Are Foot & Ankle Surgeons Being Adequately Compensated for Ankle Fractures? - An Analysis of Relative Value Units.

The current relative value units (RVU)-based system is built to reflect the varying presentation of ankle fractures (uni-malleolar vs bi-malleolar vs tri-malleolar) by assigning individual RVUs to different fracture complexities. However, no study has evaluated whether the current RVUs reflect an appropriate compensation per unit time following open reduction internal fixation for uni-malleolar versus bi-malleolar versus tri-malleolar ankle fractures. The 2012 to 2017 American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files were queried using current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation for uni-malleolar (CPT-27766,CPT-27769,CPT-27792), bi-malleolar (CPT-27814), and tri-malleolar (CPT-27822,CPT-27823) ankle fractures. A total of 7830 (37.2%) uni-malleolar, 7826 (37.2%) bi-malleolar and 5391 (25.6%) tri-malleolar ankle fractures were retrieved. Total RVUs, Mean RVU/minute and Reimbursement rate ($/min) and Mean Reimbursement/case for each fracture type were calculated and compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. The mean total RVU for each fracture type was as follows: (1) Uni-malleolar: 9.99, (2) Bi-malleolar = 11.71 and 3) Tri-malleolar = 12.87 (p < .001). A statistically significant difference was noted in mean operative time (uni-malleolar = 63.2 vs bi-malleolar = 78.6 vs tri-malleolar = 95.5; p < .001) between the 3 groups. Reimbursement rates ($/min) decreased significantly as fracture complexity increased (uni-malleolar = $7.21/min vs bi-malleolar = $6.75/min vs tri-malleolar = $6.10; p < .001). The average reimbursement/case was $358, $420, and $462 for uni-malleolar, bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar fractures respectively. Foot & ankle surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate ($/min) for treating a simple uni-malleolar fracture as compared to bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar fractures, despite the higher complexity and longer operative times seen in the latter. The study highlights the need of a change in the RVUs for bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar ankle fractures to ensure that surgeons are adequately reimbursed per unit time for treating a more complex fracture case.

Increasing Frailty in Geriatric Emergency General Surgery: A Cause for Concern.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) presents a challenge for frail, geriatric individuals who often have extensive comorbidities affecting postoperative recovery. Previous studies have shown an association between increasing frailty and adverse outcomes following elective and EGS; no study has explored the same for the geriatric patient population using the modified 5-item frailty index (mFI-5) score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify geriatric patients (≥65 years) undergoing EGS procedures within 48 h of admission. The previously validated mFI-5 score was used to assess preoperative frailty. The study cohort was divided into four groups: mFI-5 = 0, mFI-5 = 1, mFI-5 = 2, and mFI-5 ≥ 3; the impact of increasing mFI-5 score on failure-to-rescue (FTR), 30-day complications, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 47,216 patients were included: 27.4% with mFI-5 = 0, 45% with mFI-5 = 1, 22.1% with mFI-5 = 2, and 5.5% with mFI-5 ≥ 3. Following multivariate analyses, increasing mFI-5 score was associated with higher odds of FTR (mFI-5 = 1: odds ratio (OR) 1.48, p=0.003; mFI-5 = 2: OR 2.66, p <0.001; mFI-5 ≥ 3: OR 3.97, p <0.001), 30-day complications (mFI-5 = 1: OR 1.46, p <0.001; mFI-5 = 2: OR 2.48, p <0.001; mFI-5≥3: OR 5.01, p <0.001), reoperation (mFI-5 = 1: OR 1.42, p = 0.020; mFI-5 = 2: OR 1.70, p = 0.021; mFI-5 ≥ 3: OR 2.18, p = 0.009) and all-cause mortality (mFI-5 = 1: OR 1.49, p=0.001; mFI-5 = 2: OR 2.67, p <0.001; mFI-5 ≥ 3: 3.96, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing frailty in geriatric EGS patients is associated with significantly higher rates of FTR, 30-day complications, reoperations, and all-cause mortality. The mFI-5 score can be used to assess frailty and better anticipate the postoperative course of vulnerable geriatric patients.

Trends of hand injuries presenting to US emergency departments: A 10-year national analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to observe current incidence and trends of hand and wrist injuries presenting to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) over a decade. METHODS: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) was queried for hand and wrist injuries from January 2009-December 2018. Descriptive analyses were used to report injury types to the hand and wrist. Incidence, age, gender, race, injury location, and type of injury were recorded. Linear regression analyses were used to assess changes in trends over time. A p value <0.05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: In total, 649,131 cases of hand and wrist injuries were identified in the NEISS from 2009 to 2018, correlating to 25,666,596 patients nationally. Incidence rates for finger, hand, and wrist were 450, 264, and 182 per 100,000 people. The estimated number of patients per year declined by 8.6% from 2009 to 2018. Male adults (aged 18-39) were the most frequent demographic. Total national estimates of hand (-8.2%; p = 0.001), wrist (-6.1%; p = 0.007), and finger (-9.9%; p < 0.001) injuries declined over the study period. The most common injuries were lacerations (36.5%), fractures (19.9%), strains/sprains (12.3%), and contusions/abrasions (12.1%) which significantly declined over the study period. The overall admission rate was 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated annual number of hand/wrist injuries presenting to US EDs was 2.6 million with gradual decline over the decade. Hand injury registries could assist in quality improvement measures targeted toward increased efficiency and resource allocation and education.

Has the Affordable Care Act Been Associated with Increased Insurance Coverage and Early-stage Diagnoses of Bone and Soft-tissue Sarcomas in Adults?

BACKGROUND: Treatment of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas can be costly, and therefore, it is not surprising that insurance status of patients is a prognostic factor in determining overall survival. Furthermore, uninsured individuals with suspected bone and/or soft-tissue masses routinely encounter difficulty in obtaining access to basic healthcare (such as office visits, radiology scans), and therefore are more likely to be diagnosed with later stages at presentation. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate of 2010 aimed to increase access to care for uninsured individuals by launching initiatives, such as expanding Medicaid eligibility, subsidizing private insurance, and developing statewide mandates requiring individuals to have a prescribed minimum level of health insurance. Although prior reports have demonstrated that the ACA increased both coverage and the proportion of early-stage diagnoses among patients with common cancers (including breast, colon, prostate, and lung), it is unknown whether similar improvements have occurred for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. Understanding changes in insurance coverages and stage at diagnosis of patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas would be paramount in establishing policies that will ensure orthopaedic cancer care is made equitable and accessible to all. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Has the introduction of the ACA been associated with changes in insurance coverage for adult patients with newly diagnosed bone and soft-tissue sarcomas? (2) Did the introduction of health reforms under the ACA lead to an increased proportion of sarcoma diagnoses occurring at earlier disease stages? METHODS: The 2007 to 2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database was queried using International Classification of Diseases for Oncology codes for primary malignant bone tumors of the upper and lower extremity (C40.0 to C40.3), unspecified or other overlapping bone, articular cartilage, and joint and/or ribs, sternum, or clavicle (C40.8 to C40.9, C41.3, and C41.8 to C41.9), vertebral column (C41.2), pelvis (C41.4, C41.8, and C41.9), and soft-tissue sarcomas of the upper or lower extremity and/or pelvis (C49.1, C49.2, and C49.5). A total of 15,287 patients with newly diagnosed cancers were included, of which 3647 (24%) were malignant bone tumors and 11,640 (76%) were soft-tissue sarcomas. The study sample was divided into three cohorts according to specified time periods: pre-ACA from 2007 to 2010 (6537 patients), pre-Medicaid expansion from 2011 to 2013 (5076 patients), and post-Medicaid expansion from 2014 to 2015 (3674 patients). The Pearson chi square tests were used to assess for changes in the proportion of Medicaid and uninsured patients across the specified time periods: pre-ACA, pre-expansion and post-expansion. A differences-in-differences analysis was also performed to assess changes in insurance coverage for Medicaid and uninsured patients among states that chose to expand Medicaid coverage in 2014 under the ACA's provision versus those who opted out of Medicaid expansion. Since the database switched to using the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) 7th edition staging system in 2010, linear regression using data only from 2010 to 2015 was performed that assessed changes in cancer stage at diagnosis from 2010 to 2015 alone. After stratifying by cancer type (bone or soft-tissue sarcoma), Pearson chi square tests were used to assess for changes in the proportion of patients who were diagnosed with early, late, and unknown stage at presentation before Medicaid expansion (2011-2013) and after Medicaid expansion (2014-2015) among states that chose to expand versus those who did not. RESULTS: After stratifying by time cohorts: pre-ACA (2007 to 2010), pre-expansion (2011 to 2013) and post-expansion (2014 to 2015), we observed that the most dramatic changes occurred after Medicaid eligibility was expanded (2014 onwards), with Medicaid proportions increasing from 12% (pre-expansion, 2011 to 2013) to 14% (post-expansion, 2014 to 2015) (p < 0.001) and uninsured proportions decreasing from 5% (pre-expansion, 2011 to 2013) to 3% (post-expansion, 2014 to 2015) (p < 0.001). A differences-in-differences analysis that assessed the effect of Medicaid expansion showed that expanded states had an increase in the proportion of Medicaid patients compared with non-expanded states, (3.6% [95% confidence interval 0.4 to 6.8]; p = 0.03) from 2014 onwards. For the entire study sample, the proportion of early-stage diagnoses (I/II) increased from 56% (939 of 1667) in 2010 to 62% (1137 of 1840) in 2015 (p = 0.003). Similarly, the proportion of unknown stage diagnoses decreased from 11% (188 of 1667) in 2010 to 7% (128 of 1840) in 2015 (p = 0.002). There was no change in proportion of late-stage diagnoses (III/IV) from 32% (540 of 1667) in 2010 to 31% (575 of 1840) in 2015 (p = 0.13). CONCLUSION: Access to cancer care for patients with primary bone or soft-tissue sarcomas improved after the ACA was introduced, as evidenced by a decrease in the proportion of uninsured patients and corresponding increase in Medicaid coverage. Improvements in coverage were most significant among states that adopted the Medicaid expansion of 2014. Furthermore, we observed an increasing proportion of early-stage diagnoses after the ACA was implemented. The findings support the preservation of the ACA to ensure cancer care is equitable and accessible to all vulnerable patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Has the Volume and Variability of Procedures Reported by Fellows in ACGME-accredited Musculoskeletal Oncology Fellowship Programs Changed Over Time?

BACKGROUND: There has been a considerable rise in the number of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic oncology fellowships and subsequently, orthopaedic oncologists, in the nation. National societies have been concerned that the increasing number of orthopaedic oncologists, coupled with a limited number of patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas in the country, may have led to an unintended impact on the training spectrum and/or exposure of orthopaedic oncology fellows-in-training over time. Fellows who are unable to gain exposure by operating on varied cancer presentations during training may be less confident in dealing with a wide array of patients in their practice. Despite these concerns, the volume and variability of procedures performed by fellows-in-training remains unknown. Understanding these parameters will be helpful in establishing policies for standardizing training of prospective fellows to ensure they are well-equipped to care for patients with bone and/or soft-tissue sarcomas in the beginning of their career. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Has the median surgical procedure volume per fellow changed over time? (2) How much variability in procedural volume exists between fellows, based on the most recent (2017) Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) procedure log data? (3) What proportion of fellows are meeting the minimum procedure volume thresholds, as recommended by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS)? METHODS: The 2010 to 2017 ACGME fellowship procedure logs for musculoskeletal oncology fellowships were retrieved from the council's official website. All fellows enrolled in ACGME-accredited fellowships are mandated to complete case logs before graduation. This study did not include operative procedures performed by fellows in nonACGME-approved fellowship programs. The 2010 to 2016 anatomic site-based procedure log data were used to evaluate fellows' overall and location-specific median operative or patient volume, using descriptive statistics. Linear regression analyses were used to assess changes in the median procedure volume over time. The 2017 categorized procedure log data were used to assess variability in procedure volume between the lowest (10th percentile) and highest (90th percentile) of all fellows. Using 2017 procedure logs, we compared the minimum procedure volume standards, as defined by the MSTS, against the number of procedures performed by fellows across the 10th, 30th, 50th (median), 70th, and 90th percentiles. RESULTS: There was no change in the median (range) procedural volume per fellow from 2010 (292 procedures [131 to 634]) to 2017 (312 procedures [174 to 479]; p = 0.58). Based on 2017 categorized procedure log data, there was considerable variability in procedural volume between the lowest (10th) percentile and highest (90th) percentile of fellows across programs: pediatric oncologic procedures (10-fold difference), surgical management of complications from limb-salvage surgery (sevenfold difference), soft-tissue resections or reconstructions (fourfold difference), bone sarcoma resections or limb-salvage surgery (fourfold difference), and spine, sacrum, and pelvis procedures (threefold difference). A fair proportion of fellows did not meet the minimum procedure volume standards, as recommended by the MSTS across certain categories. For the spine and pelvis (minimum = 10 procedures), fellows in the lowest 10th percentile performed only six procedures. For patients with bone sarcomas or limb salvage (minimum = 20 procedures), fellows in the lowest 10th percentile performed only 14 procedures. For pediatric patients with oncologic conditions (minimum = 15 procedures), fellows in the 50th percentile (13 procedures) and below failed to meet the thresholds. For surgical management of complications from limb-salvage procedures (minimum = five procedures), fellows in the lowest 10th percentile performed only three procedures. CONCLUSION: Although we were encouraged to observe that the median number of procedures performed by musculoskeletal oncology fellows over this time has not changed, we observed wide variability in the procedure volume among fellows for pediatric sarcomas, soft-tissue resection and reconstruction, limb salvage procedures, and spine procedures. We do not know how this compares with fellows trained in nonaccredited fellowship programs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although we recognize that the education of fellows entails much more than performing operations, national societies have recognized a need to bring about more uniformity or standardization of training in musculoskeletal oncology. Limiting the number of orthopaedic oncology fellowships to high-volume institutions, expanding the training time period, and/or introducing subspecialty certification may be possible avenues through which standardization of training can be defined.

What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

BACKGROUND: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers is an organization of 11 leading cancer institutions and affiliated hospitals that are exempt from the Medicare prospective system hospital reimbursement policies. Because of their focus on cancer care and participation in innovative cancer treatment methods and protocols, these hospitals are reimbursed based on their actual billings. The perceived lack of incentive to meet a predetermined target price and reduce costs has spurred criticism of the value of cancer care at these institutions. The rationale of our study was to better understand whether dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) deliver high-value care for patients undergoing surgical treatment of spinal metastases. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Is there a difference in 90-day complications and reimbursements between patients undergoing surgical treatment (decompression or fusion) for spinal metastases at DCCs and those treated at nonDCC hospitals? METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was queried using ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes to identify patients undergoing decompression (03.0, 03.09, and 03.4) and/or fusion (81.0X) for spinal metastases (198.5). The database does not allow us to exclude the possibility that some patients were treated with fusion for stabilization of the spine without decompression, although this is likely an uncommon event. Patients undergoing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for metastatic disease were excluded. The Medicare hospital provider identification numbers were used to identify the 11 DCCs. The study cohort was categorized into two groups: DCCs and nonDCCs. Although spinal metastases are known to occur among nonMedicare and younger patients, the payment policies of these DCCs are only applicable to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, to keep the study objective relevant to current policy and value-based discussions, we performed the analysis using the Medicare dataset. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17,776 patients in the study, 6% (1138 of 17,776) of whom underwent surgery at one of the 11 DCCs. Compared with the nonDCC group, DCC group hospitals operated on a younger patient population and on more patients with primary renal cancers. In addition, DCCs were more likely to be high-volume facilities with National Cancer Institute designations and have a voluntary or government ownership model. Patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases at DCCs were more likely to have spinal decompression with fusion than those at nonDCCs (40% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and had a greater length and extent of fusion (at least four levels of fusion; 34% versus 29%; p = 0.001). Patients at DCCs were also more likely than those at nonDCCs to receive postoperative adjunct treatments such as radiation (16% versus 13.5%; p = 0.008) and chemotherapy (17% versus 9%; p < 0.001), although this difference is small and we do not know if this meets a minimum clinically important difference. To account for differences in patients presenting at both types of facilities, multivariate logistic regression mixed-model analyses were used to compare rates of 90-day complications and 90-day mortality between DCC and nonDCC hospitals. Controls were implemented for baseline clinical characteristics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors (such as random effects). Generalized linear regression mixed-modeling was used to evaluate differences in total 90-day reimbursements between DCCs and nonDCCs. RESULTS: After adjusting for differences in baseline demographics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors, patients undergoing surgery at DCCs had lower odds of experiencing sepsis (6.5% versus 10%; odds ratio 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), urinary tract infections (19% versus 28%; OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), renal complications (9% versus 13%; OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.72]; p < 0.001), emergency department visits (27% versus 31%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93]; p = 0.01), and mortality (39% versus 49%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) within 90 days of the procedure compared with patients treated at nonDCCs. Undergoing surgery at a DCC (90-day reimbursement of USD 54,588 ± USD 42,914) compared with nonDCCs (90-day reimbursement of USD 49,454 ± USD 38,174) was also associated with reduced 90-day risk-adjusted reimbursements (USD -14,802 [standard error 1362] ; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, it appears that DCCs offer high-value care, as evidenced by lower complication rates and reduced reimbursements after surgery for spinal metastases. A better understanding of the processes of care adopted at these institutions is needed so that additional cancer centers may also be able to deliver similar care for patients with metastatic spine disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

What Is the Quality of Surgical Care for Patients with Hip Fractures at Critical Access Hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play an important role in providing access to care for many patients in rural communities. Prior studies have shown that these facilities are able to provide timely and quality care for patients who undergo various elective and emergency general surgical procedures. However, little is known about the quality and reimbursement of surgical care for patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs compared with non-CAH facilities. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Are there any differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, mortality, and Medicare payments between patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs and those undergoing surgery at non-CAHs? METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files were queried using ICD-9 procedure codes to identify Medicare-eligible beneficiaries undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (79.15, 79.35, and 78.55), hemiarthroplasty (81.52), and THA (81.51) for isolated closed hip fractures. This database was selected because the claims capture inpatient diagnoses, procedures, charged amounts and paid claims, as well as hospital-level information of the care, of Medicare patients across the nation. Patients with concurrent fixation of an upper extremity, lower extremity, and/or polytrauma were excluded from the study to ensure an isolated cohort of hip fractures was captured. The study cohort was divided into two groups based on where the surgery took place: CAHs and non-CAHs. A 1:1 propensity score match, adjusting for baseline demographics (age, gender, Census Bureau-designated region, and Elixhauser comorbidity index), clinical characteristics (fixation type and time to surgery), and hospital characteristics (whether the hospital was located in a rural ZIP code, the average annual procedure volume of the operating facility, hospital bed size, hospital ownership and teaching status), was used to control for the presence of baseline differences in patients presenting at CAHs and those presenting at non-CAHs. A total of 1,467,482 patients with hip fractures were included, 29,058 of whom underwent surgery in a CAH. After propensity score matching, each cohort (CAH and non-CAH) contained 29,058 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, and mortality between the two matched cohorts. As funding policies of CAHs are regulated by Medicare, an evaluation of costs-of-care (by using Medicare payments as a proxy) was conducted. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to assess the 90-day Medicare payments among patients undergoing surgery in a CAH, while controlling for differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures were less likely to experience many serious complications at a critical access hospital (CAH) than at a non-CAH. In particular, after controlling for patient demographics, hospital-level factors and procedural characteristics, patients treated at a CAH were less likely to experience: myocardial infarction (3% (916 of 29,058) versus 4% (1126 of 29,058); OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.88]; p < 0.001), sepsis (3% (765 of 29,058) versus 4% (1084 of 29,058); OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.78]; p < 0.001), acute renal failure (6% (1605 of 29,058) versus 8% (2353 of 29,058); OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.61 to 0.69]; p < 0.001), and Clostridium difficile infections (1% (367 of 29,058) versus 2% (473 of 29,058); OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.88]; p < 0.001) than undergoing surgery in a non-CAH. CAHs also had lower rates of all-cause 90-day readmissions (18% (5133 of 29,058) versus 20% (5931 of 29,058); OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (4% (1273 of 29,058) versus 5% (1437 of 29,058); OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.82 to 0.95]; p = 0.001) than non-CAHs. Further, CAHs also had risk-adjusted lower 90-day Medicare payments than non-CAHs (USD 800, standard error 89; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients who received hip fracture surgical care at CAHs had a lower risk of major medical and surgical complications than those who had surgery at non-CAHs, even though Medicare reimbursements were lower as well. Although there may be some degree of patient selection at CAHs, these facilities appear to provide high-value care to rural communities. These findings provide evidence for policymakers evaluating the impact of the CAH program and allocating funding resources, as well as for community members seeking emergent care at local CAH facilities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine Fellows See Substantial Increase in Hip Arthroscopy Procedural Volume With High Variability From 2011 to 2016.

PURPOSE: To analyze the trends in operative experience, specifically procedures of the shoulder, hip and knee, of fellows graduating from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships between 2011 and 2016. METHODS: The 2011-2016 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellow case logs were retrieved for analysis. Trends in the mean case volume for procedures of the shoulder, hip, and knee were analyzed. Linear regression was used to identify significant changes in trends over time for each surgical case/procedure. Variation in case volume between fellows in the lowest (10th) and highest (90th) centile was assessed for first and last year of the study. RESULTS: The average number of total procedures per fellow minimally decreased by 3.5% from 2011 to 2016 (726 to 701 cases) (P < .001). The mean total number of hip procedures significantly increased by 155% from 24.9 to 63.5 (P = .049). There were no significant differences in the mean total number of shoulder (P = .88) and knee procedures (P = .54). Arthroscopic hip procedures had the largest increase from 2011 to 2016 (14.1 to 57.8 [+310%], P = .049). There was greater than 2-fold difference in total procedural volume between fellows in the 10th and 90th percentile for 2011 and 2016, with the greatest variation (64-fold) for arthroscopic hip procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study there was a 2.6-fold increase in hip procedures, largely driven by a 310% rise in arthroscopic hip cases. The average procedural volume per fellow minimally decreased, with no change in the mean number of shoulder and knee procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding variability in case exposure among orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships is important for programs to ensure that fellows are appropriately exposed to all facets of sports medicine procedures.

Undergoing an Arthroscopic Procedure Prior to Shoulder Arthroplasty is Associated With Greater Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection.

PURPOSE: To utilize a national all-payer claims dataset to understand whether a history of a prior shoulder arthroscopy is associated with adverse outcomes or complications after the index shoulder arthroplasty itself. METHODS: The Symphony Integrated DataVerse, an all-payer claims database, was used to identify patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty) between 2017 to 2018. Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients who had undergone a shoulder arthroscopic procedure on the ipsilateral side within 2 years before the arthroplasty. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether prior shoulder arthroscopy was associated with higher risks of wound complications, postoperative stiffness, mechanical complications, prosthetic joint infection, revision surgery and readmissions within 90 days of the arthroplasty. RESULTS: In total, 19,429 patients were included, of which 837 (4.3%) had undergone shoulder arthroscopy within 2 years before the arthroplasty. Prior shoulder arthroscopy was associated with a significantly higher risk of prosthetic joint infection (odds ratio [OR] 2.74 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.51-4.69]; P < .001) within 90 days of the arthroplasty. The greatest risk of prosthetic joint infection was associated with arthroscopies that took place within 3 months before the arthroplasty (OR 5.32 [95% CI 1.42-15.14]; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Undergoing an arthroscopic procedure of the ipsilateral shoulder before undergoing an arthroplasty was associated with greater risk of prosthetic joint infection. Furthermore, it appears that patients who received arthroscopy within the 3 months before arthroplasty had the highest risk of prosthetic joint infections. Physicians should not only anticipate possible inferior outcomes in patients who have had prior arthroscopy, but also consider delaying the arthroplasty by at least 3 months after the arthroscopy to mitigate the risks of experiencing this costly adverse event. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Is Treatment at a High-volume Center Associated with an Improved Survival for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors?

BACKGROUND: Centralization of cancer care to high-volume facilities has been shown to improve the overall survival of patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. Current evidence regarding the impact of increased hospital volume on treatment patterns and survival rates for patients with primary malignant bone tumors remains limited. Understanding the facility volume-outcome relationship for primary malignant bone tumors will further discussion on ways to promote delivery of quality cancer care across the nation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there a difference in overall survival for patients with primary malignant bone tumors undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility (at least 20 patients per year) versus those treated at a low-volume facility (less than 20 patients per year)? (2) Do surgical treatment patterns (limb-salvage versus amputation) and margin status (positive versus negative) vary between high-volume and low-volume facilities? METHODS: The 2004 to 2015 National Cancer Database was queried using International Classification of Disease for Oncology topographical codes to identify patients undergoing treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy) for primary malignant bone tumors of the extremities (C40.0-C40.3, C40.8, and C40.9) or pelvis (C41.4). Histologic codes were used to group the tumors into the following categories: osteosarcomas, Ewing's sarcomas, chondrosarcomas, chordomas, and other or unspecified. Patients who did not receive any treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy) at the reporting facility were excluded from the study. Facility volume was calculated based on the average number of patients per year for the entire study period. A preliminary stratified Cox regression model was used to identify evidence-based thresholds or cutoffs for high-volume and low-volume facilities, while adjusting for differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. We identified high-volume facilities as those treating at least 20 patients per year and low-volume facilities as those treating fewer than 20 patients per year. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to report overall unadjusted 5-year survival rates at high-volume and low-volume facilities. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to assess whether undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility was associated with a lower risk of overall mortality, after controlling for differences in baseline demographics, tumor presentation, and treatment characteristics. For patients undergoing surgery, multivariate regression models were used to evaluate whether patients receiving care in a high-volume facility were more likely to receive resections with limb salvage surgery than to receive amputation and whether facility volume was associated with a patient's likelihood of having a positive or negative surgical margin. RESULTS: A total of 14,039 patients were included, 15% (2115) of whom underwent treatment in a high-volume facility. Patients undergoing treatment at a high-volume facility were more likely to be white, have tumors involving the pelvis, have larger tumor sizes, and have a higher tumor grade at presentation than those undergoing treatment at a low-volume facility. Unadjusted 5-year overall survival rates were greater for high-volume facilities than for low-volume facilities (65% versus 61%; p = 0.003). After controlling for differences in patient demographics, tumor characteristics (including histologic type, grade, stage, size, and location) and treatment factors, we found that patients treated at high-volume facilities had a slightly lower overall mortality risk than those treated at low-volume facilities (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.77 to 0.93]; p < 0.001). Patients treated at high-volume facilities were also slightly more likely to undergo resection with limb-salvage surgery to than to undergo amputation (odds ratio 1.34 [95% CI 1.14 to 1.59]; p = 0.001). Patients undergoing surgical treatment at high-volume facilities also had a lower odds of having positive resection margins than those undergoing treatment at low-volume facilities (OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.72]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment for primary malignant bone tumors at high-volume facilities experience a slightly better overall survival than those receiving treatment at low-volume facilities. Further research questioning the value of care at high-volume facilities is required before sweeping changes in regionalization can be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Is Surgical Resection of the Primary Site Associated with an Improved Overall Survival for Patients with Primary Malignant Bone Tumors Who Have Metastatic Disease at Presentation?

BACKGROUND: The management of primary malignant bone tumors in patients with metastatic disease at presentation remains a challenge. Although surgical resection has been a mainstay in the management of nonmetastatic malignant bone tumors, there is a lack of large-scale evidence-based guidance on whether surgery of the primary site/tumor improves overall survival in malignant bone tumors with metastatic disease at presentation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is surgical resection of the primary tumor associated with improved overall survival in patients with primary malignant bone tumors who have metastatic disease at presentation? (2) What other factors are associated with improved and/or poor overall survival? METHODS: The 2004 to 2016 National Cancer Database (NCDB), a national registry containing data from more than 34 million cancer patients in the United States, was queried using International Classification of Diseases, 3rd Edition, topographical codes to identify patients with primary malignant bone tumors of the extremities (C40.0-C40.3, C40.8, and C40.9) and/or pelvis (C41.4). The NCDB was preferred over other national cancer registries (that is, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database) because it includes a specific variable that codes for patients who received additional surgeries at metastatic sites. Patients with malignant bone tumors of the head or skull, trunk, and spinal column were excluded because these patients are not routinely encountered and treated by orthopaedic oncologists. Histologic codes were used to categorize the tumors into the following groups: osteosarcomas, chondrosarcomas, and Ewing sarcomas. Patients whose tumors were classified as Stage 1, 2, or 3 based on American Joint Commission of Cancer guidelines were excluded. Only patients who presented with metastatic disease were included in the final study sample. The study sample was divided into two distinct groups: those who underwent surgical resection of the primary tumor and those who did not receive any operation for the primary tumor. A total of 2288 patients with primary malignant bone tumors (1121 osteosarcomas, 345 chondrosarcomas, and 822 Ewing sarcomas) with metastatic disease at presentation were included, of whom 46% (1053 of 2288) underwent surgical resection of the primary site. Thirty-three percent (348 of 1053) of patients undergoing surgical resection of the primary site also underwent additional resection of metastases. Patients undergoing surgical resection of the primary site typically were younger than 18 years, lived further from a facility, had tumors involving the upper or lower extremity, had a diagnosis of osteosarcoma or chondrosarcoma, and had a greater tumor size and higher tumor grade at presentation. To account for baseline differences within the patient population and to adjust for additional confounding variables, multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to assess whether undergoing surgical resection of the primary tumor was associated with improved overall survival, after controlling for differences in baseline demographics, tumor characteristics (grade, location, histologic type, and tumor size), and treatment patterns (resection of distant or regional metastatic sites, positive or negative surgical margins, and use of radiation therapy or chemotherapy). Additional sensitivity analyses, stratified by histologic type for osteosarcomas, chondrosarcomas, and Ewing sarcomas, were used to assess factors associated with overall survival for each tumor type. RESULTS: After controlling for differences in baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment patterns, we found that surgical resection of the primary site was associated with reduced overall mortality compared with those who did not have a resection of the primary site (hazard ratio 0.42 [95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.49]; p < 0.001). Among other factors, in the stratified analysis, radiation therapy was associated with improved overall survival for patients with Ewing sarcoma (HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.88]; p = 0.002) but not for those with osteosarcoma (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.91 to 1.43]; p = 0.643) or chondrosarcoma (HR 1.0 [95 % CI 0.78 to 1.50]; p = 0.643). Chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival for those with osteosarcoma (HR 0.50 [95% CI 0.39 to 0.64]; p < 0.001) and those with chondrosarcoma (HR 0.62 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.85]; p = 0.003) but not those with Ewing sarcoma (HR 0.7 [95% CI 0.46 to 1.35]; p = 0.385). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection of the primary site was associated with an overall survival advantage in patients with primary malignant bone tumors who presented with metastatic disease. Further research, using more detailed data on metastatic sites (such as, size, location, number, and treatment), chemotherapy regimen and location of radiation (primary or metastatic site) is warranted to better understand which patients will have improved overall survival and/or a benefit in the quality of life from resecting their primary malignant tumor if they present with metastatic disease at diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Declining Trend in Medicare Physician Reimbursements for Hand Surgery From 2002 to 2018.

PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in Medicare physician reimbursements for 20 common hand procedures/surgeries from 2002 to 2018. METHODS: The Physician Fee Schedule Look-up Tool was used to retrieve average reimbursement rates for 20 common hand surgeries/procedures from 2002 to 2018. All reimbursement data were adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars. RESULTS: After adjusting all data for inflation, the average reimbursement for all included procedures decreased by 20.9% from 2002 to 2018, with a compound annual growth rate of -3.25%. Reimbursement percentage decreases were the greatest prior to 2010 (18.4% decrease), followed by a relative stabilization (0.94% increase) from 2010 to 2014, after which physicians experienced a decrease of 3.9% in reimbursements between 2014 and 2018, following implementation of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act in 2015. The most significant decreases in reimbursements over time were noted for primary tendon/muscle repair (-49.6%), wrist arthroscopy for triangular fibrocartilage repair/debridement (-44.0%), trigger finger release in facility (-40.1%), excision of extensor tendon sheath (-38.2%), ganglion cyst excision (-36.7%), wrist arthroscopy for diagnostic/synovial biopsy (-35.7%), wrist arthroscopy for drainage/infection/lavage (-35.1%), wrist arthrodesis (-30.6%), endoscopic carpal tunnel release (-27.2%), total wrist arthroplasty (-26.6%), carpometacarpal/basal joint arthroplasty (-25.1%), and open carpal tunnel release (-22.3%). The only procedures with a significant increase in reimbursement over time were trigger finger release in office (+4.2%), open reduction internal fixation distal radius fracture (+2.5%), and cubital tunnel release (+1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for inflation, Medicare physician reimbursements for a major proportion of hand surgical procedures have decreased over time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Health-policy makers need to understand the impact of decreasing reimbursements to develop policies of reimbursements that will not only ensure provider satisfaction but also maintain access to care for patients.

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.

Current diagnosis-related group-based bundling for upper-extremity arthroplasty: a case of insufficient risk adjustment and misaligned incentives.

BACKGROUND: The current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services diagnosis-related group (DRG) bundled-payment model for upper-extremity arthroplasty does not differentiate between the type of arthroplasty (anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty [ATSA] vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty vs. total elbow arthroplasty [TEA] vs. total wrist arthroplasty) or the diagnosis and indication for surgery (fracture vs. degenerative osteoarthritis vs. inflammatory arthritis). METHODS: The 2011-2014 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5) database was queried to identify patients undergoing upper-extremity arthroplasty under DRG-483 and -484. Multivariate linear regression modeling was used to assess the marginal cost impact of patient-, procedure-, diagnosis-, and state-level factors on 90-day reimbursements. RESULTS: Of 6101 patients undergoing upper-extremity arthroplasty, 3851 (63.1%) fell under DRG-484 and 2250 (36.9%) were classified under DRG-483. The 90-day risk-adjusted cost of an ATSA for degenerative osteoarthritis was $14,704 ± $655. Patient-level factors associated with higher 90-day reimbursements were male sex (+$777), age 75-79 years (+$740), age 80-84 years (+$1140), and age 85 years or older (+$984). Undergoing a TEA (+$2175) was associated with higher reimbursements, whereas undergoing a shoulder hemiarthroplasty (-$1000) was associated with lower reimbursements. Surgery for a fracture (+$2354) had higher 90-day reimbursements. Malnutrition (+$10,673), alcohol use or dependence (+$6273), Parkinson disease (+$4892), cerebrovascular accident or stroke (+$4637), and hyper-coagulopathy (+$4463) had the highest reimbursements. In general, states in the South and Midwest had lower 90-day reimbursements associated with upper-extremity arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Under the DRG-based model piloted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers and hospitals would be reimbursed the same amount regardless of the type of surgery (ATSA vs. hemiarthroplasty vs. TEA), patient comorbidity burden, and diagnosis and indication for surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated reimbursements. Lack of risk adjustment for fracture indications leads to strong financial disincentives within this model.

Discharge to a Non-Home Destination Following Total Ankle Arthroplasty (TAA): An Analysis of the ACS-NSQIP Database.

Despite an increasing trend in the number of total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) being done globally, current evidence remains limited with regards to factors influencing a non-home discharge to a facility following the procedure. The 2012-2016 American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried using Current Procedural Terminology code 27702 for patients undergoing TAA. Discharge to a destination was categorized into home and non-home. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression models were used to evaluate independent risk factors associated with non-home discharge disposition. As a secondary objective, we also evaluated risk factors associated with a prolonged length of stay (LOS) >2 days. A total of 722 TAAs were retrieved for final analysis. A total of 68 (9.4%) patients experienced a non-home discharge following the surgery. Independent factors for a non-home discharge were a LOS >2 days (odds ratio [OR] 10.51), age ≥65 years (OR 4.52), female (OR 2.90), hypertension (OR 2.63), and American Society of Anesthesiologists >II (OR 2.01). A total of 174 (24.1%) patients stayed in the hospital for more than 2 days. Significant risk factors for LOS >2 days were age ≥65 years (OR 1.62), female (OR 1.53), operative time >150 minutes (OR 1.91), and an inpatient admission status (OR 4.74). With limited literature revolving around outcomes following TAA, the current study identifies significant predictors associated with a non-home discharge. Providers should consider preoperatively risk-stratifying and expediting discharge in these patients to reduce the costs associated with a prolonged hospital length of stay.

Refining Risk-Adjustment of 90-Day Costs Following Surgical Fixation of Ankle Fractures: An Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries.

As the current healthcare model transitions from fee-for-service to value-based payments, identifying cost-drivers of 90-day payments following surgical procedures will be a key factor in risk-adjusting prospective bundled payments and ensuring success of these alternative payment models. The 5% Medicare Standard Analytical Files data set for 2005-2014 was used to identify patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for isolated unimalleolar, bimalleolar, and trimalleolar ankle fractures. All acute care and post-acute care payments starting from day 0 of surgery to day 90 postoperatively were used to calculate 90-day costs. Patients with missing data were excluded. Multivariate linear regression modeling was used to derive marginal cost impact of patient-level (age, sex, and comorbidities), procedure-level (fracture type, morphology, location of surgery, concurrent ankle arthroscopy, and syndesmotic fixation), and state-level factors on 90-day costs after surgery. A total of 6499 patients were included in the study. The risk-adjusted 90-day cost for a female patient, aged 65 to 69 years, undergoing outpatient ORIF for a closed unimalleolar ankle fracture in Michigan was $6949 ± $1060. Individuals aged <65 or ≥70 years had significantly higher costs. Procedure-level factors associated with significant marginal cost increases were inpatient surgery (+$5577), trimalleolar fracture (+$1082), and syndesmotic fixation (+$2822). The top 5 comorbidities with the largest marginal cost increases were chronic kidney disease (+$8897), malnutrition (+$7908), obesity (+$5362), cerebrovascular disease/stroke (+$4159), and anemia (+$3087). Higher costs were seen in Nevada (+$6371), Massachusetts (+$4497), Oklahoma (+$4002), New Jersey (+$3802), and Maryland (+$3043) compared with Michigan. With the use of a national administrative claims database, the study identifies numerous patient-level, procedure-level, and state-level factors that significantly contribute to the cost variation seen in 90-day payments after ORIF for ankle fracture. Risk adjustment of 90-day costs will become a necessity as bundled-payment models begin to take over the current fee-for-service model in patients with fractures.

Outpatient Versus Inpatient Surgical Fixation of Isolated Ankle Fractures: An Analysis of 90-Day Complications, Readmissions, and Costs.

Despite increasing interest toward managing isolated ankle fractures in an outpatient setting, evidence of its safety remains largely limited. The 2007 to 2014 Humana Administrative Claims database was queried to identify patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation for unimalleolar, bimalleolar, or trimalleolar isolated closed ankle fractures. Two cohorts (outpatient versus inpatient) were then matched on the basis of age, sex, race, region, fracture type (uni-/bi-/trimalleolar) and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index to control for selection bias. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to report independent impact of outpatient-treated ankle fracture surgery on 90-day complications, readmission, and emergency department visit rates. Independent-samples t test was used to compare global 90-day costs between cohorts. A total of 5317 inpatient-treated and 6941 outpatient-treated closed ankle fractures were included in the final cohort. After matching and multivariate analyses, patients with outpatient ankle fractures, compared with patients with inpatient ankle fractures, had statistically lower rates of pneumonia (2.3% versus 4.0%; p < .001), myocardial infarction (0.9% versus 1.8%; p = .005), acute renal failure (2.2% versus 5.3%; p < .001), urinary tract infections (7.4% versus 12.3%; p < .001), and pressure ulcers (0.9% versus 2.0%; p = .001). Outpatient ankle fractures also had lower rates of 90-day readmissions (9.7% versus 14.1%; p < .001) and emergency department visits (13.8% versus 16.2%; p = .028). Last, overall 90-day costs for outpatient ankle fractures were nearly $9000 lower than costs for inpatient ankle fractures ($12,923 versus $21,866; p < .001). Based on our findings, it appears that outpatient treatment of ankle fractures can be deemed safe and feasible in a select cohort of patients.

Predictors of an increased length of stay following Total Knee Arthroplasty - Survey Report.

OBJECTIVE: To find various preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors that predict an increased length of stay in patients following total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, and comprised record of patients regardless of gender, co-morbids and age who had undergone a unilateral or bilateral total knee arthroplasty between January 2007 and December 2015. An increased length of stay was defined as ≥75th centile (≥11 days). RESULTS: Of the 577 patients, 448(77.6%) were women. Overall, 311(53.9%) patients were aged 56-70 years. Of the total, 100(17.3%) patients stayed for at least 11 days. There was a weak but positive correlation between increasing body mass index and increased length of stay (p=0.017). Following adjusted-multivariate logistic regression analysis, the most significant predictors contributing to an increased length of stay were bilateral knee surgery, postoperative transfusion and postoperative special care unit stay (p<0.05 each). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral total knee arthroplasty, postoperative transfusion and postoperative special care unit stay were found to be associated with an increased length of stay.

Incidence, risk factors and clinical impact of postoperative delirium following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for hip fractures: an analysis of 7859 patients from the ACS-NSQIP hip fracture procedure targeted database.

OBJECTIVE: Delirium is one of the most common acute psychiatric disturbances taking place in patients, particularly elderly, following hip fractures. Using a validated national surgical database, we sought to define the incidence, risk factors and clinical impact associated with the occurrence of delirium following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for hip fracture. METHODS: The 2016 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Hip Fracture Targeted Procedure file-was retrieved and merged with the ACS-NSQIP 2016 file. A total of 7859 patients were finally included in the study. RESULTS: A total of 2177 (27.7%) patients experienced an episode of delirium following the procedure. Adjusted analysis showed an increasing age ≥ 65 years (p < 0.001), partially dependent functional health status prior to surgery (p = 0.001), bleeding disorder (p = 0.012), preoperative dementia (p < 0.001), preoperative delirium (p < 0.001), being bed-ridden postoperatively (p < 0.001), no weight bearing as tolerated on first postoperative day (p < 0.001), an ASA grade > II (p < 0.001), non-emergency case (p = 0.010) and a prolonged length of stay > 3 days (p < 0.001). In addition, Black or African-American ethnicity had a lower odds of developing postoperative delirium (p = 0.020) as compared to Whites. Moreover, postoperative delirium was significantly associated with non-home discharge disposition (p < 0.001), higher odds of 30-day readmissions (p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study identifies several risk factors associated with the occurrence of postoperative delirium in patients undergoing ORIF for hip fracture. Surgeons can utilize these data to risk stratify and consequently tailor an appropriate preoperative and postoperative care protocol to prevent the occurrence of delirium.

The impact of metabolic syndrome on 30-day outcomes in geriatric hip fracture surgeries.

PURPOSE: Past literature has reported metabolic syndrome (MetS) to complicate postoperative care in patients undergoing various surgical procedures. We sought to analyze the impact of MetS on 30-day outcomes following hip fracture surgeries in the geriatric population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2015-2016 ACS-NSQIP database was queried for patients undergoing hip fracture repair using CPT codes for total hip arthroplasty (27130), hemiarthroplasty (27125) and open reduction internal fixation (27236, 27244, 27245). Only patients ≥ 65 years of age undergoing surgery due to a traumatic hip fracture were included in the study. MetS was defined using preset criteria used by other NSQIP studies as the presence of-(1) diabetes mellitus AND (2) hypertension requiring medication AND (3) BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2. RESULTS: Out of 31,621 patients, a total of 1388 (4.4%) geriatric patients with MetS underwent hip fracture surgery. Following adjusted analysis, the presence of MetS was associated with higher odds of a prolonged length of stay > 5 days (OR 1.14 [95% CI 1.01-1.29]; p = 0.031), deep SSI (OR 2.48 [95% CI 1.20-5.14]; p = 0.014), progressive renal insufficiency (OR 3.27 [95% CI 1.98-5.42]; p < 0.001), acute renal failure (OR 2.08 [95% CI 1.04-4.15]; p = 0.038), urinary tract infection (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.12-1.81]; p = 0.004), 30-day readmissions (OR 1.28 [95% CI 1.08-1.52]; p = 0.005) and a non-home discharge (OR 1.42 [95% CI 1.18-1.71]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MetS is associated with a significantly increased risk of several postoperative complications, readmissions and non-home discharge dispositions. Providers can utilize these data to promote the need for better perioperative care in these high-risk patients.