Association Between 6-Week Postdischarge Risk Classification and 12-Month Outcomes After Orthopedic Trauma.

Importance: Numerous studies have demonstrated that long-term outcomes after orthopedic trauma are associated with psychosocial and behavioral health factors evident early in the patient's recovery. Little is known about how to identify clinically actionable subgroups within this population. Objectives: To examine whether risk and protective factors measured at 6 weeks after injury could classify individuals into risk clusters and evaluate whether these clusters explain variations in 12-month outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective observational study was conducted between July 16, 2013, and January 15, 2016, among 352 patients with severe orthopedic injuries at 6 US level I trauma centers. Statistical analysis was conducted from October 9, 2017, to July 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: At 6 weeks after discharge, patients completed standardized measures for 5 risk factors (pain intensity, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use) and 4 protective factors (resilience, social support, self-efficacy for return to usual activity, and self-efficacy for managing the financial demands of recovery). Latent class analysis was used to classify participants into clusters, which were evaluated against measures of function, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and self-rated health collected at 12 months. Results: Among the 352 patients (121 women and 231 men; mean [SD] age, 37.6 [12.5] years), latent class analysis identified 6 distinct patient clusters as the optimal solution. For clinical use, these clusters can be collapsed into 4 groups, sorted from low risk and high protection (best) to high risk and low protection (worst). All outcomes worsened across the 4 clinical groupings. Bayesian analysis shows that the mean Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment dysfunction scores at 12 months differed by 7.8 points (95% CI, 3.0-12.6) between the best and second groups, by 10.3 points (95% CI, 1.6-20.2) between the second and third groups, and by 18.4 points (95% CI, 7.7-28.0) between the third and worst groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrates that during early recovery, patients with orthopedic trauma can be classified into risk and protective clusters that account for a substantial amount of the variance in 12-month functional and health outcomes. Early screening and classification may allow a personalized approach to postsurgical care that conserves resources and targets appropriate levels of care to more patients.

Does Physician Reimbursement Correlate to Risk in Orthopaedic Trauma?

This study investigated whether current Medicare reimbursements for orthopaedic trauma procedures correlate with complications. A total of 18,510 patients representing 33 orthopaedic trauma procedures from 2005 to 2011 were studied. Adverse events and Medicare payments for each orthopaedic trauma procedure were collected. Linear regressions determined correlations between complications and Medicare payments for orthopaedic trauma procedures. A weak correlation between Medicare payments and complications was found for all procedures (r = .399, p = .021). A 1.0% increase in complications was associated with a payment increase of only $100. There were no correlations between complications and reimbursements for upper extremity (p = .878) and lower extremity (p = .713) procedures. A strong correlation (r = .808, p = .015) existed for hip and pelvic fractures, but a 1.1% increase in hip and pelvic complications correlated with only an increase of $100 in reimbursements. This study is the first to show that Medicare payments are not strongly correlated with complications, therefore demonstrating the potential risks of a bundled payment system for orthopaedic trauma surgeons.

Adverse Events in Orthopaedics: Is Trauma More Risky? An Analysis of the NSQIP Data.

OBJECTIVES: As our healthcare system moves toward bundling payments, orthopaedic trauma surgeons will be increasingly benchmarked on perioperative complications. We therefore sought to determine financial risks under bundled payments by identifying adverse event rates for (1) orthopaedic trauma patients compared with general orthopaedic patients and (2) based on anatomic region and (3) to identify patient factors associated with complications. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Multicenter. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 146,773 orthopaedic patients (22,361 trauma) from 2005 to 2011 NSQIP data were identified. INTERVENTIONS: Minor and major adverse events, demographics, surgical variables, and patient comorbidities were collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Multivariate regressions determined significant risk factors for the development of complications. RESULTS: The complication rate in the trauma group was 11.4% (2554/22,361) versus 4.1% (5137/124,412) in the general orthopaedic group (P = 0.001). When controlling for all variables, trauma was a risk factor for developing complications [odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-1.81]. After controlling for several patient factors, hip and pelvis patients were 4 times more likely to develop any perioperative complication than upper extremity patients (OR: 3.79, 95% CI: 3.01-4.79, P = 0.01). Lower extremity patients are 3 times more likely to develop any complication versus upper extremity patients (OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 2.30-3.46, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to show that orthopaedic trauma patients are 2 times more likely than general orthopaedic patients to sustain complications, despite controlling for identical risk factors. There is also an alarming difference in complication rates among anatomic regions. Orthopaedic trauma surgeons will face increased financial risk with bundled payments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Regional anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery is associated with significantly more peri-operative complications compared with general anaesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies have advocated the use of regional versus general anaesthesia as a means of reducing peri-operative complications from hip fracture surgery, the ideal method of anaesthesia remains controversial. Our purpose was to investigate the association between anaesthesia type and peri-operative complications in hip fracture surgery. METHODS: From the 2005-2011 ACS-NSQIP database, all patients with operatively treated hip fractures were identified using CPT codes, and fifteen peri-operative complications were recorded and categorized as either minor or major. Rates of minor, major, and total complications by anaesthesia type were compared using chi-square and Fischer's exact tests. A multivariate model was used to determine odds of minor, major, and total complications between anaesthesia types. Multivariate analysis was then repeated after combining patients who received regional nerve blocks or spinal anaesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 7,764 hip fracture patients were included in our analysis. Spinal anaesthesia had the highest total complication rate (19.6%), followed by general (17.9%) and regional nerve blocks (12.6%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that spinal anaesthesia was associated with significantly greater odds of minor complications and total complications compared with general anaesthesia. After combining the regional nerve block and spinal anaesthesia groups, multivariate analysis again showed significantly greater odds of minor and total complications with regional versus general anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large multi-centre database, we demonstrate that regional anaesthesia was associated with significantly greater odds of minor and total peri-operative complications compared with general anaesthesia. Our results challenge the notion that regional anaesthesia is the preferred method of anaesthesia for hip fractures in the elderly.

ASA score as a predictor of 30-day perioperative readmission in patients with orthopaedic trauma injuries: an NSQIP analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to identify the impact of the physical status of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) on the 30-day readmission of patients receiving operative management of orthopaedic fractures using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. METHODS: We analyzed all patients with orthopaedic trauma injuries in the American College of Surgeons NSQIP database from 2005 to 2011. A total of 8761 patients representing 91 orthopaedic trauma procedures were identified and included in analysis after selection. Logistic regressions were conducted to identify the predictive ability of ASA on the likelihood of readmission for patients in each anatomic category (upper extremity, pelvis/acetabulum, lower extremity) and the combined study population. RESULTS: The ASA physical status proved the strongest predictor of 30-day readmission for the selected orthopaedic trauma procedures. After controlling for age, gender, race, and medical comorbidities that were shown to be significant independent risk factors for readmission, ASA score continued to have a significant association on 30-day readmissions in the combined population (odds ratio = 1.45, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-1.88, P = 0.001). For the combined analysis, compared with patients with an ASA score of 1, patients with an ASA score of 2 were 1.04 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001), patients with an ASA score of 3 were 3.77 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001), and patients with an ASA score of 4 were 13.7 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ASA classification is an indicator for variance in readmission for patients receiving operative treatment of orthopaedic fractures. Given that ASA classification is a universally collected data point, this method can be used in almost any hospital system and for any operative service. This model may be used to more accurately predict a patient's postoperative course and the expected risk for readmission, such that hospitals can target these "at-risk" individuals and reduce 30-day readmissions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

On-Call Communication in Orthopaedic Trauma: "A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words"--A Survey of OTA Members.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of varying clinical communication styles (verbal and pictorial) on the ability of orthopaedic trauma surgeons in understanding an injury and formulate an initial management plan. METHODS: A Research Electronic Data Capture survey was e-mailed to all OTA members. Respondents quantified (5-point Likert scale) how confident they felt understanding an injury and establishing an initial management plan based on the information provided for 5 common orthopaedic trauma scenarios. Three verbal descriptions were created for each scenario and categorized as limited, moderate, or detailed. The questions were repeated with the addition of a radiographic image and then repeated a third time including a clinical photograph. Statistical evaluation consisted of descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis analyses using STATA (version 12.0). RESULTS: Of the 221 respondents, there were a total of 95 who completed the entire survey. Nearly all were currently taking call (92/95 = 96.8%) and the majority were fellowship trained (79/95 = 83.2%). Most practice at a level I trauma center (58/95 = 61.1%) and work with orthopaedic residents (62/95 = 65.3%). There was a significant increase in confidence scores between a limited, moderate, and detailed description in all clinical scenarios for understanding the injury and establishing an initial management plan (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference in confidence scores between all 3 types of evidence presented (verbal, verbal + x-ray, verbal + x-ray + photograph) in both understanding and managing the injury for limited and moderate descriptions (P < 0.001). No differences were seen when adding pictorial information to the detailed verbal description. When comparing confidence scores between a detailed description without images and a limited description that includes radiographs and a photograph, no difference in confidence levels was seen in 7 of the 10 scenarios (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of images in the form of radiographs and/or clinical photographs greatly improves the confidence of orthopaedic trauma surgeons in understanding injuries and establishing initial management plans with limited verbal information (P < 0.001). The inclusion of x-rays and photographs raises the confidence for understanding and management with limited verbal information to the level of a detailed verbal description in most scenarios. Mobile technology allows for easy secure transfer of images that can make up for the lack of available information from limited verbal descriptions because of the knowledge base of communicating providers.

Course of treatment and rate of successful salvage following the diagnosis of deep infection in patients treated for pilon fractures (AO/OTA: 43).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of this study is to report the rate of successful salvage and describe typical treatment course for patients with infected pilon fractures. METHODS: This investigation was performed after gathering a Six-year retrospective database from a single academic trauma center including patients with pilon fractures diagnosed with post-operative deep infection. RESULTS: These include a rate of successful salvage in patients diagnosed with deep infection of 88.5% (46/52). Patients who were successfully salvaged required an average of 3.5 (±2.3) procedures following diagnosis of infection, 2.5 (±1.5) debridements and 1.1 (±1.2) reconstructive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable morbidity follows the diagnosis of deep infection, with 14% of patients ultimately treated with amputation. Successful salvage can be reliably anticipated in over 80% of patients, but typically requires more than 3 additional procedures.

Risk factors of deep infection in operatively treated pilon fractures (AO/OTA: 43).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate risk factors of deep infection following pilon fractures. METHODS: This investigation was performed after gathering a six-year retrospective database from a single academic trauma center. RESULTS: These include an overall incidence of deep infection of 16.1% (57/355). Deep infection was diagnosed at an average of 88 days (±64 days) from initial injury with a range of 10-281 days. Development of deep infection occurred in 23.2% (33/142) of open fractures, vs 11.3% (24/213) of closed fractures. CONCLUSION: Open fractures, hypertension and male gender were associated with an increased risk of developing deep infection. In addition, even optimal surgical management may not significantly modify rates of deep surgical site infection.

Use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in orthopaedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is to improve patient safety. The database has been used by hospitals across the United States to decrease the rate of adverse events and improve surgical outcomes, including dramatic decreases in 30-day mortality, morbidity, and complication rates. However, only a few orthopaedic surgical studies have employed the ACS NSQIP database, all of which have limited their analysis to either single orthopaedic procedures or reported rates of adverse events without considering the effect of patient characteristics and comorbidities. QUESTION/PURPOSES: Our specific purposes included (1) investigating the most common orthopaedic procedures and 30-day adverse events, (2) analyzing the proportion of adverse events in the top 30 most frequently identified orthopaedic procedures, and (3) identifying patient characteristics and clinical risk factors for adverse events in patients undergoing hip fracture repair. METHODS: We used data from the ACS NSQIP database to identify a large prospective cohort of patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery procedures from 2005 to 2011 in more than 400 hospitals around the world. Outcome variables were separated into the following three categories: any complication, minor complication, and major complication. The rate of adverse events for the top 30 orthopaedic procedures was calculated. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine risk factors for each of the outcome variables for hip fracture repair. RESULTS: Of the 1,979,084 surgical patients identified in the database, 146,774 underwent orthopaedic procedures (7%). Of the 30 most common orthopaedic procedures, the top three were TKA, THA, and knee arthroscopy with meniscectomy, which together comprised 55% of patients (55,575 of 101,862). We identified 5368 complications within the top 30 orthopaedic procedures, representing a 5% complication rate. The minor and major complication rates were 3.1% (n = 3174) and 2.8% (n = 2880), respectively. The most common minor complication identified was urinary tract infection (n = 1534) and the most common major complication identified was death (n = 850). An American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher was a consistent risk factor for all three categories of complications in patients undergoing hip fracture repair. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS NSQIP database allows for evaluating current trends of adverse events in selected surgical specialties. However, variables specific to orthopaedic surgery, such as open versus closed injury, are needed to improve the quality of the results.

Hip fractures are risky business: an analysis of the NSQIP data.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are one of the most common types of orthopaedic injury with high rates of morbidity. Currently, no study has compared risk factors and adverse events following the different types of hip fracture surgeries. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the major and minor adverse events and risk factors for complication development associated with five common surgeries for the treatment of hip fractures using the NSQIP database. METHODS: Using the ACS-NSQIP database, complications for five forms of hip surgeries were selected and categorized into major and minor adverse events. Demographics and clinical variables were collected and an unadjusted bivariate logistic regression analyses was performed to determine significant risk factors for adverse events. Five multivariate regressions were run for each surgery as well as a combined regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 9640 patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture were identified with an adverse events rate of 25.2% (n=2433). Open reduction and internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture had the greatest percentage of all major events (16.6%) and total adverse events (27.4%), whereas partial hip hemiarthroplasty had the greatest percentage of all minor events (11.6%). Mortality was the most common major adverse event (44.9-50.6%). For minor complications, urinary tract infections were the most common minor adverse event (52.7-62.6%). Significant risk factors for development of any adverse event included age, BMI, gender, race, active smoking status, history of COPD, history of CHF, ASA score, dyspnoea, and functional status, with various combinations of these factors significantly affecting complication development for the individual surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Hip fractures are associated with significantly high numbers of adverse events. The type of surgery affects the type of complications developed and also has an effect on what risk factors significantly predict the development of a complication. Concerted efforts from orthopaedists should be made to identify higher risk patients and prevent the most common adverse events that occur postoperatively.

Factors influencing infection rates after open fractures of the radius and/or ulna.

PURPOSE: To investigate factors associated with the development of deep infection in patients with open fractures of the radius and/or ulna. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 296 open fractures of the radius and/or ulna. Of these patients, 200 had at least 6-month follow-up and were included in this study. The following variables were examined for each patient: time from injury to antibiotic administration, time from injury to operative debridement, Gustilo-Anderson classification, type of antibiotic received, and host characteristics such as age, diabetes, and tobacco use. Outcome parameters included the presence of deep infection and fracture union. RESULTS: The overall rate of deep infection was 5% (10 of 200). No type 1 fractures (of 41) developed deep infection. In contrast, 4% (2 of 48) of type 2 and 7% (8 of 110) of type 3 fractures developed infection. Of 200 patients, 28 received antibiotics in less than 3 hours and underwent debridement in less than 6 hours from the time of injury; however, they did not have lower rates of infection. Similar findings were noted when nonunion was used as the outcome, and the association between Gustilo-Anderson classification and the development of nonunion was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Factors such as time to antibiotics and time to operative debridement were not predictors for either rate of deep infection or nonunion in open fractures of the radius and/or ulna. The type of fracture as outlined by the Gustilo-Anderson classification was the factor most strongly associated with the development of deep infection and nonunion in these fractures. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.