Can researchers trust ICD-10 coding of medical comorbidities in orthopaedic trauma patients?

Objectives: The 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) coding system may prove useful to orthopaedic trauma researchers to identify and document populations based on comorbidities. However, its use for research first necessitates determination of its reliability. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of electronic medical record (EMR) ICD-10 coding of nonorthopaedic diagnoses in orthopaedic trauma patients relative to the gold standard of prospective data collection. Design: Nonexperimental cross-sectional study. Setting: Level 1 Trauma Center. Patients/Participants: Two hundred sixty-three orthopaedic trauma patients from 2 prior prospective studies from September 2018 to April 2022. Intervention: Prospectively collected data were compared with EMR ICD-10 code abstraction for components of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), obesity, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use (retrospective data). Main Outcome Measurements: Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa reliability. Results: Percent agreement ranged from 86.7% to 96.9% for all CCI diagnoses and was as low as 72.6% for the diagnosis "overweight." Only 2 diagnoses, diabetes without end-organ damage (kappa = 0.794) and AIDS (kappa = 0.798) demonstrated Cohen's kappa values to indicate substantial agreement. Conclusion: EMR diagnostic coding for medical comorbidities in orthopaedic trauma patients demonstrated variable reliability. Researchers may be able to rely on EMR coding to identify patients with diabetes without complications or AIDS. Chart review may still be necessary to confirm diagnoses. Low prevalence of most comorbidities led to high percentage agreement with low reliability. Level of Evidence: Level 1 diagnostic.

Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture). METHODS: In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications. RESULTS: A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

Early Results of Orthopaedic Trauma and Anemia: Conservative Versus Liberal Transfusion Strategy.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine whether it is safe to use a conservative packed red blood cell transfusion hemoglobin threshold (5.5 g/dL) compared with a liberal transfusion threshold (7.0 g/dL) for asymptomatic patients with musculoskeletal-injured trauma out of the initial resuscitative period. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, nonblinded, randomized study done at three level 1 trauma centers. One hundred patients were enrolled. One patient was inappropriately enrolled, withdrawn from the study, and excluded from analysis leaving 99 patients (49 liberal and 50 conservative) with 30-day follow-up. After initial resuscitation, patients were enrolled and randomized to either a liberal or a conservative transfusion strategy. This strategy was followed throughout the index hospitalization. The primary outcome of the study was infection. Superficial infection was defined as clinical diagnosis of cellulitis or other superficial infection treated with oral antibiotics only. Deep infection was defined as clinical diagnosis of fracture-related infection requiring IV antibiotics and/or surgical débridement. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were successfully followed for 30 days with 100% follow-up during this time. Seven infections (14%) occurred in the liberal group and none in the conservative group ( P < 0.01). Five deep infections (10%) occurred in the liberal group and none in the conservative group ( P = 0.03). Three superficial infections (6%) occurred in the liberal and none in the conservative group, which was not a significant difference ( P = 0.1). No difference was observed in length of stay between groups. DISCUSSION: Transfusing young healthy asymptomatic patients with orthopaedic trauma for hemoglobin <7.0 g/dL increases the risk of infection. No increased risk of anemia-related complications was identified with a conservative transfusion threshold of 5.5 g/dL. DATA AVAILABILITY AND TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Data are available on request. IRB protocol number is 1402557771. This study was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02972593. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2, unblinded prospective randomized multicenter study.

Are Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons Appropriately Compensated for Treating Acetabular Fractures? An Analysis of Operative Times and Relative Value Units.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the work relative value units (RVUs) attributed per minute of operative time (wRVU/min) in fixation of acetabular fractures, evaluate surgical factors that influence wRVU/min, and compare wRVU/min with other procedures. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Level 1 academic center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Two hundred fifty-one operative acetabular fractures (62 A, B, C) from 2015 to 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Work relative value unit per minute of operative time for each acetabular current procedural terminology (CPT) code. Surgical approach, patient positioning, total room time, and surgeon experience were collected. Comparison wRVU/min were collected from the literature. RESULTS: The mean wRVU per surgical minute for each CPT code was (1) CPT 27226 (isolated wall fracture): 0.091 wRVU/min, (2) CPT 27227 (isolated column or transverse fracture): 0.120 wRVU/min, and (3) CPT 27228 (associated fracture types): 0.120 wRVU/min. Of fractures with single approaches, anterior approaches generated the least wRVU/min (0.091 wRVU/min, P = 0.0001). Average nonsurgical room time was 82.1 minutes. Surgeon experience ranged from 3 to 26 years with operative time decreasing as surgeon experience increased ( P = 0.03). As a comparison, the wRVU/min for primary and revision hip arthroplasty have been reported as 0.26 and 0.249 wRVU/min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The wRVUs allocated per minute of operative time for acetabular fractures is less than half of other reported hip procedures and lowest for isolated wall fractures. There was a significant amount of nonsurgical room time that should be accounted for in compensation models. This information should be used to ensure that orthopaedic trauma surgeons are being appropriately supported for managing these fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Orthopaedic Trauma and Anemia: Conservative versus Liberal Transfusion Strategy: A Prospective Randomized Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether it is safe to use a conservative packed red blood cell transfusion hemoglobin (Hgb) threshold (5.5 g/dL) compared with a liberal transfusion threshold (7.0 g/dL) for asymptomatic musculoskeletal injured trauma patients who are no longer in the initial resuscitative period. METHODS: Design: Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING: Three level 1 trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Patients aged 18-50 with an associated musculoskeletal injury with Hgb less than 9 g/dL or expected drop below 9 g/dL with planned surgery who were stable and no longer being actively resuscitated were randomized once their Hgb dropped below 7 g/dL to a conservative transfusion threshold of 5.5 g/dL versus a liberal threshold of 7.0 g/dL. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Postoperative infection, other post-operative complications and Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment scores obtained at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year were compared for liberal and conservative transfusion thresholds. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients completed 1 year follow-up. There was a significant association between a liberal transfusion strategy and higher rate of infection (P = 0.01), with no difference in functional outcomes at 6 months or 1 year. This study was adequately powered at 92% to detect a difference in superficial infection (7% for liberal group, 0% for conservative, P < 0.01) but underpowered to detect a difference for deep infection (14% for liberal group, 6% for conservative group, P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: A conservative transfusion threshold of 5.5 g/dL in an asymptomatic young trauma patient with associated musculoskeletal injuries leads to a lower infection rate without an increase in adverse outcomes and no difference in functional outcomes at 6 months or 1 year. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patients with glenohumeral arthritis are more likely to be prescribed opioids in the emergency department or urgent care setting.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to quantify the rate of opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing for the diagnosis of shoulder osteoarthritis across a large healthcare system and to describe the impact of a clinical decision support intervention on prescribing patterns. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: One large healthcare system. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients presenting with shoulder osteoarthritis. INTERVENTIONS: A clinical decision support intervention that presents an alert to prescribers when patients meet criteria for increased risk of opioid use disorder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The percentage of patients receiving an opioid or benzodiazepine, the percentage who had at least one risk factor for misuse, and the percent of encounters in which the prescribing decision was influenced by the alert were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 5,380 outpatient encounters with a diagnosis of shoulder osteoarthritis were included. Twenty-nine percent (n = 1,548) of these encounters resulted in an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription. One-third of those who received a prescription had at least one risk factor for prescription misuse. Patients were more likely to receive opioids from the emergency department or urgent care facilities (40 percent of encounters) compared to outpatient facilities (28 percent) (p < .0001). Forty-four percent of the opioid prescriptions were for "potent opioids" (morphine milliequivalent conversion factor > 1). Of the 612 encounters triggering an alert, the prescribing decision was influenced (modified or not prescribed) in 53 encounters (8.7 percent). All but four (0.65 percent) of these encounters resulted in an opioid prescription. CONCLUSION: Despite evidence against routine opioid use for osteoarthritis, one-third of patients with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis received an opioid prescription. Of those who received a prescription, over one-third had a risk factor for opioid misuse. An electronic clinic decision support tool influenced the prescription in less than 10 percent of encounters.