Surprise Billing in Elective Shoulder Surgery and Its Effect on Patient Satisfaction.

Patients often receive multiple bills following surgery, which may come as a surprise to them if they are not appropriately informed or educated prior to surgery. The purpose of this study was to identify whether surprise billing occurs following shoulder rotator cuff repair and its effect on patient satisfaction. The study surveyed adult patients who underwent elective rotator cuff repair from January 2020 to October 2021. Patients were asked if they received unexpected bills after their surgery, as well as about details regarding those bills. Additionally, patients were asked about their medical insurance carrier, knowledge of the billing process prior to surgery, and how they felt the process could be improved. Finally, patients were asked how these bills and the overall billing process affected their surgical satisfaction. Of the 158 responses, 25% of the patients stated they received at least one surprise bill following their rotator cuff surgery, with 57% of these bills being greater than $1000. Patients who received surprise bills reported being significantly less satisfied with their surgery (P<.001) and felt their billing experience affected their surgical satisfaction (64% vs 9%, P<.001). One in 4 patients undergoing elective rotator cuff repair received a surprise bill following surgery. These bills were monetarily substantial and significantly affected surgical satisfaction. Although surgeons may be unable to limit the amount of bills patients receive postoperatively, increased communication and education regarding the perioperative billing process may prove to be beneficial for both patient satisfaction and the physician-patient relationship. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(2):123-127.].

Clinical Outcomes After Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstructions With Concomitant Ulnar Nerve Transposition in Overhead Athletes: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Injury of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) has become increasingly common, particularly in overhead athletes. There is no consensus on management of the ulnar nerve in UCL reconstruction (UCLR) in patients with preoperative ulnar nerve symptoms, as literature supports both not decompressing the nerve as well as ulnar nerve transposition (UNT). HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare subjective clinical outcomes and return-to-sports (RTS) metrics between patients who received UNT during UCLR and a matched cohort who underwent UCLR alone. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in patient outcomes or RTS metrics between the cohorts. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Using an institutional database, patients who underwent UCLR with UNT between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively identified. These patients were matched based on sex, age at surgery (±3 years), and body mass index (±2 kg/m2) to a comparison group that underwent UCLR alone. Patients completed the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Shoulder & Elbow (KJOC) score, the Timmerman and Andrews elbow score, the Conway-Jobe scale, and custom patient satisfaction and RTS questionnaires. RESULTS: Thirty patients who underwent UCLR with concomitant UNT and 30 matched patients who underwent UCLR without UNT were available for follow-up at a mean of 6.9 (3.4-9.9) and 8.1 (3.4-13.9) years, respectively. The UNT group reported similar KJOC (78.4 in UNT vs 76.8; P = .780), Conway-Jobe (60% excellent in UNT vs 77% excellent; P = .504), Timmerman and Andrews (86.2 in UNT vs 88.8; P = .496), and satisfaction scores (85.3% in UNT vs 89.3%; P = .512) compared with UCLR group. In terms of RTS rate (84% in UNT vs 93% in UCLR; P = .289) and duration required to RTS (11.1 months in UNT vs 12.5 months in UCLR; P = .176), the 2 groups did not significantly differ. Finally, despite significant differences in preoperative ulnar nerve symptoms (100% in UNT vs 7% in UCLR; P < .001), the 2 groups did not statistically differ in the proportion of patients who experienced postoperative ulnar nerve symptoms (13% in UNT vs 0% in UCLR; P = .112). CONCLUSION: This matched cohort analysis showed no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes and RTS between patients undergoing UCLR with and without UNT.

Return to driving following anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The currently recommended time to return to driving following shoulder arthroplasty is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine patient-specific factors associated with early return to driving after anatomic (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). METHODS: All patients aged >18 years undergoing primary aTSA or RTSA at a single institution over a 3-year period were retrospectively identified. Patients were emailed a questionnaire to determine time to postoperative return to driving and frequency of driving prior to and following surgery. Patients who did not drive prior to surgery or did not complete the questionnaire were excluded from analysis. Multivariate analysis was used to determine patient-specific factors associated with early return to driving (within 2 weeks following surgery) and delayed return (>6 weeks following surgery). RESULTS: Four hundred six patients were included for analysis (aTSA = 214, RTSA = 192). Patients undergoing aTSA were significantly younger (68 vs. 74 years) and drove more frequently both pre- and postoperatively than the RTSA cohort. One hundred percent of patients returned to driving postoperatively. Patients undergoing aTSA more commonly demonstrated earlier return to driving than RTSA patients (34% vs. 20%). Factors associated with increased odds of early return to driving included male sex (aTSA) and compliance with surgeon instruction (aTSA). Decreased odds of early return was associated with waiting to drive until cessation of sling use (RTSA), older age (RTSA), and increased body mass index (RTSA). The presence of surgical complications (aTSA) and prolonged use of narcotics (RTSA) were associated with return to driving >6 weeks following surgery. No difference in the rate of motor vehicle accidents was found between patients returning to driving <2 vs. >2 weeks postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing aTSA return to driving sooner than those undergoing RTSA. Early return to driving appears to be influenced by patient sex, age, BMI, narcotic and sling use, and compliance with surgeon instruction, but does not appear to result in a high incidence of postoperative MVA.

Risk of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss for Orthopaedic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) affects the ability of an individual to communicate and can negatively impact quality of life. The risk to orthopaedic surgeons of developing NIHL as a result of occupational exposures in the operating room (OR) is currently unknown. Hearing protection is recommended for levels of >85 decibels (dB), irrespective of length of exposure. The primary goal of the present study was to determine whether orthopaedic surgeons are exposed to harmful noise levels in the OR that puts them at risk for developing NIHL. METHODS: A prospective review was conducted with use of intraoperative audio recordings across 6 orthopaedic subspecialties. Recordings were made in ORs prior to the surgical start time to serve as baseline controls. Decibel levels were reported as the maximum dB level (MDL), defined as the highest sound pressure level during the measurement period, and as the time-weighted average (TWA), defined as the average dB level projected over an 8-hour time period. Noise doses were reported as the percentage of maximum allowable daily noise (dose) and as the measured dose projected forward over 8 hours (projected dose). RESULTS: Three hundred audio recordings were made and analyzed. The average MDL ranged from 96.9 to 102.0 dB, with noise levels for all subspeciality procedures being significantly greater compared with the control recordings (p < 0.001). Overall, MDLs were >85 dB in 84% of cases and >100 dB in 35.0% of cases. The procedure with the highest noise dose was a microdiscectomy, which reached 11.3% of the maximum allowable daily noise and a projected dose of 104.1%. Among subspecialties, adult reconstruction had the highest dose and projected dose per case among subspecialties. CONCLUSIONS: The present results showed that orthopaedic surgeons are regularly exposed to damaging noise levels (i.e., >85 dB), putting them at risk for permanent hearing loss. Further investigation into measures to mitigate noise exposure in the OR and prevent hearing loss in orthopaedic surgeons should be undertaken. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk for NIHL as a result of occupational exposures in the OR.

Malpractice against shoulder surgeons: what the data say.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of orthopedic surgeons in the United State face medical malpractice claims annually; however, little is known regarding the common causes for litigation against shoulder surgeons. In addition, the current analysis does not take into consideration how surgical frequency affects the litigation likelihood. The purpose of our investigation was to identify the most common causes of litigation against shoulder surgeons in the United States adjusting for surgical frequency. METHODS: The VerdictSearch database was used using the search terms "medical malpractice," "shoulder," and "NOT cancer." Results were queried, and all studies pertaining to orthopedic shoulder surgery included. Data gathered included cause of lawsuit, indemnity paid, type of surgery performed, results of the cases, verdict or settlement, and, if applicable, technical error. A query of a multisurgeon institutional database was conducted to determine how frequently surgeries were performed. Then the frequency of litigation was adjusted by the procedure frequency to determine which surgery has the greatest likelihood to be litigated relative to rotator cuff surgery. RESULTS: Forty-five cases were included in our study. After adjusting for the procedure frequency, the most likely procedure to be litigated, relative to rotator cuff repair, was manipulation under anesthesia (MUA), 251 times more likely to be litigated, and washout/lavage procedures, 17 times more likely to be litigated. Injection and total shoulder arthroplasty were 23 and 14 times less likely to be litigated relative to rotator cuff repair, respectively. In addition, the average age of the patients was 47 years, and 53% of the cases involved a male plaintiff. The most commonly litigated procedures were rotator cuff repair (42%), MUA (13%), and humeral open reduction and internal fixation (9%). The most commonly cited symptoms for litigation against shoulder surgeons were pain (60%) and loss of range of motion (40%). Of the 45 cases, 44% ended in physician loss, with the average indemnity paid via verdict being $1,118,714 vs. $416,875 for settlement. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies that MUA and lavage/washout procedures are much more likely to be litigated relative to rotator cuff repair. Rotator cuff repair is actually one of the least likely procedures to be litigated. Furthermore, settlement may represent a method of decreasing the indemnity paid for malpractice cases for which surgeons are implicated.

Biomechanical comparison of elbow stability constructs.

BACKGROUND: Despite surgical stabilization of complex elbow trauma, additional fixation to maintain joint congruity and stability may be required. Multiple biomechanical constructs include a static external fixator (SEF), a hinged external fixator (HEF), an internal joint stabilizer (IJS), and a hinged elbow orthosis (HEO). The optimal adjunct fixation to surgical reduction is yet to be determined. METHODS: Eight matched cadaveric upper extremities were tested in a biomechanical model. Anteroposterior stress radiographs were obtained of the elbow in full supination at 0° and 45° of elbow flexion with the weight of the hand serving as a varus load as the baseline. A 360° capsuloligamentous soft-tissue release was performed around the elbow. The biomechanical constructs were applied in the same sequential order: SEF, HEF, IJS, and HEO. For each construct, 0 kg (0-lb) and 2.3 kg (5-lb) of weight were applied to the distal arm. At both weights, radiographs were obtained with the elbow at 0° and 45° of flexion, with subsequent measurement of displacement, congruence at the ulnohumeral joint, and the ulnohumeral opening angle. Statistical analysis was performed to quantify the strength and stability of each construct. RESULTS: Compared with the control group at 0° with and without 2.3 kg (5-lb) of varus force and at 45° with and without 2.3 kg (5-lb) of varus force, no difference was noted in the medial ulnohumeral joint space, lateral ulnohumeral joint space, or ulnohumeral opening angle between the SEF, HEF, and IJS. The gap change after exertion of a 2.3-kg (5-lb) force between the control condition and application of each construct demonstrated no difference between the SEF, HEF, and IJS. Comparison among destabilized elbows showed no significant difference between the SEF, HEF, and IJS. The HEO catastrophically failed in each position at 0 kg (0-lb) of weight. CONCLUSION: The SEF, HEF, and IJS are neither superior nor inferior at maintaining elbow congruity with the weight of the arm and 2.3 kg (5-lb) of varus stress. The HEO did not provide additional stability to the unstable elbow.

Amount of CMS Reduction in Facility Reimbursement Following Removal of Total Hip Arthroplasty From the Inpatient-Only List Far Exceeds Reduction in Actual Care Cost.

BACKGROUND: Starting in 2020, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) removed total hip arthroplasty (THA) from the inpatient-only list, resulting in an average of $1637 per case reduction in facility reimbursement. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the reduction in reimbursement is justified by comparing the difference in true facility costs between inpatient and outpatient THA. METHODS: We identified a consecutive series of 5271 primary THA procedures from 2015 to 2019. Itemized procedural costs were calculated using a time-driven activity-based costing algorithm. Outpatient procedures were defined as those with less than a 24-hour length of stay. We compared patient demographics, comorbidities, and itemized costs between inpatient and outpatient procedures. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the independent effect of outpatient status on true facility costs. RESULTS: There were 783 (14.9%) outpatient THA procedures. The outpatient THA procedures incurred lower mean personnel ($1428 vs $2226, P < .001), supply ($4713 vs $4739, P < .001), and overall facility costs ($6141 vs $6595, P < .001) when compared with the same THA procedures done inpatient. When controlling for confounding variables, outpatient status was associated with a reduction in total facility costs of $825 (95% confidence interval, $734-$916, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The reduction in CMS reimbursement far exceeds the $825 per-patient cost savings that can be achieved by a facility by performing THA as an outpatient. CMS should reconsider the Outpatient Prospective Payment System classification of THA to better incentivize surgeons to perform THA as a lower-cost outpatient procedure when safe and appropriate.