Interspecialty Variation in Perioperative Health Care Resource Usage for Carpal Tunnel Release.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether any interspecialty variation exists, regarding perioperative health care resource usage, in carpal tunnel releases (CTRs). METHODS: The 2010 to 2021 PearlDiver Mariner Database, an all-payer claims database, was queried to identify patients undergoing primary CTRs. Physician specialty IDs were used to identify the specialty of the surgeon-orthopedic versus plastic versus general surgery versus neurosurgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify whether there was any interspecialty variation between the use of health care resources. RESULTS: A total of 908 671 patients undergoing CTRs were included, of which 556 339 (61.2%) were by orthopedic surgeons, 297 047 (32.7%) by plastic surgeons, 44 118 (4.9%) by neurosurgeons, and 11 257 (1.2%) by general surgeons. In comparison with orthopedic surgeons, patients treated by plastic surgeons were less likely to have received opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, oral steroids, and preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis but were more likely to have received steroid injections and electrodiagnostic studies (EDSs) preoperatively. Patients treated by neurosurgeons were more likely to have received preoperative opioids, gabapentin, oral steroids, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, EDSs, and formal preoperative physical/occupational therapy and less likely to have received steroid injections. Patients treated by general surgeons were less likely to receive oral steroids, steroid injections, EDSs, preoperative formal physical therapy, and preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, but were more likely to be prescribed gabapentin. CONCLUSIONS: There exists significant variation in perioperative health care resource usage for CTRs between specialties. Understanding reasons behind such variation would be paramount in minimizing differences in how care is practiced for elective hand procedures.

Total elbow arthroplasty cases involving orthopaedic residents do not affect short-term postoperative complications.

Background: Impact of resident participation on short-term postoperative outcomes after total elbow arthroplasty has not been studied. The aim was to investigate whether resident participation affects postoperative complication rates, operative time, and length of stay. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry was queried from 2006 to 2012 for patients undergoing total elbow arthroplasty. A 1:1 propensity score match was performed to match resident cases to attending-only cases. Comorbidities, surgical time, and short-term (30-day) postoperative complications were compared between groups. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to compare the rates of postoperative adverse events between groups. Results: After propensity score match, 124 cases (50% with resident participation) were included. Adverse event rate after surgery was 18.5%. On multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences between attending-only cases and resident involved cases, with regards to short-term major complications, minor complications, or any complications (all p > 0.071). Total operative time was similar between cohorts (149.16 vs. 165.66 min; p = 0.157). No difference was observed in the length of hospital stay (2.95 vs. 2.6 days), p = 0.399. Discussion: Resident participation during total elbow arthroplasty is not associated with increased risk for short-term medical or surgical postoperative complications or operative efficiency.

Declining Trend in Anti-osteoporotic Treatment, Despite a Rise in DEXA Screening Following "Sentinel" Distal Radius Fractures.

PURPOSE: To understand national trends and costs associated with the utilization of anti-osteoporotic medication and DEXA screening within the year following a sentinel/primary distal radius fracture. METHODS: The 2008-2015Q1 Humana Administrative Claims database was queried to identify patients aged ≥50 years, with a "sentinel" occurrence of a primary closed distal radius fracture. Linear regression models were used to report and assess for significant trends in utilization of anti-osteoporotic medication and DEXA screenings within the year following the fracture. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess for factors associated with receiving or not receiving anti-osteoporotic medication. RESULTS: A total of 14 526 sentinel distal radius fractures were included in the study. Only 7.2% (n = 1046) of patients received anti-osteoporosis medication in the year following the distal radius fracture. Treatment with medication for osteoporosis declined from 8.2% in 2008 to 5.9% in 2015, whereas the rate of DEXA screening increased from 14.8% in 2008 to 23.6% in 2015. The most common prescribed treatment was alendronate sodium (n = 835; 79.8%-$49/patient). Factors associated with increased odds of receiving anti-osteoporotic medication were age 70 to 79 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .014), age 80 to 89 years (OR, 1.66; P = .001), Asian (OR, 2.95; P = .002) or Hispanic (OR, 1.77; P = .006) ethnicity, belonging to South (OR, 1.19; P = .029) or West (OR, 1.37; P = .010), and having an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score of 3 (OR, 2.14; P = .024) or > 3 (OR, 2.05; P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a rising utilization of DEXA screening following "sentinel" distal radius fractures, the proportion of individuals who receive anti-osteoporotic treatment is decreasing over time.

Firework Injuries to the Hand in the United States: An Epidemiological and Cost Analysis.

Although prior literature has evaluated firework injuries broadly, there are no focused investigations examining trends, etiology, and costs associated with firework injuries to the hand. The 2006 to 2014 National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) was used. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes identified patients presenting to the emergency department with a firework-related injury of the hand that resulted in a burn, open wound, fracture, blood vessel injury, or traumatic amputation. A linear regression model was used to identify significant changes over time, with a significance threshold of P<.05. A total of 19,473 patients with a firework-related injury to the hand were included, with no significant change in the incidence from 2006 to 2014 (7.5 per 1,000,000 population). The greatest number of injuries occurred in July (57.1%), January (7.4%), and December (3.7%). Age groups affected were young adults (18-35 years; 43.6%), older adults (36-55 years; 19.2%), adolescents (12-17 years; 18.6%), and children (0-11 years; 16.1%). Nearly 74% of the injuries resulted in burns, 24.5% resulted in open wounds, 8.0% resulted in fracture, 7.6% resulted in traumatic amputation, and 1.4% resulted in blood vessel injury. Of 14,320 burn injuries, 15.2% had first-degree burns, 69.9% had second-degree burns, and 5.1% had third-degree burns involving the skin. The median emergency department charge was $914 and the median hospitalization charge (for inpatient admittance) was $30,743. Incidence of firework-related injuries to the hand has not changed over time. There is a need for better dissemination of safety information to mitigate the occurrences of these avoidable accidents. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(3):180-184.].

Are Foot & Ankle Surgeons Being Adequately Compensated for Ankle Fractures? - An Analysis of Relative Value Units.

The current relative value units (RVU)-based system is built to reflect the varying presentation of ankle fractures (uni-malleolar vs bi-malleolar vs tri-malleolar) by assigning individual RVUs to different fracture complexities. However, no study has evaluated whether the current RVUs reflect an appropriate compensation per unit time following open reduction internal fixation for uni-malleolar versus bi-malleolar versus tri-malleolar ankle fractures. The 2012 to 2017 American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files were queried using current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation for uni-malleolar (CPT-27766,CPT-27769,CPT-27792), bi-malleolar (CPT-27814), and tri-malleolar (CPT-27822,CPT-27823) ankle fractures. A total of 7830 (37.2%) uni-malleolar, 7826 (37.2%) bi-malleolar and 5391 (25.6%) tri-malleolar ankle fractures were retrieved. Total RVUs, Mean RVU/minute and Reimbursement rate ($/min) and Mean Reimbursement/case for each fracture type were calculated and compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. The mean total RVU for each fracture type was as follows: (1) Uni-malleolar: 9.99, (2) Bi-malleolar = 11.71 and 3) Tri-malleolar = 12.87 (p < .001). A statistically significant difference was noted in mean operative time (uni-malleolar = 63.2 vs bi-malleolar = 78.6 vs tri-malleolar = 95.5; p < .001) between the 3 groups. Reimbursement rates ($/min) decreased significantly as fracture complexity increased (uni-malleolar = $7.21/min vs bi-malleolar = $6.75/min vs tri-malleolar = $6.10; p < .001). The average reimbursement/case was $358, $420, and $462 for uni-malleolar, bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar fractures respectively. Foot & ankle surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate ($/min) for treating a simple uni-malleolar fracture as compared to bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar fractures, despite the higher complexity and longer operative times seen in the latter. The study highlights the need of a change in the RVUs for bi-malleolar and tri-malleolar ankle fractures to ensure that surgeons are adequately reimbursed per unit time for treating a more complex fracture case.

Is Outpatient Anterior Lumbar Fusion (ALIF) Safe? An Analysis of 30-day Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Review of publicly available database. OBJECTIVE: To compare 30-day outcomes of single-level ALIF procedures performed in outpatient and inpatient settings. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite a growing interest in performing standalone anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs) as an outpatient procedure, no study has evaluated the safety or efficacy of this procedure outside an inpatient setting. METHODS: The 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) was queried using CPT code 22558 to identify patients undergoing a single-level ALIF. Patients receiving concurrent posterior lumbar surgery/fusion/instrumentation, pelvic fixation, or surgery due to tumor, trauma and/or deformity were excluded to capture an isolated cohort of patients receiving single-level standalone ALIFs. A total of 3728 single-level standalone ALIFs were included in the study. Multivariate regression analyses were used to compare 30-day adverse events and readmissions while controlling for baseline clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Out of a total of 3728 ALIFs, 149 (4.0%) were performed as outpatient procedure. Following adjustment, outpatient ALIFs versus inpatient ALIFs had lower odds of experiencing any 30-day adverse event (2.0% vs. 9.2%, OR 0.24 [95% CI 0.08-0.76]; P =0.015). No significant differences were noted with regard to severe adverse events 9p=0.261), minor adverse events 9p=0.995), and readmission rates ( P =0.95). CONCLUSION: On the basis of the results of the study, it appears that ALIFs may be carried out safely in an outpatient setting in an appropriately selected patient population.

Posterior Cervical Fusion for Fracture Is Not the Same as Fusion for Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease: Implications for a Bundled Payment Model.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective. OBJECTIVE: To understand differences in 30-day outcomes between patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion (PCF) for fracture versus degenerative cervical spine disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current bundled payment models for cervical fusions, such as the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement revolve around the use of diagnosis-related groups to categorize patients for reimbursement purposes. Though a PCF performed for a fracture may have a different postoperative course of care as compared with a fusion being done for degenerative cervical spine pathology, the current DRG system does not differentiate payments based on the indication/cause of surgery. METHODS: The 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried using Current Procedural Terminology code 22600 to identify patients receiving elective PCFs. Multivariate analyses were used to compare rates of 30-day severe adverse events, minor adverse events, readmissions, length of stay, and nonhome discharges between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total 2546 (91.4%) PCFs were performed for degenerative cervical spine pathology and 240 (8.6%) for fracture. After adjustment for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, patients undergoing a PCF for a fracture versus degenerative pathology had higher odds of severe adverse events [18.8% vs. 10.6%, odds ratio (OR): 1.65 (95% CI, 1.10-2.46); P =0.015], prolonged length of stay >3 days [54.2% vs. 40.5%, OR: 1.93 (95% CI, 1.44-2.59); P <0.001], and nonhome discharges [34.2% vs. 27.6%, OR: 1.54 (95% CI, 1.10-2.17); P =0.012]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing PCFs for fracture have significant higher rates of postoperative adverse events and greater resource utilization as compared with individuals undergoing elective PCF for degenerative spine pathology. The study calls into question the need of risk adjustment of bundled prices based on indication/cause of the surgery to prevent the creation of a financial disincentive when taking care/performing surgery in spinal trauma patients.

Anemia Severity and the Risks of Postoperative Complications Following Total Ankle Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have demonstrated the effect of anemia severity on postoperative complications after arthroplasties of the shoulder, hip, and knee, no studies have investigated the effect on total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). The objective was to determine the influence of preoperative anemia severity on complications following TAA. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) was queried from 2006 to 2019 for patients undergoing TAA. Utilizing the World Health Organization (WHO) definitions of anemia, patients were stratified into 3 cohorts: nonanemia (hematocrit >36% for women, >39% for men), mild anemia (hematocrit 33%-36% for women, 33%-39% for men), and moderate to severe anemia (hematocrit <33% for both women and men). Demographics, comorbidities, length of stay, and short-term (30-day) postoperative complications were compared between groups. Bivariate analyses, including χ2 and analysis of variance, and multivariable logistical regression were performed. RESULTS: After exclusion, 1490 patients (1313 nonanemia [88.1%], 154 mild anemia [10.3%], and 23 moderate/severe anemia [1.6%]) were included. Increasing severity of anemia was associated with an increased average hospital length of stay (1.84 vs 2.19 vs 2.78 days, P < .001) and rate of reoperation (0.38% vs 3.90% vs 4.35%, P < .001). There was a statistically significant increase in wound disruptions (0.15% vs 1.95% vs 4.35%, P = .001), minor complications (1.52% vs 4.55% vs 8.70%, P = .008), major complications (1.98% vs 5.84% vs 4.35%, P < .033), and any complications (3.50% vs 10.39% vs 13.04%, P = .001) between groups. Multivariate analysis identified mild and moderate/severe anemia as a predictor of reoperation and extended length of stay (P ≤ .033). DISCUSSION: Preoperative anemia is a modifiable risk factor for medical and surgical complications within 30 days of TAA. Medical optimization prior to surgical intervention is necessary in patients undergoing TAA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III: Retrospective comparative study.

Discharge to inpatient care facilities following hip fracture surgery: incidence, risk factors, and 30-day post-discharge outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Discharge to an inpatient care facility (skilled-care or rehabilitation) has been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes following elective total joint arthroplasties. Current evidence with regard to hip fracture surgeries remains limited. METHODS: The 2015-2016 ACS-NSQIP database was used to query for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty and open reduction internal fixation for hip fractures. A total of 15,655 patients undergoing hip fracture surgery were retrieved from the database. Inpatient facility discharge included discharges to skilled-care facilities and inpatient rehabilitation units. Multi-variate regression analysis was used to assess for differences in 30-day post-discharge outcomes between home-discharge versus inpatient care facility discharge, while adjusting for baseline differences between the 2 study populations. RESULTS: A total of 12,568 (80.3%) patients were discharged to an inpatient care facility. Discharge to an inpatient care facility was associated with higher odds of any complication (OR 2.03 [95% CI, 1.61-2.55]; p < 0.001), wound complications (OR 1.79 [95% CI, 1.10-2.91]; p = 0.019), cardiac complications (OR 4.49 [95% CI, 1.40-14.40]; p = 0.012), respiratory complication (OR 2.29 [95% CI, 1.39-3.77]; p = 0.001), stroke (OR 7.67 [95% CI, 1.05-56.29]; p = 0.045, urinary tract infections (OR 2.30 [95% CI, 1.52-3.48]; p < 0.001), unplanned re-operations (OR 1.37 [95% CI, 1.03-1.82]; p = 0.029) and readmissions (OR 1.38 [95% CI, 1.16-1.63]; p < 0.001) following discharge. CONCLUSION: Discharge to inpatient care facilities versus home following hip fracture surgery is associated with higher odds of post-discharge complications, re-operations and readmissions. These results stress the importance of careful patient selection prior to discharge to inpatient care facilities to minimise the risk of complications.

Trends of hand injuries presenting to US emergency departments: A 10-year national analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to observe current incidence and trends of hand and wrist injuries presenting to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) over a decade. METHODS: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) was queried for hand and wrist injuries from January 2009-December 2018. Descriptive analyses were used to report injury types to the hand and wrist. Incidence, age, gender, race, injury location, and type of injury were recorded. Linear regression analyses were used to assess changes in trends over time. A p value <0.05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: In total, 649,131 cases of hand and wrist injuries were identified in the NEISS from 2009 to 2018, correlating to 25,666,596 patients nationally. Incidence rates for finger, hand, and wrist were 450, 264, and 182 per 100,000 people. The estimated number of patients per year declined by 8.6% from 2009 to 2018. Male adults (aged 18-39) were the most frequent demographic. Total national estimates of hand (-8.2%; p = 0.001), wrist (-6.1%; p = 0.007), and finger (-9.9%; p < 0.001) injuries declined over the study period. The most common injuries were lacerations (36.5%), fractures (19.9%), strains/sprains (12.3%), and contusions/abrasions (12.1%) which significantly declined over the study period. The overall admission rate was 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated annual number of hand/wrist injuries presenting to US EDs was 2.6 million with gradual decline over the decade. Hand injury registries could assist in quality improvement measures targeted toward increased efficiency and resource allocation and education.

Cost Analysis of Medical Students Applying to Orthopaedic Surgery Residency: Implications for the 2020 to 2021 Application Cycle During COVID-19.

Although studies have evaluated the economic burden to medical students desiring an orthopaedic residency broadly, no study has evaluated in detail the application costs, away rotation costs, interview costs, and total costs. Given that the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Orthopaedic Association's Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors have recommended orthopaedic surgery residency programs for the 2021 residency application cycle cancel away rotations and in-person interviews, our objective was to evaluate the cost savings to medical students applying during this time and the potential implications. METHODS: Using the 2019 to 2020 Texas STAR Dashboard database, we queried responses from applicants applying to orthopaedic surgery residency. The dashboard was queried to record the application costs, away rotation costs, interview costs, and total costs for medical school seniors applying to orthopaedic surgery residency. Demographic information for applicants was also recorded. Mean and median costs were reported with percentile distributions and geographic comparisons. A Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in mean costs by medical school region. RESULTS: The 2019 to 2020 Texas STAR Dashboard database had 473 responses from applicants to orthopaedic surgery residency. The mean application costs were $1,990, away rotation costs were $3,182, interview costs were $3,129, and total costs were $8,205. The mean total costs for applicants from Midwest schools were significantly less than Western schools ($7,410/applicant vs. $9,909/applicant) (p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between the mean application fees between regions. Away rotation costs for applicants from schools in the Midwest ($2,413/applicant) were significantly less compared with Northeast ($3,279/applicant), South ($3,343/applicant), and West ($3,913/applicant) (all p < 0.002). Interview costs for applicants from schools in the Northeast ($2,891/applicant) were less than applicants from Western US schools ($3,831/applicant) (p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: In the COVID-19 era, orthopaedic residency applicants could save on average $6,311 through the use of virtual interviews and lack of away rotations. There are geographic implications, with applicants from Western US medical schools potentially saving most.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Posterior Lumbar Fusion-An Analysis of 90-Day Complications and Readmissions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate medical and surgical complication rates between robotic-assisted versus conventional elective posterior lumbar fusions. METHODS: The Symphony Integrated DataVerse was queried using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, Clinical Modification procedure codes to identify patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar fusions for degenerative spine pathologies between 2015 and 2018. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, Clinical Modification procedure codes (8E0W4CZ, 8E0W0CZ, 8E0W3CZ) were used to identify patients undergoing a robotic-assisted spinal fusion. Outcome measures were 90-day medical and surgical complications, 1-year pseudarthrosis, and 1-year revision surgery rates. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether undergoing a robotic-assisted fusion (vs. conventional fusion) was associated with differences in wound complications, medical complications, pseudarthrosis, revision surgery, and readmissions within 90 days of surgery. RESULTS: A total of 39,387 patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar fusions were included in the cohort-of whom 245 (0.62%) patients underwent a robotic-assisted fusion. Multivariate analysis showed that robotic-assisted fusion (vs. conventional fusion) was not associated with significant differences in 90-day rates of wound complications (P = 0.299), urinary tract infections (P = 0.648), acute myocardial infarctions (P = 0.209), acute renal failure (P = 0.461), pneumonia (P = 0.214), stroke (P = 0.917), deep venous thrombosis (P = 0.562), pulmonary embolism (P = 0.401), and readmissions (P = 0.985). In addition, there were no significant differences in the 1-year rates of revision fusions (P = 0.316) and pseudarthrosis (P = 0.695). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent a robotic-assisted fusion had similar rates of surgical and medical complications compared with those who underwent a conventional fusion. Further studies are warranted to better understand the future role of robots in spine surgery.

Increasing Frailty in Geriatric Emergency General Surgery: A Cause for Concern.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) presents a challenge for frail, geriatric individuals who often have extensive comorbidities affecting postoperative recovery. Previous studies have shown an association between increasing frailty and adverse outcomes following elective and EGS; no study has explored the same for the geriatric patient population using the modified 5-item frailty index (mFI-5) score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify geriatric patients (≥65 years) undergoing EGS procedures within 48 h of admission. The previously validated mFI-5 score was used to assess preoperative frailty. The study cohort was divided into four groups: mFI-5 = 0, mFI-5 = 1, mFI-5 = 2, and mFI-5 ≥ 3; the impact of increasing mFI-5 score on failure-to-rescue (FTR), 30-day complications, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 47,216 patients were included: 27.4% with mFI-5 = 0, 45% with mFI-5 = 1, 22.1% with mFI-5 = 2, and 5.5% with mFI-5 ≥ 3. Following multivariate analyses, increasing mFI-5 score was associated with higher odds of FTR (mFI-5 = 1: odds ratio (OR) 1.48, p=0.003; mFI-5 = 2: OR 2.66, p <0.001; mFI-5 ≥ 3: OR 3.97, p <0.001), 30-day complications (mFI-5 = 1: OR 1.46, p <0.001; mFI-5 = 2: OR 2.48, p <0.001; mFI-5≥3: OR 5.01, p <0.001), reoperation (mFI-5 = 1: OR 1.42, p = 0.020; mFI-5 = 2: OR 1.70, p = 0.021; mFI-5 ≥ 3: OR 2.18, p = 0.009) and all-cause mortality (mFI-5 = 1: OR 1.49, p=0.001; mFI-5 = 2: OR 2.67, p <0.001; mFI-5 ≥ 3: 3.96, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing frailty in geriatric EGS patients is associated with significantly higher rates of FTR, 30-day complications, reoperations, and all-cause mortality. The mFI-5 score can be used to assess frailty and better anticipate the postoperative course of vulnerable geriatric patients.

Which patients are at risk for not receiving anti-osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture?: An ACS NSQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Screening and management of osteoporosis is often only considered by providers when patients present with multiple fragility fractures. The objective was to determine which patients are at risk for not receiving anti-osteoporotic medication and screening immediately following open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for hip fracture. METHODS: The 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Targeted Hip Fracture Database was queried to identify patients ≥ 50 years old who underwent ORIF of femoral neck, intertrochanteric hip, and subtrochanteric hip fractures. Patients with concurrent polytrauma, malignancy, and other fragility fractures were excluded. Patients taking osteoporotic medications immediately prior to hospitalization were excluded to prevent an overlap in the screening and/or antiresorptive medication initiation rates. Multi-variate logistic regression was used to assess for factors associated with not receiving anti-osteoporotic medication immediately postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 6179 patients were identified of whom 3304 (53.5%) were treated at a facility with a documented standardized hip fracture care program. Only 28.5% (N = 1766) patients received anti-osteoporosis medication immediately following ORIF. Independent factors associated with increased odds of not initiating bone protective medication were those without a standardized hip fracture care program (odds ratio [OR] 1.80 [1.58-2.06], P < 0.001), length of stay ≤ 5 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.47 [1.28-1.69], P < 0.001), patients waiting > 1 day until operation (odds ratio [OR] 1.35 [1.13-1.60], P = 0.001), patients requiring a mobility aid preoperatively (odds ratio [OR] 1.29 [1.13-1.47], P < 0.001), and patients who could not weight bear as tolerated (WBAT) on postoperative day 1 (POD 1) (odds ratio [OR] 1.25 [1.06-1.47], P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Patients starting anti-osteoporotic medication immediately following a hip fracture in the United States remains low (28.5%). Standardized hip fracture care programs have the greatest impact with regards to initiating anti-osteoporotic medication following hip fracture.

Costs of U.S. Allopathic Medical Students Applying to Neurosurgery Residency: Geographic Considerations and Implications for the 2020-2021 Application Cycle.

OBJECTIVE: Although studies have evaluated the economic burden to medical students desiring a neurosurgery residency broadly, a detailed breakdown of costs has not been reported. Given that the Association of American Medical Colleges and Society of Neurological Surgeons have recommended neurosurgery residency programs for the 2021 residency application cycle cancel away rotations and in-person interviews, our objective was to evaluate cost savings to medical students applying during this time and the implications. METHODS: Using the 2019-2020 Texas STAR Dashboard database, we queried responses from neurosurgery residency applicants. We recorded application costs, away rotation costs, interview costs, and total costs for medical school seniors applying to neurosurgery residency. Demographic information for applicants was also recorded. Mean and median costs were reported with percentile distributions and geographic comparisons. A Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to determine differences in mean costs by medical school region. RESULTS: Our cohort included 121 U.S. allopathic applicants to neurosurgery residency. Mean application costs were $1711, away rotation costs were $3840, interview costs were $6400, and total costs were $11,882. No significant difference was observed for mean total costs for applicants from schools in the central ($10,525/applicant), northeast ($11,311/applicant), south ($12,660/applicant) and west ($12,404/applicant) regions (P = 0.181). There was no significant difference in the mean application fees, away rotation costs, or interview costs among regions. CONCLUSIONS: In the COVID-19 era, neurosurgery residency applicants could save >$10,000 through the use of virtual interviews and lack of away rotations. There are potential geographic trends; however, further evaluation should be performed.

Risk Factors for Discharge to a Non-Home Destination and Reoperation Following Outpatient Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in Medicare-Eligible Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed total hip arthroplasty (THA) from the inpatient-only (IO) list in January 2020. Given this recommendation, we analyzed Medicare-eligible patients undergoing outpatient THA to understand risk factors for nonroutine discharge, reoperations, and readmissions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2015-2018 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried using Current Procedural Terminology code 27130 for Medicare eligible patients (≥ 65 years of age) undergoing outpatient THA. Postoperative discharge destination was categorized into home and non-home. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate risk factors associated with non-home discharge disposition. Secondarily, we evaluated rates and risk factors associated with 30-day reoperations and readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 1095 THAs were retrieved for final analysis. A total of 108 patients (9.9%) experienced a non-home discharge postoperatively. Patients were discharged to rehab (n = 47; 4.3%), a skilled care facility (n = 47; 4.3%), a facility that was "home" (n = 8; 0.7%), a separate acute care facility (n = 5; 0.5%), or an unskilled facility (n = 1; 0.1%). Independent factors for a non-home discharge were American Society of Anesthesiologists Class >II (odds ratio [OR] 2.74), operative time >80 minutes (OR 2.42), age >70 years (OR 2.20), and female gender (OR 1.67). Eighteen patients (1.6%) required an unplanned reoperation within 30 days. A total of 40 patients (3.7%) required 30-day readmissions, with 35 readmissions related to the original THA procedure. Independent risk factors for 30-day reoperation were COPD (OR 5.85) and HTN (OR 5.24). Independent risk factors for 30-day readmission were HTN (OR 4.35) and Age >70 (OR 2.48). DISCUSSION: The current study identifies significant predictors associated with a non-home discharge, reoperation, and readmission in Medicare-aged patients undergoing outpatient THA. CONCLUSION: Providers should consider preoperatively risk-stratifying patients to reduce the costs associated with unplanned discharge destination, complication or reoperation.

What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

BACKGROUND: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers is an organization of 11 leading cancer institutions and affiliated hospitals that are exempt from the Medicare prospective system hospital reimbursement policies. Because of their focus on cancer care and participation in innovative cancer treatment methods and protocols, these hospitals are reimbursed based on their actual billings. The perceived lack of incentive to meet a predetermined target price and reduce costs has spurred criticism of the value of cancer care at these institutions. The rationale of our study was to better understand whether dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) deliver high-value care for patients undergoing surgical treatment of spinal metastases. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Is there a difference in 90-day complications and reimbursements between patients undergoing surgical treatment (decompression or fusion) for spinal metastases at DCCs and those treated at nonDCC hospitals? METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was queried using ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes to identify patients undergoing decompression (03.0, 03.09, and 03.4) and/or fusion (81.0X) for spinal metastases (198.5). The database does not allow us to exclude the possibility that some patients were treated with fusion for stabilization of the spine without decompression, although this is likely an uncommon event. Patients undergoing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for metastatic disease were excluded. The Medicare hospital provider identification numbers were used to identify the 11 DCCs. The study cohort was categorized into two groups: DCCs and nonDCCs. Although spinal metastases are known to occur among nonMedicare and younger patients, the payment policies of these DCCs are only applicable to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, to keep the study objective relevant to current policy and value-based discussions, we performed the analysis using the Medicare dataset. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17,776 patients in the study, 6% (1138 of 17,776) of whom underwent surgery at one of the 11 DCCs. Compared with the nonDCC group, DCC group hospitals operated on a younger patient population and on more patients with primary renal cancers. In addition, DCCs were more likely to be high-volume facilities with National Cancer Institute designations and have a voluntary or government ownership model. Patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases at DCCs were more likely to have spinal decompression with fusion than those at nonDCCs (40% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and had a greater length and extent of fusion (at least four levels of fusion; 34% versus 29%; p = 0.001). Patients at DCCs were also more likely than those at nonDCCs to receive postoperative adjunct treatments such as radiation (16% versus 13.5%; p = 0.008) and chemotherapy (17% versus 9%; p < 0.001), although this difference is small and we do not know if this meets a minimum clinically important difference. To account for differences in patients presenting at both types of facilities, multivariate logistic regression mixed-model analyses were used to compare rates of 90-day complications and 90-day mortality between DCC and nonDCC hospitals. Controls were implemented for baseline clinical characteristics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors (such as random effects). Generalized linear regression mixed-modeling was used to evaluate differences in total 90-day reimbursements between DCCs and nonDCCs. RESULTS: After adjusting for differences in baseline demographics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors, patients undergoing surgery at DCCs had lower odds of experiencing sepsis (6.5% versus 10%; odds ratio 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), urinary tract infections (19% versus 28%; OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), renal complications (9% versus 13%; OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.72]; p < 0.001), emergency department visits (27% versus 31%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93]; p = 0.01), and mortality (39% versus 49%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) within 90 days of the procedure compared with patients treated at nonDCCs. Undergoing surgery at a DCC (90-day reimbursement of USD 54,588 ± USD 42,914) compared with nonDCCs (90-day reimbursement of USD 49,454 ± USD 38,174) was also associated with reduced 90-day risk-adjusted reimbursements (USD -14,802 [standard error 1362] ; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, it appears that DCCs offer high-value care, as evidenced by lower complication rates and reduced reimbursements after surgery for spinal metastases. A better understanding of the processes of care adopted at these institutions is needed so that additional cancer centers may also be able to deliver similar care for patients with metastatic spine disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The Association of "U.S. News & World Report" Hospital Rankings and Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Fusions: Do Rankings Even Matter?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there are any differences in outcomes and costs for elective one- to three-level anterior cervical fusions (ACFs) performed at US News and World Report (USNWR) ranked and unranked hospitals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the USNWR rankings are advertised by media and are routinely used by patients as a guide in seeking care, evidence regarding whether these rankings are reflective of actual clinical outcome remains limited. METHODS: The 2010-2014 USNWR hospital rankings were used to identify ranked hospitals in "Neurosurgery" and "Orthopedics." The 2010-2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files (SAF100) were used to identify patients undergoing elective ACFs at ranked and unranked hospitals. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day outcomes and costs between ranked and unranked hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 110,520 patients undergoing elective one- to three-level ACFs were included in the study, of which 10,289 (9.3%) underwent surgery in one of the 100 ranked hospitals. Following multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences between ranked versus unranked hospitals with regards to wound complications (1.2% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.907), cardiac complications (12.9% vs. 11.9%; P = 0.055), pulmonary complications (3.7% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.654), urinary tract infections (7.3% vs. 5.8%; P = 0.120), sepsis (9.3% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.847), deep venous thrombosis (1.9% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.077), revision surgery (0.3% vs. 0.3%; P = 0.617), and all-cause readmissions (4.7% vs. 4.4%; P = 0.266). Ranked hospitals, as compared to unranked hospitals, had a slightly lower odds of experiencing renal complications (7.0% vs. 4.9%; P = 0.047), but had significantly higher risk-adjusted 90-day charges (+$17,053; P < 0.001) and costs (+ $1695; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite the higher charges and costs of care at ranked hospitals, these facilities appear to have similar outcomes as compared to unranked hospitals following elective ACFs.Level of Evidence: 3.

Undergoing an Arthroscopic Procedure Prior to Shoulder Arthroplasty is Associated With Greater Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection.

PURPOSE: To utilize a national all-payer claims dataset to understand whether a history of a prior shoulder arthroscopy is associated with adverse outcomes or complications after the index shoulder arthroplasty itself. METHODS: The Symphony Integrated DataVerse, an all-payer claims database, was used to identify patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty) between 2017 to 2018. Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients who had undergone a shoulder arthroscopic procedure on the ipsilateral side within 2 years before the arthroplasty. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether prior shoulder arthroscopy was associated with higher risks of wound complications, postoperative stiffness, mechanical complications, prosthetic joint infection, revision surgery and readmissions within 90 days of the arthroplasty. RESULTS: In total, 19,429 patients were included, of which 837 (4.3%) had undergone shoulder arthroscopy within 2 years before the arthroplasty. Prior shoulder arthroscopy was associated with a significantly higher risk of prosthetic joint infection (odds ratio [OR] 2.74 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.51-4.69]; P < .001) within 90 days of the arthroplasty. The greatest risk of prosthetic joint infection was associated with arthroscopies that took place within 3 months before the arthroplasty (OR 5.32 [95% CI 1.42-15.14]; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Undergoing an arthroscopic procedure of the ipsilateral shoulder before undergoing an arthroplasty was associated with greater risk of prosthetic joint infection. Furthermore, it appears that patients who received arthroscopy within the 3 months before arthroplasty had the highest risk of prosthetic joint infections. Physicians should not only anticipate possible inferior outcomes in patients who have had prior arthroscopy, but also consider delaying the arthroplasty by at least 3 months after the arthroscopy to mitigate the risks of experiencing this costly adverse event. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.