractures remained similar during both study periods. A more non-operative approach was seen in the management of wrist fractures, with 41.4% of injuries undergoing an operation during the lockdown period compared to 58.6% at baseline (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the nationwide lockdown has led to a decrease in emergency orthopaedic referrals and procedure numbers. There has been a change in mechanism of injuries, with fewer sporting injuries, conversely, there has been an increase in the number of pushbike or scooter related injuries during the lockdown period. NOF fractures remained at similar levels to the previous year. There was a change in strategy for managing distal radius fractures with more fractures being treated non-operatively.

Is the Distribution of Awards Gender-balanced in Orthopaedic Surgery Societies?

BACKGROUND: Society awards provide visibility and national recognition for physicians. Several studies have found that women were underrepresented as award recipients when compared with subspecialty workforce data. However, to our knowledge no studies have examined the gender distribution of award recipients in orthopaedic societies. Orthopaedic surgery remains among the least gender-diverse specialties in medicine. Particularly in academic practice, the increasing paucity of women with progressive rank may reflect unequal access to the currency for promotion, including national reputation and visibility. Therefore, information on orthopaedic awarding practices may help to identify and address challenges associated with recruiting, retaining, and promoting women in orthopaedics. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Since the year 2000, have women orthopaedic surgeons received awards in proportion to their society membership? (2) Are the awards granted to women equally distributed across the categories of leadership, humanitarianism, education, scientific investigation, resident/fellow scientific investigation, and diversity? (3) Does the gender distribution of award recipients differ for awards bestowed through a blinded process versus an unblinded process? METHODS: Eighteen national, clinically focused orthopaedic societies in the United States were included. These societies offer a combined total of 69 awards; each award was studied from its earliest record through December 2018, resulting in a study period from 1973 to 2018. Each society provided the gender demographics of their membership in 2018. The proportion of women award recipients from 2000 to 2018 was compared with the proportion of women members in 2018 for each society. Awards were also categorized based on the six types of accomplishment they recognized (leadership, humanitarianism, education, scientific investigation, resident/fellow scientific investigation, and diversity), and whether they were granted through a blinded or unblinded selection process. Chi-square tests were used to compare the proportion of women receiving awards in various categories, and to compare the proportion of women who received awards through blinded selection processes versus unblinded selection processes. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2018, women received 8% (61 of 794) of all awards and represented 9% (5359 of 59,597) of all society members. Two societies had an underrepresentation of women award recipients compared with their society membership. We found that women were not represented proportionally across award categories. Women were more likely to receive a diversity award than a leadership award (odds ratio 12.0 [95% CI 3.1 to 45.7]; p < 0.001), and also more likely to receive an education award than a leadership award (OR 4.1 [95% CI 1.3 to 12.7]). From 1973 to 2018, 17 of 22 the leadership awards offered by societies have never been granted to a woman. Finally, women were more likely to receive awards bestowed through a blinded process than an unblinded process. Women earned 11% (30 of 285) of awards bestowed through a blinded award process and 6% (31 of 509) of awards bestowed through an unblinded award process (OR 1.8 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.1]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The percent of women award recipients was generally proportional to membership overall and in most societies. However, on a national workforce level, the proportion of women award recipients is lower than the proportion of women in academic orthopaedics, which has been reported by others to be about 13%, suggesting that women in academic orthopaedics may be underrepresented as award recipients. Additionally, women were less likely to receive leadership awards than awards of other types, which suggests that women are not being recognized as leaders in orthopaedics. Women were also more likely to receive awards granted through unblinded processes, which raises concern that there may be implicit bias in orthopaedic awarding practices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We encourage societies to examine the inclusiveness of their awards selection processes and to track the demographic information of award recipients over time to measure progress toward equal representation. Creating standardized award criteria, including women on selection committees, requiring the consideration of diverse nominees, and implicit bias training for selection committees may help to reduce bias in awarding practices.

The response of Trauma & Orthopaedic Departments to the first four weeks of lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic - A trainee-led analysis of the East of England.

Through a trainee research collaborative, we have studied the changes in practice of 12 T&O departments across the East of England over the first four weeks of the UK lockdown and COVID-19 pandemic, comparing to activity levels with the corresponding period in 2019. We focused on changes in T&O practice, training and redeployment of Trainees. Units differ considerably in several aspects of practice. We found a 97% reduction in elective operating, 64% reduction in elective outpatient activity and 37% reduction in operative trauma. 58% of trainees continued working in T&O clinics, with an average of 6 operative cases over this period. Our modelling suggests that the impact on training will persist; counter-measures must be incorporated into central recovery planning.

Healthcare resources attributable to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic surgical site infections.

The number of orthopedic surgeries is increasing as populations steadily age, but surgical site infection (SSI) rates remain relatively consistent. This study aimed to quantify the healthcare resources attributable to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) SSIs in orthopedic surgical patients. The analysis was conducted using a national claims database comprising data from almost all Japanese residents. We examined patients who underwent any of the following surgeries between April 2012 and March 2018: amputation (AMP), spinal fusion (FUSN), open reduction of fracture (FX), hip prosthesis (HPRO), knee prosthesis (KPRO), and laminectomy (LAM). Propensity score matching was performed to identify non-SSI control patients, and generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the differences in outcomes between the case and control groups. The numbers of MRSA SSI cases (infection rates) ranged from 64 (0.03%) to 1,152 (2.33%). MRSA SSI-attributable increases in healthcare expenditure ranged from $11,630 ($21,151 vs. $9,521) for LAM to $35,693 ($50,122 vs. $14,429) for FX, and increases in hospital stay ranged from 40.6 days (59.2 vs. 18.6) for LAM to 89.5 days (122.0 vs. 32.5) for FX. In conclusion, MRSA SSIs contribute to substantial increases in healthcare resource utilization, emphasizing the need to implement effective infection prevention measures for orthopedic surgeries.

The impact of COVID-19 on the future of orthopaedic training in the UK.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on global healthcare systems, has drastically affected patient care, and has had widespread effects upon medical education. As plans are being devised to reinstate elective surgical services, it is important to consider the impact that the pandemic has had and will continue to have on surgical training. We describe the effect COVID-19 has had at all levels of training in the UK within trauma and orthopaedics and evaluate how training might change in the future. We found that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted trainees within trauma and orthopaedics at all levels of training. It had led to reduced operative exposure, cancellations of examinations and courses, and modifications to speciality recruitment and annual appraisals. This cohort of trainees is witnessing novel methods of delivering orthopaedic services, which will continue to develop and become part of routine practice even once the pandemic has resolved. It will be important to observe the extent to which the rapid changes currently being introduced will impact the personal health, safety, and career progression of current trainees.

SARS-CoV-2 Impact on Elective Orthopaedic Surgery: Implications for Post-Pandemic Recovery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to explore the impact of elective-surgery deferment on the United States health-care system and subsequent recovery after COVID-19 containment. Using an orthopaedic elective surgery model, we aimed to answer the following: (1) What is the expected recovery time until the health-care system is back to nearly full capacity for performing elective surgery? (2) What will be the expected backlog of elective surgery over time? (3) How should health care change to address the backlog? METHODS: A Monte Carlo stochastic simulation-based analysis was performed to forecast the post-pandemic volume of elective, inpatient total joint arthroplasty and spinal fusion surgical cases. The cumulative backlog was calculated and analyzed. We tested model assumptions with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Assuming that elective orthopaedic surgery resumes in June 2020, it will take 7, 12, and 16 months-in optimistic, ambivalent, and pessimistic scenarios, respectively-until the health-care system can perform 90% of the expected pre-pandemic forecasted volume of surgery. In the optimistic scenario, there will be a cumulative backlog of >1 million surgical cases at 2 years after the end of elective-surgery deferment. CONCLUSIONS: The deferment of elective surgical cases during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will have a lasting impact on the United States health-care system. As part of disaster mitigation, it is critical to start planning for recovery now.

Declining trends in Medicare physician reimbursements for shoulder surgery from 2002 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: As the current health care system evolves toward cost-containment and value-based approaches, evaluating trends in physician reimbursements will be critical for assessing and ensuring the financial stability of shoulder surgery as a subspecialty. METHODS: The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-up Tool was used to retrieve average reimbursement rates for 39 shoulder surgical procedures (arthroscopy with or without repair, arthroplasty, acromioclavicular or clavicular open reduction-internal fixation, fixation for proximal humeral fracture and/or shoulder dislocation, open rotator cuff repair or tendon release and/or repair, and open shoulder stabilization) from 2002 to 2018. All reimbursement data were adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars. RESULTS: After adjusting for inflation to 2018 dollars, average reimbursement for all included procedures decreased by 26.9% from 2002 to 2018. After stratifying the analysis by 3 distinct time groups, we observed that reimbursement decreases were the most significant prior to 2010. However, reimbursement rates still declined by an average of 2.9% from 2010 to 2014 and 7.2% from 2014 to 2018. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, capsulorrhaphy, and biceps tenodesis experienced smaller declines in reimbursement than their open-surgery counterparts. CONCLUSION: Medicare physician reimbursements for shoulder surgical procedures have decreased over time. Health care policy makers need to understand the impact of decreasing reimbursements to develop agreeable financial policies that will not only ensure provider satisfaction but also maintain access to care for patients.

Trends in open shoulder surgery among early career orthopedic surgeons: who is doing what?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of various open shoulder procedures has changed over time. In addition, various fellowships provide overlapping training in open shoulder surgery. There is a lack of information regarding the relationship between surgeon training and open shoulder procedure type and incidence in early career orthopedic surgeons. METHODS: The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part-II database was queried from 2002 to 2016 for reported open shoulder procedures. The procedures were categorized as follows: arthroplasty, revision arthroplasty, open instability, trauma, and open rotator cuff. We evaluated procedure trends as well as their relationship to surgeon fellowship categorized by Sports, Shoulder/Elbow, Hand, Trauma, and "Other" fellowship as well as no fellowship training. We additionally evaluated complication data as it related to procedure, fellowship category, and volume. RESULTS: Over the 2002-2016 study period, there were increasing cases of arthroplasty, revision arthroplasty, and trauma (P < .001). There were decreasing cases in open instability and open rotator cuff (P < .001). Those with Sports training reported the largest overall share of open shoulder cases. Those with Shoulder/Elbow training reported an increasing overall share of arthroplasty cases and higher per candidate case numbers. The percentage of early career orthopedic surgeons reporting 5 or more arthroplasty cases was highest among Shoulder/Elbow candidates (P < .001). Across all procedures, those without fellowship training were least likely to report a complication (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.86; P < .001). Shoulder/Elbow candidates were least likely to report an arthroplasty complication (OR, 0.84, P = .03) as was any surgeon reporting 5 or more arthroplasty cases (OR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.94; P = .006). CONCLUSION: The type and incidence of open shoulder surgery procedures continues to change. Among early career surgeons, those with more specific shoulder training are now performing the majority of arthroplasty-related procedures, and early career volume inversely correlates with complications.

Sex- and Gender-specific Analysis in Orthopaedic Studies.

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic studies have reported the prevalence of injuries and outcomes after treatment in men and women patients, and although these differences have been recognized, few studies have evaluated for gender-specific injury patterns, disease progression, and treatment outcomes. A thorough understanding of gender-related differences is important to better individualize treatment and improve outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought (1) to determine the proportion of studies published in six orthopaedic journals that provided sex- or gender-specific analyses in 2016 and whether a difference was found in outcomes between men and women and (2) to evaluate whether this proportion varied across several orthopaedic subspecialty journals or between general orthopaedic journals and subspecialty journals. METHODS: Six leading orthopaedic surgery journals were selected for review, including two general orthopaedic journals (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®) and four subspecialty journals (American Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, and Spine). Journal issues published in the even-numbered months of 2016 were reviewed for clinical randomized controlled, cohort, and case-control studies in which women were a part of the study population. A total of 712 studies evaluating 24,607,597 patients met the criteria and were included in our review of publications from 2016. The selected studies were stratified based on whether gender was a variable in a multifactorial statistical model. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients who were women and the presence or absence of a gender-specific analysis. These endpoints were compared between journals. RESULTS: Overall, 55% (13,565,773 of 24,607,597) of patients analyzed in these studies were women. Only 34% (241 of 712) of the studies published in 2016 included gender as variable in a multifactorial statistical model. Of these, 39% (93 of 241) demonstrated a difference in the outcomes between patients who were men and women. The Journal of Arthroplasty had the greatest percentage of patients who were women (60%, 9,251,068 of 15,557,187) and the American Journal of Sports Medicine had the lowest (44%, 1,027,857 of 2,357,139; p < 0.001). Orthopaedic subspecialty journals tended to include a greater percentage of women (54%) than did general orthopaedic journals (50%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Currently, it is unclear what percentage of published orthopaedic studies should include a gender-specific analysis. In the current study, more than one-third of publications that performed a gender-specific analysis demonstrated a difference in outcomes between men and women, thereby emphasizing the need to determine when such an analysis is warranted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Future studies should aim to determine when a gender-specific analysis is necessary to improve the management of orthopaedic injuries in men and women. It is important for investigators at the individual-study level to look for every opportunity to ensure that both men's and women's health needs are met by performing appropriate by-sex and by-gender analyses, but not to perform them when they are unnecessary or inappropriate.

Persistent postoperative pain and healthcare costs associated with instrumented and non-instrumented spinal surgery: a case-control study.

PURPOSE: To compare rates of persistent postoperative pain (PPP) after lumbar spine surgery-commonly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome-and healthcare costs for instrumented lumbar spinal fusion versus decompression/discectomy. METHODS: The UK population-based healthcare data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database from NHS Digital and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were queried to identify patients with PPP following lumbar spinal surgery. Rates of PPP were calculated by type of surgery (instrumented and non-instrumented). Total healthcare costs associated with the surgery and covering the 24-month period after index hospital discharge were estimated using standard methods for classifying health care encounters into major categories of health care resource utilization (i.e., inpatient hospital stays, outpatient clinic visits, accident and emergency attendances, primary care encounters, and medications prescribed in primary care) and applying the appropriate unit costs (expressed in 2013 GBP). RESULTS: Increasing the complexity of surgery with instrumentation was not associated with an increased rate of PPP. However, 2-year healthcare costs following discharge after surgery are significantly higher among patients who underwent instrumented surgery compared with decompression/discectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a not insubstantial risk of ongoing pain following spine surgery, with 1-in-5 patients experiencing PPP within 2 years of surgery, the underlying indications for surgical modality and related choice of surgical procedure do not, by itself, appear to be a driving factor.