A Comparison of Complications and Survivorship after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fracture compared with Cuff Tear Arthropathy.

Objectives: Traditionally used to treat rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is becoming increasingly utilized for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures (PHF). The purpose of this study was to use a matched cohort analysis to assess differences in 90-day complications as well as 2-year and 5-year implant survival between patients undergoing RTSA for CTA and patients undergoing RTSA for PHF. Methods: Patients with at least a 5-year follow-up who underwent primary RTSA for either PHF or CTA were identified in a national database (PearlDiver Technologies) using current procedural terminology (CPT) and international classification of diseases (ICD) 9 and 10 codes. Patients with a surgical indication of PHF were matched with patients with a surgical indication of CTA based on age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, smoking status, and obesity (body mass index (BMI)>30). All-cause revision at the 2-year and 5-year postoperative time intervals were assessed. Reimbursements for the surgical care episode up to the 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year postoperative intervals were also assessed. Bivariate analysis was performed with a significance set at P<0.05. Results: In total, 802 PHF patients were matched with 802 CTA patients. Compared to CTA patients, PHF patients undergoing RTSA were significantly at increased risk of atrial fibrillation, anemia, and heart failure within 90 days of surgery. Notably, there was no significant difference in all-cause revision surgery at 2-year and 5-year postoperative intervals or hospital reimbursements at the 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year postoperative intervals. Conclusion: Preoperative indication appears to be an important driver of healthcare utilization for RTSA, as PHF patients undergoing RTSA have a higher risk of short-term postoperative complications compared to CTA patients. However, there is no difference in hospital reimbursement for the two indications of RTSA, suggesting that current payment modalities may not appropriately adjust for risk based on the surgical indication.

Determining a preoperative international normalised ratio threshold safe for hip fracture surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was first, to assess the relationship between preoperative INR (international normalised ratio) and postoperative complication rates in patients with a hip fracture, and second, to establish a threshold for INR below which the risk of complications is comparable to those in patients with a normal INR. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and found 35,910 cases who had undergone surgery for a hip fracture between 2012 and 2018. Cases were stratified into 4 groups based on their preoperative INR levels: <1.4; ⩾1.4 and <1.6; ⩾1.6 and <1.8 and ⩾1.8. These cohorts were assessed for differences in preoperative factors, intraoperative factors, and postoperative course. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the risk of transfusion, 30-day mortality, cardiac complications, and wound complications adjusting for all preoperative and intraoperative factors. RESULTS: Of the 35,910 cases, 33,484 (93.2%) had a preoperative INR < 1.4; 867 (2.4%) an INR ⩾1.4 and <1.6; 865 (2.4%) an INR ⩾ 1.6 and <1.8 and 692 (1.9%) an INR ⩾ 1.8. A preoperative INR ⩾ 1.8 was independently associated with an increased risk of bleeding requiring transfusion. A preoperative INR ⩾ 1.6 was associated with an increased risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found that an INR of <1.6 is a safe value for patients who are to undergo surgery for a hip fracture. Below this value, patients avoid an increased risk of both transfusion and 30-day mortality seen with higher INR values. These findings may allow adjustment of preoperative protocols and improve the outcome of hip fracture surgery in this group of patients.

Perceptions of Financial Conflict of Interest and Knowledge of the Sunshine Act Among Orthopedic Surgery Patients.

The orthopedic surgical specialty is strongly tied to partnerships with industry that have fostered innovation and greatly enhanced patient care. A substantial number of orthopedic surgeons currently receive some form of industry support. These relationships are highly scrutinized because they present the possibility of both personal and financial conflicts of interest (COI). The authors examined orthopedic patients' awareness of existing regulation and perceptions of financial COI by performing a prospective survey-based study of patients seen in an academic orthopedic department. Data were collected during 1 year, in a cross-section of hospital-based and community clinical settings. The authors collected 513 surveys during a 1-year period between 4 clinical locations. Of all respondents, 55% were unconcerned regarding gifts or direct compensation their physicians received from industry, and only 16% were very or extremely concerned regarding these benefits. Patients' opinions regarding possible influence of benefits were similarly ambivalent, with 54% of patients minimally or not at all concerned regarding the potential influence of industry gifts or compensation. Seventy-six percent of patients had never heard of the Sunshine Act, and only 3% indicated that they were aware of the legislation and its intention. The income of the respondents and their level of education were positively correlated with increased concern about handling of COI, as well as knowledge regarding the Sunshine Act. These data suggest that orthopedic surgery patients are widely unconcerned regarding physician COI, but specific subsets of patients may be more likely to have concerns regarding these relationships. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(5):e682-e686.].