RESUMO
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to use a national claims database to analyze trends in the usage of arthroscopic versus open irrigation and debridement of septic wrist arthritis and compare complication rates, readmission rates, and reoperation rates between the 2 treatment modalities. Methods: The PearlDiver database was used to identify patients in the United States who underwent open or arthroscopic debridement for suspected septic wrist arthritis from 2010 to 2017. Data on patient demographics and comorbidities were obtained. Pearson's chi-square tests were performed to compare the treatment modality to demographic data and the year of diagnosis. Univariate logistic regressions were used to measure differences in 90-day hospital readmission rates, 90-day complication rates, and 1-year reoperation rates. Results: The database captured 1,145 patients who received treatment for septic arthritis of the wrist during this period. Among these, 212 (18.5%) patients underwent arthroscopic debridement and 933 (81.5%) patients underwent open debridement. Open management was more common in all ages; however, arthroscopic debridement was used more frequently in younger age groups. The proportion of open cases per year seemed to increase over the study period. In limited comparisons, no significant differences were observed in 90-day hospital readmission rates, 90-day complication rates, and 1-year reoperation rates. Conclusions: Open irrigation and debridement was the preferred method for treatment of septic wrist arthritis in all age groups and time points in this study. No univariate differences were found between rates of readmission, complications, and reoperations between arthroscopic and open treatment modalities; however, more robust data and analyses are needed to better understand the differences between these approaches, especially across different patient groups. Level of evidence: Prognostic IV.
RESUMO
Background There is no consensus on the utility of arthrography in the evaluation of wrist injuries. This study evaluates ordering trends of different types of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the wrist and compares rates of surgery following these imaging modalities. Methods A national claims-based database was used to identify patients who underwent MRI within 90 days of a first-instance diagnosis of wrist injury from 2010 to 2018. The utilization of MRI without intravenous (IV) contrast, MRI with IV contrast, and MRI with arthrogram was investigated. The instances of operative procedures of the wrist within 1 year of MRI study were recorded. Patient demographics, comorbidities, type of operative procedure, and ordering physician specialty were obtained. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the utilization of MRI and subsequent 1-year operative intervention rates as well as association of patient-related factors. Results Magnetic resonance arthrography use was associated with higher rates of subsequent operative treatment. Surgeons were more likely to order an arthrogram at the time of MRI. Younger patients were more likely to undergo MRI-based advanced imaging. Conclusion Surgeons may perceive MRA of the wrist to play an important role in operative decision-making following wrist injury. Level of Evidence This is a Level III, retrospective cohort study.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Approximately 320 000 fragility hip fractures are sustained in the United States annually, resulting in substantial morbidity and mortality as well as significant economic burden on the health-care system. Nevertheless, a majority of these patients are not screened and do not receive treatment for osteoporosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate rates of osteoporosis screening and treatment in our institution and compare them to those reported in the literature. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 191 patients ages 50 and older who sustained osteoporotic hip fractures. Primary outcome measures were percentage of patients who (1) underwent bone health laboratory workup during admission, (2) were started on vitamin D, calcium, and/or a bisphosphonate, (3) received bone mineral density testing, and (4) followed up with a primary care doctor or endocrinologist. Secondary outcomes measures were (1) whether gender, race, or age influenced our primary outcomes and (2) whether obtaining in-hospital laboratory workup led to increased rates of further screening and treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-six (29.3%) patients received full laboratory workup, 48 (25.1%) were prescribed vitamin D and calcium, 11 (5.7%) were prescribed a bisphosphonate, 13 (6.8%) underwent bone mineral density testing, and 41 (21.5%) followed up with primary care or endocrinology. DISCUSSION: Women were more likely to be treated with vitamin D and calcium. Outcomes were similar regardless of race. Younger patients were more likely to undergo laboratory testing, bisphosphonate therapy, and bone mineral density testing. Initiating workup during admission did not lead to increased rates of outpatient treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite nationwide efforts to improve, rates of osteoporosis screening and treatment following hip fracture are suboptimal. Rates at our institution are similar to those reported in previous studies. There were disparities between gender and age groups. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether more recently implemented policies lead to better osteoporosis screening and management.
