Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing Versus Locked Plating for Extreme Distal Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes after retrograde intramedullary nailing (rIMN) versus locked plating (LP) of "extreme distal" periprosthetic femur fractures, defined as those that contact or extend distal to the anterior flange. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Eight academic level I trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures at or distal to the anterior flange (OTA/AO 33B-C[VB1]) treated with rIMN or LP. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: The primary outcome was reoperation to promote healing or to treat infection (reoperation for elective removal of symptomatic hardware was excluded from this analysis). Secondary outcomes included nonunion, delayed union, fixation failure, infection, overall reoperation rate, distal femoral alignment, and ambulatory status at final follow-up. Outcomes were compared between patients treated with rIMN or LP. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients treated with rIMN and 224 patients treated with LP were included. The rIMN group had fewer points of fixation in the distal segment (rIMN: 3.5 ± 1.1 vs. LP: 6.0 ± 1.1, P < 0.001) and more patients who were allowed to weight-bear as tolerated immediately postoperatively (rIMN: 45%; LP: 9%, P < 0.01). Reoperation to promote union and/or treat infection was 8% in the rIMN group and 16% in the LP group ( P = 0.122). There were no significant differences in nonunion ( P > 0.999), delayed union ( P = 0.079), fixation failure ( P > 0.999), infection ( P = 0.084), or overall reoperation rate ( P > 0.999). Significantly more patients in the rIMN group were ambulatory without assistive devices at final follow-up (rIMN: 35%, LP: 18%, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: rIMN of extreme distal periprosthetic femur fractures has similar complication rates compared with LP, with a possible advantage of earlier return to weight-bearing. Surgeons can consider this treatment strategy in all fractures with stable implants and amenable prosthesis geometry, even extreme distal fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Rates of Ninety-Day Peri-Prosthetic Joint and Surgical Site Infections after Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study.

Background: The impact of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the rate of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and superficial surgical site infections (SSI) is currently unknown. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate any changes in the rates of 90-day PJI or 30-day SSI, including trends in microbiology of the infections, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the three years prior. Patients and Methods: An Institutional Review Board-approved, multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with five participating academic institutions across two healthcare systems in the northeastern United States. Primary TJA patients from the years 2017-2019 were grouped as a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort and patients from the year 2020 were grouped as a COVID-19 pandemic cohort. Differences in patient demographics, PJI, SSI, and microbiology between the two cohorts were assessed. Results: A total of 14,844 TJAs in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort and 5,453 TJAs in the COVID-19 pandemic cohort were evaluated. There were no substantial differences of the combined 90-day PJI and 30-day superficial SSI rates between the pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (0.35%) compared with the COVID-19 pandemic cohort (0.26%; p = 0.303). Conclusions: This study did not find any change in the rates of 90-day PJI or 30-day superficial SSI in patients undergoing primary TJA between a pre-COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic cohort. Larger national database studies may identify small but substantial differences in 90-day PJI and 30-day superficial SSI rates between these two time periods. Our data may support continued efforts to maintain high compliance with hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment, and limited hospital visitation whenever possible.

Analgesic Comparison of Flunixin Meglumine or Meloxicam for Soft-Tissue Surgery in Sheep: A Pilot Study.

The amount of scientific data evaluating sheep pain responses after analgesia treatment is limited. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of flunixin meglumine (FLU) and meloxicam (MEL) at relieving post-surgical pain in sheep and to evaluate the utility of the Sheep Grimace Scale (SGS). Thirty ewes were assigned to one of three treatment groups: oral MEL or intravenous FLU to manage pain associated with a laparotomy procedure, or a non-surgical control (CON) group. Behavior and physiologic outcome measures were collected pre-procedure and up to 48 h post-procedure. There were no significant differences in behavior, gait, degree of inflammation or pain around the surgical site when MEL and FLU sheep were compared, suggesting that both drugs provided similar levels of analgesia. Significant differences in behavior, gait, abdominal inflammation and pain were found when surgical sheep were compared to non-surgical controls. More work is needed to characterize the amount of pain relief provided by MEL and FLU. The SGS had moderate reliability between scorers; however, the results were inconsistent with the other study outcome measures. The SGS may have some utility as a pain assessment tool but should be used in conjunction with other pain measures.

The 22-Modifier in Reimbursement for Orthopedic Procedures: Hip Arthroplasty and Obesity Are Worth the Effort.

BACKGROUND: Orthopedic surgeons utilize the 22-modifier when billing for complex procedures under the American Medical Association's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) for reasons such as excessive blood loss, anatomic abnormality, and morbid obesity, cases that would ideally be reimbursed at a higher rate to compensate for additional physician work and time. We investigated how the 22-modifier affects physician reimbursement in knee and hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We queried hospital billing data from 2009 to 2016, identifying all cases performed at our urban tertiary care orthopedic center for knee arthroplasty (CPT codes 27438, 27447, 27487, and 27488) and hip arthroplasty (CPT codes 27130, 27132, 27134, 27236). We extracted patient insurance status and reimbursement data to compare the average reimbursement between cases with and without the 22-modifier. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 2605 procedures performed by 10 providers. There were 136 cases with 22-modifiers. For knee arthroplasty (n = 1323), the 22-modifier did not significantly increase reimbursement after adjusting for insurer, provider, and fiscal year (4.2% dollars higher on average, P = .159). For hip arthroplasty (n = 1282), cases with a 22-modifier had significantly higher reimbursement than those without the 22-modifier (6.2% dollars more, P = .049). For hip arthroplasty cases with a 22-modifier, those noting morbid obesity were reimbursed 29% higher than those cases with other etiology. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of the 22-modifier on reimbursement amount is differential between knee and hip arthroplasty. Hip arthroplasty procedures coded as 22-modifier are reimbursed more than those without the 22-modifier. Providers should consider these potential returns when considering submitting a 22-modifier.