Pediatric Back Pain: A Scoring System to Guide Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of back pain in the pediatric population is increasing, and the workup of these patients presents a clinical challenge. Many cases are selflimited, but failure to diagnose a pathology that requires clinical intervention can carry severe repercussions. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) carries a high cost to the patient and health care system, and may even require procedural sedation in the pediatric population. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system based on pediatric patient factors to help determine when an MRI will change clinical management. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive pediatric patients who presented to clinic with a chief complaint of back pain between 2010 and 2018 at single orthopaedic surgery practice. Comprehensive demographic and presentation variables were collected. A predictive model of factors that influence whether MRI results in a change in management was then generated using cross-validation least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 729 patients were included, with a mean age of 15.1 years (range: 3 to 20 y). Of these, 344 (47.2%) had an MRI. A predictive model was generated, with nocturnal symptoms (5 points), neurological deficit (10 points), age (0.7 points per year), lumbar pain (2 points), sudden onset of pain (3.25 points), and leg pain (3.75 points) identified as significant predictors. A combined score of greater than 9.5 points for a given patient is highly suggestive that an MRI will result in a change in clinical management (specificity: 0.93; positive predictive value: 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: A predictive model was generated to help determine when ordering an MRI may result in a change in clinical management for workup of back pain in the pediatric population. The main factors included the presence of a neurological deficit, nocturnal symptoms, sudden onset, leg pain, lumbar pain, and age. Care providers can use these findings to better determine if and when an MRI might be appropriate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-diagnostic study.

Artificial intelligence predicts disk re-herniation following lumbar microdiscectomy: development of the "RAD" risk profile.

PURPOSE: Surgical treatment of herniated lumbar intervertebral disks is a common procedure worldwide. However, recurrent herniated nucleus pulposus (re-HNP) may develop, complicating outcomes and patient management. The purpose of this study was to utilize machine-learning (ML) analytics to predict lumbar re-HNP, whereby a personalized risk prediction can be developed as a clinical tool. METHODS: A retrospective, single center study was conducted of 2630 consecutive patients that underwent lumbar microdiscectomy (mean follow-up: 22-months). Various preoperative patient pain/disability/functional profiles, imaging parameters, and anthropomorphic/demographic metrics were noted. An Extreme Gradient Boost (XGBoost) classifier was implemented to develop a predictive model identifying patients at risk for re-HNP. The model was exported to a web application software for clinical utility. RESULTS: There were 1608 males and 1022 females, 114 of whom experienced re-HNP. Primary herniations were central (65.8%), paracentral (17.6%), and far lateral (17.1%). The XGBoost algorithm identified multiple re-HNP predictors and was incorporated into an open-access web application software, identifying patients at low or high risk for re-HNP. Preoperative VAS leg, disability, alignment parameters, elevated body mass index, symptom duration, and age were the strongest predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Our predictive modeling via an ML approach of our large-scale cohort is the first study, to our knowledge, that has identified significant risk factors for the development of re-HNP after initial lumbar decompression. We developed the re-herniation after decompression (RAD) profile index that has been translated into an online screening tool to identify low-high risk patients for re-HNP. Additional validation is needed for potential global implementation.

Does obesity impact lumbar sagittal alignment and clinical outcomes after a posterior lumbar spine fusion?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare clinical patient-reported outcomes and radiographic sagittal parameters between obese and non-obese patients following open posterior lumbar spine fusion (PLSF). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted for patients who underwent open PLSF from 2011 to 2018. Patients were classified as obese as per Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines if their body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2. Preoperative and final visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were obtained for both obese and non-obese groups. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference was evaluated. Preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final lumbar plain radiographs were assessed to measure spinopelvic parameters. Additionally, postoperative complication measures were collected. RESULTS: A total of 569 patients were included; 290 (50.97%) patients with BMI < 30 (non-obese) and 279 (49.03%) patients with BMI ≥ 30 (obese). Patients classified as obese were more likely to have a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (p < 0.001), and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System of ≥ 3 (p < 0.001). Obese patients had significantly longer operative times (p < 0.001) compared to non-obese patients. There was no difference in radiographic measurements, patient-reported outcomes, postoperative complications, or reoperations between groups. CONCLUSION: Obese patients had significantly more comorbidities and longer operative time compared to non-obese patients. However, sagittal parameters, patient-reported outcomes, inpatient complications, length of hospital stay, and reoperations were similar between groups. Given these findings, open PLSF can be considered safe and effective in obese patients after thorough consideration of related comorbidities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Gender Differences for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Complications and Healthcare Utilization.

INTRODUCTION: The influence of patient gender on complications and healthcare utilization remains unexplored. The purpose of the present study was to determine if patient gender significantly affected outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of THA and TKA patients was performed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011. Only patients who underwent elective procedures and those with complete perioperative data were included. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the rates of adverse events between male and female cohorts while controlling for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 6,123,637 patients were included in the study (31.2% THA and 68.8% TKA). The cohort was 61.1% female. While males had a lower rate of any adverse event (odds ratio [OR] = 0.8, P < .001), urinary tract infection (OR = 0.4, P < .001), deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (OR = 0.9, P < .001), and blood transfusion (OR = 0.5, P < .001), male gender was associated with statistically significant increases in the rates of death (OR = 1.6, P < .001), acute kidney injury (OR = 1.6, P < .001), cardiac arrest (OR = 1.7, P < .001), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.6, P < .001), pneumonia (OR = 1.1, P < .001), sepsis (OR = 1.6, P < .001), surgical site infection (OR = 1.4, P < .001), and wound dehiscence (OR = 1.4, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Males had increased rates of many individual adverse events. Females had higher rates of urinary tract infection, which translated to an overall higher rate of adverse events in females because of the rarity of the other individual adverse events.

Multi- versus single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparing sagittal alignment, early adjacent segment degeneration, and clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), sagittal alignment parameters, and patient-reported outcomes in patients who underwent multi-level versus single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on consecutive patients who underwent an ACDF. Pre- and post-operative radiographic assessment included ASD, change in C2-C7 lordosis, T1 angle, levels fused, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), fusion mass lordosis, proximal and distal adjacent segment lordosis. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained. RESULTS: Of the 404 that underwent an ACDF with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up (average 28 months), there was no significant difference in the rate of radiographic ASD overall (p = 0.479) or in the proximal or distal adjacent segments on multivariate analysis. Secondarily, the multi-level fusions appear to restore significantly greater amounts of lordosis compared to single-level procedures (p < 0.001) and are able to maintain the corrected cervical lordosis and fusion segment lordosis over time. From the immediate post-operative period to final follow-up, the single-level ACDFs show continuing lordosis improvement (p = 0.005) that is significantly greater than that of the multi-level constructs. There were no significant differences between pre-operative, post-operative, or change in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Two years following an ACDF, patients who underwent multi-level fusions appear to restore significantly greater amounts of lordosis compared to single-level procedures, while single-level ACDFs show significantly greater amounts of lordosis improvement over time. Multi-level procedures may not be at a significantly greater risk of developing early radiographic evidence of ASD compared to single-level procedure. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Injury patterns and risk factors for orthopaedic trauma from snowboarding and skiing: a national perspective.

PURPOSE: Alpine skiing and snowboarding are both popular winter sports that can be associated with significant orthopaedic injuries. However, there is a lack of nationally representative injury data for the two sports. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for patients presenting to emergency departments due to injuries sustained from skiing and snowboarding during 2011 and 2012. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and injury patterns were tabulated and compared between skiing and snowboarding. Risk factors for increased injury severity score and lack of helmet use were identified using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 6055 patients identified, 55.2 % were skiers. Sixty-one percent had fractures. Lower extremity fractures were the most common injury and occurred more often in skiers (p < 0.001). Upper extremity fractures were more common in snowboarders, particularly distal radius fractures (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, increased injury severity was independently associated with age 18-29, 60-69, 70+, male sex, a positive blood test for alcohol, a positive blood test for an illegal substance, and wearing a helmet. Lack of helmet use was associated with age 18-29, 30-39, smoking, a positive drug test for an illegal substance, and snowboarding. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults, the elderly, and those using substances were shown to be at greater risk of increased injury severity and lack of helmet use. The results of this study can be used clinically to guide the initial assessment of these individuals following injury, as well as for targeting preventive measures and education. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III.

How many innings can we throw: does workload influence injury risk in Major League Baseball? An analysis of professional starting pitchers between 2010 and 2015.

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest regarding the association between pitch counts, as well as total workload per season, and the risk of injury among Major League Baseball (MLB) starting pitchers. METHODS: We used publicly available databases to identify all MLB starting pitchers eligible for play who made at least 5 starts in seasons between 2010 and 2015. For all included pitchers, annual pitching statistics (number of starts, total season pitch counts, total season inning counts, and average pitch count per game started) and annual disabled list (DL) information (time on DL for any reason and time on DL related to upper extremity, lower extremity, or axial body injury) were collected. A multiple logistic regression analyzed games started, pitch counts, innings pitched, and pitches per start during all previous seasons as a risk factor for injury in the current season, controlling for previous injury. RESULTS: A total of 161 starting MLB pitchers met the inclusion criteria. With the exception of total innings pitched from 2010-2011 being significantly associated with DL placement in 2012 (no DL, 310.5 ± 97.5 innings; DL, 344.7 ± 85.9 innings; P = .040), no other finding for starts, pitch counts, innings, or pitches per start in the cumulative years from 2010-2014 had a significant association with pitcher placement on the DL for any musculoskeletal reason or for an upper extremity reason between 2011 and 2015. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we demonstrate that there is no association between preceding years of cumulative pitches, starts, innings pitched, or average pitches per start and being placed on the DL for any musculoskeletal reason.

The Influence of Patient Gender on Morbidity Following Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Little research has focused on the influence of gender on postoperative morbidity following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to compare operative time, length of stay, 30-day complications, and readmissions based on patient gender. METHODS: The prospectively collected National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry from 2005 to 2014 was queried to identify primary elective THA and TKA patients. Multivariate regression was used to compare the rates of 30-day adverse events, rates of readmission, operative time, and postoperative length of stay between men and women. Multivariate analyses were controlled for baseline patient characteristics and procedure type. RESULTS: A total of 173,777 patients were included (63.5% TKA and 36.5% THA). Male gender increased the risk of multiple adverse events, including death (relative risk [RR] 1.1, P < .001), surgical site infection (RR 1.2, P < .001), sepsis (RR 1.4, P < .001), cardiac arrest (RR 1.8, P < .001), and return to the operating room (RR 1.3, P < .001). Men had decreased overall adverse events (RR 0.8, P < .001) secondary to a lower risk of urinary tract infection (RR 0.5, P < .001) and blood transfusion (RR 0.7, P < .001), which were prevalent adverse events. Men had an increased risk of 30-day readmission (RR 1.2, P < .001), slightly increased operative time (+6 minutes, P < .001), and slightly decreased length of stay (-0.2 days, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Men had increased risk of multiple individual adverse events including death, surgical site infection, cardiac arrest, return to the operating room, and readmission. Conversely, women had increased risk of urinary tract infection and blood transfusion.

Do Mortality and Complication Rates Differ Between Periprosthetic and Native Hip Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological estimates indicate a rising incidence of periprosthetic hip fractures. While native hip fractures are known to be a highly morbid condition, a significant body of research has led to improved outcomes and decreased complications following these injuries. Comparatively, little research has evaluated the relative morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic hip fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare the morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic vs native hip fractures. METHODS: Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, 523 periprosthetic hip fractures were matched to native hip fractures using propensity scores. The 30-day rates of complications were compared using McNemar's test. A multivariate regression was then used to determine independent risk factors for mortality following periprosthetic fracture. RESULTS: Mortality was similar between groups (periprosthetic: 2.7% vs native: 3.4%; P = .49). Periprosthetic fractures exhibited a greater rate of overall (63.1% vs 38.6%; P < .001) and minor complications (59.1% vs 34.4%; P < .001). There was an increased rate of return to the operating room (7.8% vs 3.1%; P < .001) and blood transfusion in the periprosthetic group (54.9% vs 30.2%; P = .001). Age greater than 85 (odds ratio 9.21) and dependent functional status (odds ratio 5.38) were both independent risk factors for mortality following periprosthetic fracture. CONCLUSIONS: While native hip fractures are known to be highly morbid, our findings suggest that periprosthetic hip fractures have a similar mortality with significantly higher short-term morbidity. Future research is warranted to better understand risk factors and prevention strategies for complications in this subset of patients.

What Is the Timing of General Health Adverse Events That Occur After Total Joint Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive research regarding risk factors for adverse events after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), there are few publications describing the timing at which such adverse events occur. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) On which postoperative day do certain adverse events occur? (2) What adverse events occur earlier after TKA than after THA? (3) For each adverse event, what proportion occurred after hospital discharge? METHODS: We screened the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) to identify all patients undergoing primary THA and primary TKA between 2005 and 2013, resulting in a study population of 124,657 patients evaluated as part of this retrospective database analysis. For each of eight different adverse events, the median postoperative day of diagnosis, interquartile range for day of diagnosis, and middle 80% for day of diagnosis were determined. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to test whether there is a difference of timing for each adverse event as stratified by TKA or THA. The proportion of adverse events occurring after versus before discharge was also calculated. RESULTS: The median day of diagnosis (and interquartile range; middle 80%) for stroke was 2 (1-10; 1-19), myocardial infarction 3 (2-6; 1-15), pulmonary embolism 3 (2-7; 1-19), pneumonia 4 (2-9; 2-17), deep vein thrombosis 6 (3-14; 2-23), urinary tract infection 8 (3-16; 2-24), sepsis 10 (5-19; 2-24), and surgical site infection 17 (11-23; 6-28). For the later occurring adverse events (surgical site infection, sepsis), the rate of occurrence remained high at the end of the 30-day postoperative period. Timing was earlier in patients undergoing TKA for pulmonary embolism (day 3 [interquartile range 2-6] versus 5 [3-17], p < 0.001) and deep vein thrombosis (day 5 [2-11] versus 13 [6-22], p < 0.001). The proportion of events occurring after discharge for myocardial infarction was 97 of 283 (34%), stroke 42 of 118 (36%), pulmonary embolism 223 of 625 (36%), pneumonia 171 of 426 (40%), deep vein thrombosis 576 of 956 (60%), urinary tract infection 958 of 1406 (68%), sepsis 284 of 416 (68%), and surgical site infection 1147 of 1212 (95%). CONCLUSIONS: As lengths of hospital stay after TJA continue to decrease, our findings suggest that caution is in order because several acute and immediately life-threatening findings, including myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism, might occur after discharge. Furthermore, the timing of surgical site infection and sepsis suggests that even the 30-day followup afforded by the ACS-NSQIP may not be sufficient to study the latest occurring adverse events. Additionally, both pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis tend to occur earlier after TKA than THA, and this should guide clinical surveillance efforts in patients undergoing those procedures. These findings also indicate that inpatient-only databases (such as the Nationwide Inpatient Sample) may fail to capture a very large proportion of postoperative adverse events, weakening the conclusions of many published studies using those databases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Results of Database Studies in Spine Surgery Can Be Influenced by Missing Data.

BACKGROUND: National databases are increasingly being used for research in spine surgery; however, one limitation of such databases that has received sparse mention is the frequency of missing data. Studies using these databases often do not emphasize the percentage of missing data for each variable used and do not specify how patients with missing data are incorporated into analyses. This study uses the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database to examine whether different treatments of missing data can influence the results of spine studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the frequency of missing data fields for demographics, medical comorbidities, preoperative laboratory values, operating room times, and length of stay recorded in ACS-NSQIP? (2) Using three common approaches to handling missing data, how frequently do those approaches agree in terms of finding particular variables to be associated with adverse events? (3) Do different approaches to handling missing data influence the outcomes and effect sizes of an analysis testing for an association with these variables with occurrence of adverse events? METHODS: Patients who underwent spine surgery between 2005 and 2013 were identified from the ACS-NSQIP database. A total of 88,471 patients undergoing spine surgery were identified. The most common procedures were anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, lumbar decompression, and lumbar fusion. Demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative laboratory values were tabulated for each patient, and the percent of missing data was noted for each variable. These variables were tested for an association with "any adverse event" using three separate multivariate regressions that used the most common treatments for missing data. In the first regression, patients with any missing data were excluded. In the second regression, missing data were treated as a negative or "reference" value; for continuous variables, the mean of each variable's reference range was computed and imputed. In the third regression, any variables with > 10% rate of missing data were removed from the regression; among variables with ≤ 10% missing data, individual cases with missing values were excluded. The results of these regressions were compared to determine how the different treatments of missing data could affect the results of spine studies using the ACS-NSQIP database. RESULTS: Of the 88,471 patients, as many as 4441 (5%) had missing elements among demographic data, 69,184 (72%) among comorbidities, 70,892 (80%) among preoperative laboratory values, and 56,551 (64%) among operating room times. Considering the three different treatments of missing data, we found different risk factors for adverse events. Of 44 risk factors found to be associated with adverse events in any analysis, only 15 (34%) of these risk factors were common among the three regressions. The second treatment of missing data (assuming "normal" value) found the most risk factors (40) to be associated with any adverse event, whereas the first treatment (deleting patients with missing data) found the fewest associations at 20. Among the risk factors associated with any adverse event, the 10 with the greatest effect size (odds ratio) by each regression were ranked. Of the 15 variables in the top 10 for any regression, six of these were common among all three lists. CONCLUSIONS: Differing treatments of missing data can influence the results of spine studies using the ACS-NSQIP. The current study highlights the importance of considering how such missing data are handled. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Until there are better guidelines on the best approaches to handle missing data, investigators should report how missing data were handled to increase the quality and transparency of orthopaedic database research. Readers of large database studies should note whether handling of missing data was addressed and consider potential bias with high rates or unspecified or weak methods for handling missing data.

The Effect of Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis on Reoperation Rates After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Review of a Large Private-Payer Database From 2007 to 2014.

PURPOSE: To determine if reoperation rates are higher for patients who underwent isolated rotator cuff repair (RCR) than those who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis using a large private-payer database. METHODS: A national insurance database was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR between the years 2007 and 2014 (PearlDiver, Warsaw, IN). The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 29,827 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with RCR) identified RCR patients who were subdivided into 3 groups-group 1: RCR without biceps tenodesis; group 2: RCR with concomitant arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (CPT 29827 and 29,828); group 3: RCR with concomitant open biceps tenodesis (CPT 29827 and 23,430). Reoperation rates (revision RCR, subsequent biceps surgeries) and complications at 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, and 1 year were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare reoperations and complications between groups. Rotator cuff tear size, whether the biceps was ruptured and whether a biceps tenotomy was performed, was not available. RESULTS: Group 1: 27,178 patients. Group 2: 4,810 patients. Group 3: 1,493 patients. More patients underwent concomitant arthroscopic than concomitant open tenodesis (P < .001). A total of 2,509 patients underwent a reoperation for RCR or biceps tenodesis within 1 year after RCR. When adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities, no significant differences in reoperation rates at 30 days or 90 days among the 3 groups, but significantly more patients who had a tenodesis, required a reoperation compared with those who did not have a tenodesis at 6 months and 1 year (both P < .001). Urinary tract infections were more common in patients who did not have a tenodesis, whereas dislocation, nerve injury, and surgical site infection were more common in tenodesis patients. CONCLUSIONS: Higher reoperation rates at 1 year were seen in patients who had concomitant biceps tenodesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control database review study.

Which Pediatric Orthopaedic Procedures Have the Greatest Risk of Adverse Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement in orthopaedic surgery has received increasing attention; however, there is insufficient information available about the perioperative safety of many common pediatric orthopaedic procedures. This study aimed to characterize the incidence of adverse events in a national pediatric patient sample to understand the risk profiles of common pediatric orthopaedic procedures, and to identify patients and operations that are associated with increased rates of adverse outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the prospectively collected American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Pediatric database. Pediatric patients who underwent 29 different orthopaedic procedures were identified in the 2012 NSQIP Pediatric database. The occurrence of any adverse event, infection, return to the operating room, and readmission within 30 days, were reported for each procedure. Multivariate regression was then used to identify the association of patient and operative characteristics with the occurrence of each adverse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 8975 pediatric patients were identified. Supracondylar humerus fracture fixation was the most common procedure performed in this sample (2274 patients or 25.57% of all procedures), followed by posterior spinal fusion (1894 patients or 21.10% of all procedures). Adverse events occurred in 352 patients (3.92% of all patients). Four deaths were noted (0.04% of all patients), which only occurred in patients with nonidiopathic scoliosis undergoing spinal fusion. Infections occurred in 143 patients (1.59%), and 197 patients (2.19%) were readmitted within 30 days. Multiple patient characteristics and procedures were found to be associated with each adverse outcome studied. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal fusion, multiaxial external fixation, and fasciotomy were procedures associated with increased rates of adverse outcomes within 30 days. Patients with obesity, ASA class ≥3, and impaired cognitive status also had increased rates of adverse outcomes. The results from this study of a large, national sample of pediatric orthopaedic patients are important for benchmarking and highlight areas for quality improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-Prognostic.

Variation in Resource Utilization for Patients With Hip and Pelvic Fractures Despite Equal Medicare Reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Medicare currently reimburses hospitals for inpatient admissions with "bundled" payments based on patient Diagnosis-related Groups (DRGs) regardless of true hospital costs. At present, DRG 536 (fractures of the hip and pelvis) includes a broad spectrum of patients with orthopaedic trauma, likely with varying inpatient resource utilization. With the growing incidence of fractures in the elderly, inadequate reimbursements from Medicare for certain patients with DRG 536 may lead to growing financial strain on healthcare institutions caring for these patients with higher costs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of the study were to determine whether (1) inpatient length of stay; (2) intensive care unit stay; and (3) ventilator time differ among subpopulations with Medicare DRG 536. METHODS: A total of 56,683 patients, 65 years or older, with fractures of the hip or pelvis were identified in the 2011 and 2012 National Trauma Data Bank. This clinical registry contains data on trauma cases from more than 900 participating trauma centers, allowing analysis of resource utilization in centers across the United States. Patients were grouped in the following subgroups: hip fractures (n = 35,119), nonoperative pelvic fractures (n = 15,506), acetabulum fractures, operative and nonoperative, (n = 7670), and operative pelvic fractures (n = 682). Total inpatient length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and ventilator time were compared across groups using multivariate analysis that controlled for hospital factors. RESULTS: After controlling for patient and hospital factors, difference in inpatient length of stay was -0.2 days for patients with nonoperative pelvis fractures compared with inpatient length of stay for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.1 days; p = 0.001); 1.7 days for patient with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.4-1.9 days; p < 0.001); and 7.7 days for patients with operative pelvic fractures (95% CI, 7.0-8.4 days; p < 0.001). The difference in ICU length of stay for patients with nonoperative pelvis fractures was 0.8 days compared with ICU length of stay for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, 0.7-0.9 days; p < 0.001); 1.9 days for patients with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.8-2.1 days; p < 0.001); and 6.3 days for patients with operative pelvic fractures (95% CI, 5.9-6.7 days; p < 0.001). The difference in mechanical ventilation time for patients with nonoperative fractures was 0.5 days compared with ventilation time for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 days; p < 0.001); 1.1 days for patients with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.0-1.2 days; p < 0.001); and 3.9 days for patients with operative fractures (95% CI, 2.5-3.2 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our current multitiered trauma system, certain centers will see higher proportions of patients with acetabulum and operative pelvic fractures. Because hospitals are reimbursed equally for these subgroups of Medicare DRG 536, centers that care for a greater proportion of patients with more-complex pelvic trauma will experience lower financial margins per trauma patient, limiting their potential for growth and investment compared with competing institutions that may not routinely see patients with high-energy trauma. Because of this, we believe reevaluation of this Medicare Prospective Payment System DRG is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

Outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: a population-based study comparing adverse event and readmission rates to inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The rate of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is rising, which has an impact on health care expenditure. One avenue to mitigate cost is outpatient TSA. There are currently no published reports of this practice. In this study, we determine the 30-day adverse event and readmission rates after outpatient TSA and compare these rates with inpatient TSA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a population database in the United States was undertaken. Patients who underwent primary TSA between 2005 and 2014 were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on length of stay (LOS): outpatient TSA (LOS 0 days) and inpatient TSA (LOS >0 days). Patient and procedure characteristics were collected. The 30-day adverse event and readmission rates were calculated for each cohort. A multivariate logistic regression determined if the odds of an adverse event or readmission were significantly different between the inpatient and outpatient TSA cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, 7197 patients in this database underwent TSA between 2005 and 2014, of which 173 patients (2.4%) underwent outpatient TSA. The 30-day adverse event rate in the outpatient and inpatient TSA cohorts was 2.31% and 7.89%, respectively. The 30-day readmission rate in the outpatient and inpatient TSA cohorts was 1.74% and 2.93%, respectively. In the multivariate logistic regression, the odds of an adverse event or readmission were not significantly different (odds ratio of 0.4 [P = .077] and odds ratio of 0.7 [P = .623], respectively). CONCLUSION: There are no significant differences in the 30-day adverse event and readmission rates between outpatient and inpatient TSA. In the appropriately selected patient, outpatient TSA is safe and cost-effective.

How Much Do Adverse Event Rates Differ Between Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: It is not known which adverse events occur more commonly following revision than following primary total joint arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during 2011 to 2013 as part of the America College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were identified. Rates of adverse events were compared between patients undergoing primary and patients undergoing revision procedures with adjustments for demographic and comorbidity characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 48307 THA patients and 70605 TKA patients met inclusion criteria. Of the THA patients, 43247 (89.5%) underwent primary procedures, while 5060 (10.5%) underwent revision procedures. Of the TKA patients, 65694 (93.0%) underwent primary procedures, while 4911 (7.0%) underwent revision procedures. Patients undergoing revision procedures had higher rates of systemic sepsis (for THA, 0.3% vs 0.1%, adjusted relative risk [RR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-7.0; P < .001; for TKA, 0.3% vs 0.1%, adjusted RR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-5.2, P < .001), deep incisional surgical site infection (for THA, 1.3% vs 0.3%, adjusted RR, 4.3; 95% CI, 3.2-5.8, P < .001; for TKA, 0.7 vs 0.2%, RR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.7-5.9, P < .001), and organ/space infection (for THA, 1.8% vs 0.2%, RR, 7.4; 95% CI, 5.4-10.0, P < .001; for TKA, 1.1% vs 0.1%, adjusted RR, 7.5; 95% CI, 5.4-10.6, P < .001). Patients undergoing revision procedures did not have higher rates of pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (P ≥ .05 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting of adverse events should be interpreted in the context of the differences between primary and revision procedures, and reimbursement systems should reflect the greater amount of postoperative care that patients undergoing revision procedures require.

Diabetes confers little to no increased risk of postoperative complications after hip fracture surgery in geriatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes and hip fractures in geriatric patients are common, and many elderly patients have a history of diabetes. However, the influence of diabetes on surgical complications may vary based on which particular type of diabetes a patient has. To our knowledge, no prior study has stratified patients with diabetes to compare patients with noninsulin-dependent and insulin-dependent diabetes regarding rates of postoperative adverse events, length of hospitalization, and readmission rate after surgical stabilization of hip fractures in geriatric patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether patients with noninsulin-dependent or insulin-dependent diabetes are at increased risk (1) of sustaining an aggregated serious adverse event, aggregated minor adverse event, extended length of stay, or hospital readmission within 30 days of hip fracture surgery; (2) of experiencing any individual serious adverse event within 30 days of hip fracture surgery; and (3) of experiencing any individual minor adverse event within 30 days of hip fracture surgery. METHODS: Patients older than 65 years undergoing surgery for hip fracture between 2005 and 2012 were identified (n = 9938) from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program(®) database. This database reports events within 30 days of the surgery. Demographics were compared between three groups of patients: patients with noninsulin-dependent diabetes, patients with insulin-dependent diabetes, and patients without diabetes. Patients without diabetes served as the reference group, and the relative risks for aggregated serious adverse events, aggregated minor adverse events, length of stay greater than 9 days, and readmission within 30 days were calculated for patients with noninsulin-dependent and with insulin-dependent diabetes. We then calculated relative risks for each specific serious adverse event and minor adverse event using multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Patients with noninsulin-dependent and insulin-dependent diabetes were at no greater risk of sustaining an aggregated serious adverse event, aggregated minor adverse event, extended postoperative length of stay, or readmission. Among individual serious adverse events, only postoperative myocardial infarction was found to be increased in the diabetic groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.9 for noninsulin-dependent diabetes, 95% CI, 1.3-2.8; RR = 1.5 for insulin-dependent diabetes, CI, 0.9-2.6; p = 0.003). Patients with noninsulin-dependent and insulin-dependent diabetes were at no greater risk of sustaining any individual minor adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Despite previously reported and perceived risks associated with diabetes, we found little difference in terms of perioperative risk among geriatric patients with hip fracture with noninsulin-dependent or insulin-dependent diabetes relative to patients without diabetes. Clinically, the implications of these findings will help to improve, specify, and increase the efficiency of the preoperative workup and counseling of patients with diabetes who need hip fracture surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Morbidity and readmission after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures are associated with preoperative patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures are common and can be associated with severe morbidity. Risk factors for short-term adverse events and readmission after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures have not been fully characterized. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of our study was to determine patient rates and risk factors for (1) any adverse event; (2) severe adverse events; (3) infectious complications; and (4) readmission after ORIF of ankle fractures. METHODS: Patients who underwent ORIF for ankle fracture from 2005 to 2012 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP(®)) database using International Classification of Diseases, 9(th) Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Patients with missing perioperative data were excluded from this study. Patient characteristics were tested for association with any adverse event, severe adverse events, infectious complications, and readmission using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 4412 patients identified, 5% had an adverse event. Any adverse event was associated with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM; odds ratio [OR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-3.1; p = 0.001), age ≥ 60 years (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.22-3.2; p = 0.006), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥ 3 (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.2-2.37; p = 0.002), bimalleolar fracture (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.37; p = 0.020), hypertension (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.04-2.09; p = 0.031), and dependent functional status (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.14; p = 0.040) on multivariate analysis. Severe adverse events occurred in 3.56% and were associated with ASA classification ≥ 3 (OR, 2.01; p = 0.001), pulmonary disease (OR, 1.9; p = 0.004), dependent functional status (OR, 1.8; p = 0.005), and hypertension (OR, 1.65; p = 0.021). Infectious complications occurred in 1.75% and were associated with IDDM (OR, 3.51; p < 0.001), dependent functional status (OR, 2.4; p = 0.002), age ≥ 60 years (OR, 2.28; p = 0.028), and bimalleolar fracture (OR, 2.19; p = 0.030). Readmission occurred in 3.17% and was associated with ASA classification ≥ 3 (OR, 2.01; p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: IDDM was associated with an increased rate of adverse events after ankle fracture ORIF, whereas noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus was not. IDDM management deserves future study, particularly with respect to glycemic control, a potential confounder that could not be assessed with the ACS-NSQIP registry. Increased ASA class was associated with readmission, and future prospective investigations should evaluate the effectiveness of increasing the discharge threshold, discharging to extended-care facilities, and/or home nursing evaluations in this at-risk population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Patient factors are associated with poor short-term outcomes after posterior fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

BACKGROUND: Posterior spinal fusion (PSF) is commonly performed for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Identifying factors associated with perioperative morbidity and PSF may lead to strategies for reducing the frequency of adverse events (AEs) in patients and total hospital costs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: What is the frequency of and what factors are associated with postoperative: (1) AEs, (2) extended length of stay (LOS), and (3) readmission in patients with AIS undergoing PSF? PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients, aged 11 to 18 years, who underwent PSF for AIS during 2012, were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program® (ACS NSQIP®) Pediatric database. Patient were assessed for characteristics associated with AEs, extended LOS (defined as more than 6 days), and hospital readmission using multivariate logistic regression. Individual AEs captured in the database were grouped into two categories, "any adverse event" (AAE) and "severe adverse events" (SAEs) for analysis. A total of 733 patients met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (3.7%) had AAE and 19 patients (2.6%) had SAEs. Both AAE and SAEs were associated with BMI-for-age ninety-fifth percentile or greater (AAE: odds ratio [OR], 3.31; 95% CI, 1.43-7.65; p=0.005. SAE: OR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.32-9.09; p=0.012). Extended LOS occurred for 60 patients (8.2%) and was associated with greater than 13 levels instrumented (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.11-3.61; p=0.021) and operative time of 365 minutes or more (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.39-4.76; p=0.003). Readmission occurred for 11 patients (1.5%), most often for surgical site infection, and was associated with the occurrence of any complication during the initial hospital stay (OR, 180.44; 95% CI, 35.47-917.97; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Further research on prevention and management of obesity and surgical site infections may reduce perioperative morbidity for patients with AIS undergoing PSF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Orthopaedic Surgeons Receive the Most Industry Payments to Physicians but Large Disparities are Seen in Sunshine Act Data.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments made to physicians by drug and device manufacturers or group purchasing organizations are now reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a part of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Initial reports from the program show that orthopaedic surgeons lead all physician specialties in total and average industry payments. However, before further discussion of these payments and their implications can take place, it remains to be seen whether these figures are a true reflection of the field of orthopaedic surgery in general, rather than the result of a few outlier physicians in the field. In addition, the nature and sources of these funds should be determined to better inform the national dialogue surrounding these payments. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) How do industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons compare with payments to physicians and surgeons in other fields, in terms of median payments and the Gini index of disparity? (2) How much do payments to the highest-receiving orthopaedic surgeons contribute to total payments? (3) What kind of industry payments are orthopaedic surgeons receiving? (4) How much do the highest-paying manufacturers contribute to total payments to orthopaedic surgeons? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the most recent version of the CMS Sunshine Act Open Payments database released on December 19, 2014, containing data on payments made between August 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Data on total payments to individual physicians, physician specialty, the types of payments made, and the manufacturers making payments were reviewed. The Gini index of statistical dispersion was calculated for payments made to orthopaedic surgeons and compared with payments made to physicians and surgeons in all other medical specialties. A Gini index of 0 indicates complete equality of payments to everyone in the population, whereas an index of 1 indicates complete inequality, or all income going to one individual. RESULTS: A total of 15,376 orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments during the 5-month period were identified, accounting for USD 109,846,482. The median payment to orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments was USD 121 (interquartile range, USD 34-619). The top 10% of orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments (1538 surgeons) received at least USD 4160 and accounted for 95% of total payments. Royalties and patent licenses accounted for 69% of all industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Even as a relatively small specialty, orthopaedic surgeons received substantial payments from industry (more than USD 110 million) during the 5-month study period. Whether there is a true return of value from these payments remains to be seen; however, future ethical and policy discussions regarding industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons should take into account the large disparities in payments that are present and also the nature of the payments being made. It is possible that patients and policymakers may view industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons more positively in light of these new findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Economic and Decision Analysis.