2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

Differential item functioning to validate setting of delivery compatibility in PROMIS-global health.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) such as PROMIS are increasingly utilized in healthcare to assess patient perception and functional status, but the effect of delivery setting remains to be fully investigated. To our knowledge, no current study establishes the absence of differential item functioning (DIF) across delivery setting for these PROMIS- Global Health (PROMIS-GH) measures among orthopedic patients. We sought to investigate the correlation of PROMIS-GH scores across in-clinic versus remote delivery by evaluating DIF within the Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) items. We hypothesize that the setting of delivery of the GPH and GMH domains of PROMIS-GH will not impact the results of the measure, allowing direct comparison between the two delivery settings. METHODS: Five thousand and seven hundred and eighty-five complete PROMIS-Global Health measures were analyzed retrospectively using the 'Lordif' package on the R platform. DIF was measured for GPH and GMH domains across setting of response (in-clinic vs remote) during the pre-operative period, immediate post-operative period, and 1-year post-operative period using Monte Carlo estimation. McFadden pseudo-R2 thresholds (> 0.02) were used to assess the magnitude of DIF for individual PROMIS items. RESULTS: No GPH or GMH items contained in the PROMIS-GH instrument yielded DIF across in-clinic vs remote delivery setting during the pre-operative, immediate post-operative, or 1-year post-operative window. CONCLUSION: The GPH and GMH domains within the PROMIS-GH instrument may be delivered in the clinic or remotely with comparable accuracy. This cross-delivery setting validation analysis may aid to improve the quality of patient care by allowing mixed platform PROMIS-GH data tailored to individual patient circumstance.

Making a Joint Decision Regarding the Timing of Surgery for Elective Arthroplasty Surgery After Being Infected With COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a substantial number of patients to have their elective arthroplasty surgeries rescheduled. While it is established that patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing surgery have a significantly higher risk of experiencing postoperative complications and mortality, it is not well-known at what time after testing positive the risk of postoperative complications or mortality returns to normal. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE, and professional society websites were systematically reviewed on March 7, 2022 to identify studies and guidelines on the optimal timeframe to reschedule patients for elective surgery after preoperatively testing positive for COVID-19. Outcomes included postoperative complications such as mortality, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies and professional society guidelines met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Patients with asymptomatic COVID-19 should be rescheduled 4-8 weeks after testing positive (as long as they do not develop symptoms in the interim), patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 should be rescheduled 6-8 weeks after testing positive (with complete resolution of symptoms), and patients with severe/critical COVID-19 should be rescheduled at a minimum of 12 weeks after hospital discharge (with complete resolution of symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Given the negative association between preoperative COVID-19 and postoperative complications, patients should have elective arthroplasty surgery rescheduled at differing timeframes based on their symptoms. In addition, a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach to rescheduling patients is recommended. Further study is needed to examine the impact of novel COVID-19 variants and vaccination on timeframes for rescheduling surgery.

Cross-specialty PROMIS-global health differential item functioning.

PURPOSE: To investigate the functioning of the PROMIS-Global Health (PROMIS-GH) across clinical setting, patient age, and medical complexity by evaluating differential item functioning (DIF) within the Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) domains. To our knowledge, no study demonstrates lack of differential item functioning (DIF) for PROMIS-GH across these populations. We hypothesize that the PROMIS-GH domains of GMH and GPH will perform similarly when compared across these populations. METHODS: Seven thousand nine hundred and seventy four complete PROMIS Global Health measures were retrospectively analyzed using the 'Lordif' package on the R platform. DIF was investigated for both GMH and GPH across clinical environment (Orthopedic Surgery, Family Medicine, & Internal Medicine), age group (≤ 53, > 53-66, > 66), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI:0, CCI:1, CCI:2 +) using quasi Monte Carlo estimation. To assess the significance of DIF, Wald tests were used with the Benjamini & Hochberg procedure. RESULTS: No items contained in the GMH or GPH demonstrated DIF across age groups, medical complexity, or clinical environment. CONCLUSION: Items assessing the domains of GMH and GPH within the PROMIS-GH function comparably across treatment setting, age category, and medical comorbidities. The PROMIS-Global Health holds potential to facilitate interdisciplinary patient care and patient optimization prior to surgical intervention.

Do Patient Engagement Platforms in Total Joint Arthroplasty Improve Patient-Reported Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Web-based patient engagement portals are increasing in popularity after total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA). The literature is mixed regarding patient utilization of these modalities and potential clinical benefit. We sought to determine which demographic factors are associated with increased platform participation and to quantify the impact of a web-based patient portal on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive primary THA (n = 554) and TKA (n = 485) at a single academic institution with minimum follow-up of 12 months. Patients were divided into those who opted-in and those who opted-out of portal use. Global health and joint-specific PROMs were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Linear mixed effects modeling, bivariate analysis, and logistic regression were utilized. RESULTS: Of the 1039 included patients, 60.6% (336) THA and 62.7% (304) TKA patients enrolled in the portal. Those who opted-in were younger (P < .001, P < .003), had higher body mass index (P = .024, P = .011), and had a higher household income (P < .001, P < .001) in THA and TKA cohorts, respectively. Portal participation in the TKA but not the THA cohort was associated with significant improvement in physical function (P = .017) and joint-specific function (P = .045). For THA patients who opted-in, increased portal logins were associated with more rapid improvement and higher functional scores (P = .013). CONCLUSION: There is an inherent difference between patients who opt-in to and those who opt-out of web-based portals. Added resources and support provided by portals may translate to improved PROMs for TKA patients but not THA patients.

Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Modifiable Risk Factor for Pain Catastrophizing After Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mood disorders undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are at increased risk for poor outcomes. This study seeks to examine the effect of anxiety disorders on pain following TJA and evaluate if anxiety disorders are a modifiable risk factor. METHODS: Between March 2019 and July 2020, 319 TJA patients had preoperative anxiety screening using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item screening tool (GAD-2) and 6-week postoperative Pain Catastrophizing Scale scores. Patients were organized into 4 cohorts based on preoperative selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSRI/SNRI) use and GAD-2 scores: Group 1: no SSRI/SNRI use and GAD-2 score <3 (control patients); Group 2: SSRI/SNRI use and GAD-2 score <3 (appropriately treated GAD patients); Group 3: no SSRI/SNRI use and GAD-2 score ≥3 (untreated GAD patients); and Group 4: SSRI/SNRI use and GAD-2 score ≥3 (poorly treated GAD patients). The cohorts underwent multivariate linear regression analysis and equivalence testing. RESULTS: Patients with preoperative GAD-2 scores ≥3 had worse postoperative pain with significantly higher average 6-week postoperative Pain Catastrophizing Scale score than patients with GAD-2 scores <3 (9.90 vs 5.19, P < .001). Patients with appropriately treated GAD and the control group had statistically equivalent postoperative pain, while patients with poorly treated or untreated GAD had worse postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: Preoperative GAD is a risk factor for poor postoperative pain control but is a modifiable risk factor when patients are appropriately treated. Screening for preoperative GAD with GAD-2 and referral for treatment may improve patient outcomes and reduce opioid consumption following TJA.

Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis: Single and 24-Hour Antibiotic Dosages are Equally Effective at Preventing Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is used to prevent surgical site infection and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Secondary to a national shortage of cefazolin, patients at our institution began receiving a single preoperative prophylactic antibiotic dose for primary TJA and no 24-hour postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of single-dose antibiotic use versus 24-hour dosing of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of acute PJI and short-term complications after primary TJA. METHODS: A retrospective review of 3317 patients undergoing primary TJA performed from January 2015 to December 2019 identified 554 patients who received a single dose of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis during the antibiotic shortage and 2763 patients who received post-TJA 24-hour antibiotic prophylaxis before the shortage. Patient records were evaluated for acute PJI, superficial infection, 90-day reoperation, and 90-day complications. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between single-dose and 24-hour antibiotic groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in rates of acute PJI (0.7% vs 0.2%; P = .301), superficial infection (2.4% vs 1.4%; P = .221), 90-day reoperation (2.1% vs 1.1%; P = .155), and 90-day complications (9.9% vs 7.9%; P = .169) between single and 24-hour antibiotic dose. Post hoc power analysis demonstrated adequate sample size, beta = 93%. CONCLUSION: Single-dose prophylactic antibiotics did not lead to an increased risk of acute PJI or short-term complications after TJA. Our study suggests that administration of a single antibiotic dose may be safely considered in patients undergoing routine primary TJA.

Metric Selection, Metric Targets, and Risk Adjustment Should be Considered in the Design of Gainsharing Models for Bundled Payment Programs in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Under bundled payment models, gainsharing presents an important mechanism to ensure engagement and reward innovation. We hypothesized that metric selection, metric targets, and risk adjustment would impact surgeons' performance in gainsharing models. METHODS: Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty at an urban health system from 2017 to September 2018 were included. Gainsharing metrics included the following: length of stay, % discharge-to-home, 90-day readmission rate, % of patients with episode spend under target price, and % of patients with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected. Four scenarios were created to evaluate how metric selection/adjustment impacted surgeons' performance designation: scenario 1 used "aspirational targets" (>60th percentile), scenario 2 used "acceptable targets" (>50th percentile), scenario 3 risk-adjusted surgeon performance prior to comparing aspirational targets, and scenario 4 included a PRO collection metric. Number of metrics achieved determined performance tier, with higher tiers getting a greater share of the gainsharing pool. RESULTS: In total, 2776 patients treated by 12 surgeons met inclusion criteria (mean length of stay 3.0 days, readmission rate 4.0%, discharge-to-home 74%, episode spend under target price 85%, PRO collection 56%). Lowering of metric targets (scenario 1 vs. 2) resulted in a 75% increase in the number of high performers and 98% of the gainsharing pool being eligible for distribution. Risk adjustment (scenario 3) caused 50% of providers to move to higher performance tiers and potential payments to increase by 28%. Adding the PRO metric did not change performance. CONCLUSION: Quality metric/target selection and risk adjustment profoundly impact surgeons' performance in gainsharing contracts. This impacts how successful these contracts can be in driving innovation and dis-incentivizing the "cherry picking" of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Returning to Normalcy or Returning to a New Normal?

The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), pandemic has delivered a profound and negative impact on the United States. The suspension of elective surgeries including arthroplasty will have a lasting effect on all stakeholders including patients, physicians, and healthcare organizations within the US healthcare system. Resumption of elective hip and knee arthroplasty will need to be carefully focused. The purpose of this work is to address potential strategies, concerns, and regulatory barriers in restarting elective hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States.

Does the Impact of Joint Arthroplasty Extend Beyond the Patient? The Effect of Total Joint Arthroplasty on Patient's Significant Others.

BACKGROUND: This prospective cohort study evaluates the impact of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty on patient's spouses/significant others (SSOs). METHODS: Patients and SSOs were provided similar outcome metrics (Global Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement) at preoperative and postoperative visits. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate scores. RESULTS: Our sample included 99 patients (58 total hip arthroplasties and 41 total knee arthroplasties). We found strong correlation between patient and SSO mental status scores. We found moderate correlation for some physical function domains. CONCLUSION: SSOs closely share total joint arthroplasty patient's mental and even some of the physical burden of disease and recovery.

What Happens to Unused Opioids After Total Joint Arthroplasty? An Evaluation of Unused Postoperative Opioid Disposal Practices.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the fate of unused opioids after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at our facility. METHODS: Medication disposal after primary elective THA and TKA was classified as appropriate (in accordance with United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines) or inappropriate for all patients undergoing these procedures during the second half of the fiscal year 2015. RESULTS: In total, 199 THAs and 144 TKAs met inclusion criteria. Total pills prescribed were 55,635. Approximately 8925 (16%) of pills were unused. About 39.9% of patients disposed of unused opioids appropriately, while 60.1% of patients reported still having (18.5%), not knowing where they were (8.2%), or other (33.4%). There was no significant association with the type of opioid prescribed. CONCLUSION: A large volume of unused opioids were improperly disposed of after total joint arthroplasty.

Do Medicare's Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Collection Windows Accurately Reflect Academic Clinical Practice?

BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) mandates collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for eligible total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) procedures during specific time periods that may not be attainable within routine academic practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected PROM data from a 2017 cohort of primary THA and TKA patients who completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 global health survey in preoperative or postoperative time periods. The primary outcome was completion rates of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 per the CJR collection periods (90-0 days preoperative and 270-365 days postoperative) compared to an extended postoperative collection period of 270-396 days. Bivariate analysis and logistic regression were used to analyze the association between survey completion rates and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 860 primary THAs and TKAs in 2017, 725 (84.3%) had preoperative surveys completed 90-0 days before surgery. Among the 725 patients, 215 (29.7%) completed postoperative surveys within the CJR timeline of 270-365 days. Completion increased by 120 additional surveys (+16.5%) in the additional postoperative time period of 270-396 days (P < .001). No patient or procedural factors significantly correlated with a higher likelihood of postoperative PROM completion (P > .05 for all covariates). CONCLUSION: In an academic clinical practice, completion rates of postoperative PROMs as part of routine clinical practice within the CJR mandated period was low for THA and TKA patients. CJR may consider additional time beyond 365 days to improve PROM completion rates.

Does Productivity-Based Physician Compensation Affect Surgical Rates for Elective Arthroplasty Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Surgeon compensation models could potentially influence the utilization of elective procedures. We assessed whether transitioning from salaried to a relative value unit (RVU) productivity-based physician compensation model changed the surgical rate and patient selection in elective total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) procedures. METHODS: Our institution transitioned from salaried to RVU productivity-based reimbursement in July 2016. We performed a retrospective analysis on patients undergoing primary THA and TKA from July 2014 to July 2018 before and after the transition (salary period n = 820; RVU period n = 1188). Beta regression was used to determine the reimbursement structure as a predictor of surgery. The surgical rate was defined as the number of primary THA and TKA procedures per reimbursement period divided by all arthroplasty and osteoarthritis outpatient clinic encounters. RESULTS: There was a surgical rate of 15.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.8%-17.8%) THA and 16.7% (95% CI 15.1%-18.1%) TKA procedures during RVU reimbursement compared to 11.1% (95% CI 9.8%-12.8%) THA and 11.7% (95% CI 10.5%-12.8%) TKA procedures during the salaried period (P < .001). The adjusted odds of undergoing a THA or TKA procedure increased in the RVU compared to the salaried model (THA odds ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.43-1.53; TKA odds ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.46-1.55; P < .001). There were no significant differences in patient age, gender, race, body mass index, or Charlson Comorbidity Index in salaried vs RVU productivity periods (P > .05 for all covariates). CONCLUSIONS: Productivity-based physician compensation may encourage higher rates of elective arthroplasty procedures without broadening patient selection.

A SANE Approach to Outcome Collection? Comparing the Performance of Single- Versus Multiple-Question Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) exist to measure outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) but can be limited by patient-perceived burden and completion rates. We analyzed whether the modified single assessment numerical evaluation (M-SANE), a one-question PROM, would perform similarly to multiple-question PROMs among patients undergoing primary THA. METHODS: Patients undergoing THA completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10), the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score Junior (HOOS-Jr), and M-SANE questionnaires both preoperatively and postoperatively. The M-SANE assessment asked patients to assess their hip on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best possible score. Validity of M-SANE compared with other PROMs was determined by Spearman's correlation and floor and ceiling effects. Responsiveness was analyzed using standardized response mean (SRM). RESULTS: One hundred and thirty six patients with at least 1-year follow-up were reviewed. The average M-SANE score improved from 3.3 preoperatively to 7.1 at one year postoperatively. There was moderate to strong correlation at one-year follow-up between the M-SANE and HOOS-Jr (ρ = 0.75, P < .001) and PROMIS-10 physical component summary (ρ = 0.63, P < .001). Floor and ceiling effects of the M-SANE (floor 2.0%, ceiling 21.3%) were comparable to the HOOS-Jr (floor 0.0%, ceiling 20.8%). The responsiveness of the M-SANE after THA (SRM = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.79-1.33) was comparable to HOOS-Jr (SRM = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.08-1.59) and superior to PROMIS-10 physical component summary (SRM = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.55-0.74). CONCLUSION: The M-SANE has performed similarly across multiple psychometric properties compared with more burdensome PROMs in assessing longitudinal patient-reported outcomes after THA.

Mapping the Diffusion of Technology in Orthopaedic Surgery: Understanding the Spread of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism by which surgical innovation is spread in orthopaedic surgery is not well studied. The recent widespread transition from open to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques provides us with the opportunity to study the spread of new technology; doing so would be important because it is unclear how novel orthopaedic techniques disseminate across time and geography, and previous studies of innovation in healthcare may not apply to the orthopaedic community. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How much regional variation was associated with the adoption of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in the United States Medicare population between 2006 and 2014 and how did this change over time? (2) In which regions of the United States was arthroscopic rotator cuff repair first adopted and how did it spread geographically? (3) Which regional factors were associated with the adoption of this new technology? METHODS: We divided the United States into 306 hospital referral regions based upon referral patterns observed in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services MedPAR database, which records all Medicare hospital admissions; this has been done in numerous previous studies using methodology introduced by the Dartmouth Atlas. The proportion of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs versus open rotator cuff repairs in each hospital referral region was calculated using adjusted procedural rates from the Medicare Part B Carrier File from 2006 to 2014, as it provided a nationwide sample of patients, and was used as a measure of adoption. A population-weighted, multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify regional characteristics independently associated with adoption. RESULTS: There was substantial regional variation associated with the adoption of arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair as the percentage of rotator cuff repair completed arthroscopically in 2006 ranged widely among hospital referral regions with a high of 85.3% in Provo, UT, USA, and a low of 16.7% in Seattle, WA, USA (OR 30, 95% CI 17.6 to 52.2; p < 0.001). In 2006, regions in the top quartiles for Medicare spending (+9.1%; p = 0.008) independently had higher adoption rates than those in the bottom quartile, as did regions with a greater proportion of college-educated residents (+12.0%; p = 0.009). The Northwest region (-14.4%; p = 0.009) and the presence of an academic medical center (-5.8%; p = 0.026) independently had lower adoption than other regions and those without academic medical centers. In 2014, regions in the top quartiles for Medicare spending (+5.7%; p = 0.033) and regions with a greater proportion of college-educated residents (+9.4%; p = 0.005) independently had higher adoption rates than those in the bottom quartiles, while the Northwest (-9.6%; p = 0.009) and Midwest regions (-5.1%; p = 0.017) independently had lower adoption than other regions. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneous diffusion of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair across the United States highlights that Medicare beneficiaries across regions did not have equal access to these procedures and that these discrepancies continued to persist over time. A higher level of education and increased healthcare spending were both associated with greater adoption in a region and conversely suggest that regions with lower education and healthcare spending may pursue innovation more slowly. There was evidence that regions with academic medical centers adopted this technology more slowly and may highlight the role that private industry and physicians in nonacademic organizations play in surgical innovation. Future studies are needed to understand if this later adoption leads to inequalities in the quality and value of surgical care delivered to patients in these regions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Designing and Implementing Value-Based Care Delivery and Payment Models for Musculoskeletal Care.

Payors, purchasers, health care providers, and patients are increasingly focused on improving the value-defined as health outcomes that matter to patients per dollar expended-of health care delivered to patients. Orthopaedic providers are in a unique position to pioneer this transition given the introduction of alternative payment models as well as the longitudinal, multidisciplinary, and relatively homogenous nature of high-cost, high-burden orthopaedic conditions (eg, osteoarthritis). First, doing so requires identifying and objectively measuring outcomes that are important to patients (eg, quality of life, pain, functional status) over time. Second, it requires applying value-based principles by reorganizing delivery systems into integrated practice units-a team-based, multidisciplinary model-focused on delivering longitudinal care in a method that is tailored to each patient's values, goals, and disease state. Third, providers must understand the true cost of delivering such care through time-driven activity-based costing approaches. With this knowledge of outcomes and cost, providers and payors/purchasers will be adequately equipped to develop contracts that reward providers for delivering better value (across an orthopaedic patient population) while minimizing risk. The transition to value-based health care is feasible regardless of practice setting.

Identifying regional characteristics influencing variation in the utilization of rotator cuff repair in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus regarding indications for surgical management of rotator cuff disease, which can lead to increased regional variation. The objectives of this study were to describe the geographic variation in rates of rotator cuff repair (RCR) in the United States over time and to identify regional characteristics associated with utilization. METHODS: The United States was divided into 306 hospital referral regions. The adjusted per capita RCR rate was calculated using procedural counts derived from the Medicare Part B Carrier File from 2004-2014. Population-weighted multivariable regression was used to identify regional characteristics independently associated with utilization in 2014. RESULTS: In 2014, an 8-fold difference in rates of RCR was found between regions. Between 2010 and 2014, the overall rate of RCR grew only 3.6% and regional variation decreased. Higher regional utilization of several other orthopedic procedures (P < .02), as well as the regional supply of orthopedic surgeons (P = .002), was independently associated with significantly increased utilization. The South, Southeast, and Southwest were independently associated with significantly higher utilization (P < .001) compared with the Northeast. A higher prevalence of resident physicians, a marker of the academic presence within a region, was independently associated with decreased utilization (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Utilization of RCR has increased substantially over the past decade, but the rate of growth appears to be slowing. RCR remains a procedure with significant regional variation, and increased utilization across regions is associated with higher orthopedic surgeon supply and increased rates of other orthopedic procedures.

A One-Question Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Is Comparable to Multiple-Question Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important for tracking outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but can be limited by time constraints and patient compliance. We sought to evaluate the utility of the one-question, modified single assessment numerical evaluation (M-SANE) score in TKA patients compared to legacy PROMs. METHODS: Patients undergoing TKA completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10), the Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score Junior (KOOS Jr), and M-SANE (modified-SANE) assessments both preoperatively and postoperatively. The M-SANE score asked patients to rate their native or prosthetic knee on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best function. M-SANE validity was determined by the Spearman's correlation between the collected PROMs and the Bland-Altman plots. PROM responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean. RESULTS: In total, 217 patients completed PROMs preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Floor and ceiling effects of the M-SANE were higher than other PROMs but still relatively low (4%-11%). There was a moderate to strong correlation at nearly all time points between the M-SANE and KOOS Jr (ρ = 0.44-0.78, P < .001). There was a weak correlation between the M-SANE and PROMIS physical component summary at the preoperative evaluation (ρ = 0.28) but a strong correlation at 1-year follow up (0.65, P < .001). The long-term responsiveness of the M-SANE to TKA (standardized response mean [SRM] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.17) was comparable to both the KOOS Jr (SRM = 1.19, 95% CI 1.00-1.38) and PROMIS physical component summary (SRM = 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.91). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the M-SANE and KOOS Jr capture combined knee pain and functionality differently. CONCLUSION: The M-SANE score was comparable to validated multiple-question PROMs in TKA patients. The demonstrated validity of the M-SANE, as well as its comparable responsiveness to more lengthy PROMs, highlights its use as a one-question PROM for assessment of patient undergoing TKA.

Are Medicare's Nursing Home Compare Ratings Accurate Predictors of 90-Day Complications, Readmission, and Bundle Cost for Patients Undergoing Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Nursing Home Compare (NHC) ratings, created and maintained by Medicare, are used by both hospitals and consumers to aid in the skilled nursing facility (SNF) selection process. To date, no studies have linked NHC ratings to actual episode-based outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether NHC ratings are valid predictors of 90-day complications, readmission, and bundle costs for patients discharged to an SNF after primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). METHODS: All SNF-discharged primary TJA cases in 2017 at a multihospital academic health system were queried. Demographic, psychosocial, and clinical variables were manually extracted from the health record. Medicare NHC ratings were then collected for each SNF. For patients in the Medicare bundle, postacute and total bundle cost was extracted from claims. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-eight patients were discharged to a total of 105 unique SNFs. In multivariate analysis, overall NHC rating was not predictive of 90-day readmission/major complications, >75th percentile postacute cost, or 90-day bundle cost exceeding the target price. SNF health inspection and quality measure ratings were also not predictive of 90-day readmission/major complications or bundle performance. A higher SNF staffing rating was independently associated with a decreased odds for >75th percentile 90-day postacute spend (odds ratio, 0.58; P = .01) and a 90-day bundle cost exceeding the target price (odds ratio = 0.69; P = .02) but was similarly not predictive of 90-day readmission/complications. CONCLUSION: Results of our study suggest that Medicare's NHC tool is not a useful predictor of 90-day costs, complications, or readmissions for SNFs within our health system.

Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinical Characteristics as Predictors of 90-Day Cost/Utilization and Complications.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of mandatory bundle payments for total joint arthroplasty (TJA), assessing patients' risk for increased 90-day complications and resource utilization is crucial. This study assesses the degree to which preoperative patient-reported outcomes predict 90-day complications, episode costs, and utilization in TJA patients. METHODS: All TJA cases in 2017 at 2 high-volume hospitals were queried. Preoperative HOOS/KOOS JR (Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score/Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) and Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12) were administered to patients preoperatively via e-collection platform. For patients enrolled in the Medicare bundle, cost data were extracted from claims. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 2108 patients underwent TJA in 2017; 1182 (56%) were missing patient-reported outcome data and were excluded. The final study population included 926 patients, 199 (21%) of which had available cost data. Patients with high bundle costs tended to be older, suffer from vascular disease and anemia, and have higher Charlson scores (P < .05 for all). These patients also had lower baseline VR-12 Physical Component Summary Score (PCS; 24 vs 30, P ≤ .001) and higher rates of extended length of stay, skilled nursing facility discharge, 90-day complications, and 90-day readmission (P ≤ .04 for all). In multivariate analysis, higher baseline VR-12 PCS was protective against extended length of stay, skilled nursing facility discharge, >75th percentile bundle cost, and 90-day bundle cost exceeding target bundle price (P < .01 for all). Baseline VR-12 Mental Component Summary Score and HOOS/KOOS JR were not predictive of complications or bundle cost. CONCLUSION: Low baseline VR-12 PCS is predictive of high 90-day bundle costs. Baseline HOOS/KOOS JR scores were not predictive of utilization or cost. Neither VR-12 nor HOOS/KOOS JR was predictive of 90-day readmission or complications.