Lending a Hand to Health Care Disparities: A Cross-sectional Study of Variations in Reimbursement for Common Hand Procedures.

Background: Despite the role of one's hands in human function and quality of life, financial disincentives to perform common hand procedures in patients with government-sponsored insurance plans may lead to longer wait times and decreased access to care. Here, we identify the variations in reimbursement for 4 common hand procedures as a step toward understanding these financial implications to develop safeguards to minimize effects on access to care. Methods: Billing data were collected over a 10-year period for patients undergoing carpal tunnel release (open, Current Procedural Terminology 64721; endoscopic, 29848), cubital tunnel release (64718), ganglion cyst excision (25111), and interposition arthroplasty (25447). Patients were placed into cohorts according to insurance type-private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or worker's compensation-and these were directly compared. Results: A total of 3489 procedures between 2005 and 2015 were identified in this study (carpal tunnel 65.8%, cubital tunnel 28.7%, ganglion cyst excision 4.1%, and interposition arthroplasty 13.8%). In all, 54.7% of patients had private insurance; 26.3%, Medicare; 10.5%, worker's compensation; and 8.5%, Medicaid. Reimbursement, as a percentage of charge, differed significantly by payor type for all cases and by procedure. On average, worker's compensation plans reimbursed 65.5% of submitted charges; private insurance, 50.6%; Medicare, 25.1%; and Medicaid, 24.6%. Conclusions: We found that wide variations in reimbursement for common hand procedures exist and may preclude some surgeons from offering certain procedures to a subset of patients. Understanding these discrepancies is a key first step in minimizing a potential care delivery disparity for this patient population.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Incisions for Cancer Extirpation Prospective Cohort Trial: Perfusion, Complications, and Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy offers several advantages for women seeking postmastectomy breast reconstruction, but compromised skin and nipple perfusion may lead to skin and nipple necrosis. It is unclear whether the incisional approach contributes to these complications; therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the impact of incision type on outcomes in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic breast reconstruction through an inframammary fold versus a lateral radial incision. Skin and nipple perfusion as represented by fluorescence intensity, mammometric parameters, patient-reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared for the two cohorts, and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to evaluate the effects of covariates on outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were studied: 55 in the inframammary fold cohort and 24 in the lateral radial cohort. The inframammary fold group had significantly less fluorescence intensity to the inferior (21.9 percent versus 36.9 percent; p = 0.001) and lateral portions of breast skin (23.1 percent versus 40.7 percent; p = 0.003) after reconstruction. Decreased fluorescence intensity was associated with smoking, decreased mean arterial pressure, and greater specimen weight. Postreconstruction breast volumes were increased over preoperative volumes in the inframammary fold group (38.3 percent) versus the lateral radial (31.2 percent) group; however, patients with a lateral radial incision had a greater increase in satisfaction with their breasts and psychosocial well-being. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in patient-reported outcomes and final breast volumes based on the incisional approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy. These data can be used to guide providers and counsel patients considering nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Systemic Preoperative Antibiotics with Mandible Fractures: Are They Indicated at the Time of Injury?

Mandible fractures are the most common result of facial trauma. The proximity of oral flora to the site of both the injury and resulting surgical instrumentation makes managing infection a unique challenge. The benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of surgical treatment of mandible fractures is well established. However, the routine use of antibiotics between the time of injury and surgery is of unclear benefit. We aim to define the role of antibiotics in the preoperative period: from the time of injury to surgical intervention. Demographic and clinical data were collected retrospectively on all patients who were treated for mandible fracture by the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at our institution between 2003 and 2013. The use of both preoperative (between injury and surgery) and perioperative (at the time of surgery) systemic antibiotics was recorded along with the incidence of postoperative infections and other complications. Complete data were available for 269 patients. Of the 216 patients who received preoperative antibiotics, 22 (10%) developed an infection postoperatively. Of the 53 patients who did not receive preoperative antibiotics, 2 (4%) developed infection ( p = 0.184). Likewise, preoperative antibiotics were not significantly associated with hardware complication rates. In our retrospective review, the use of antibiotics between injury and surgical repair had no impact on postoperative infection rates. These data suggest that preoperative antibiotic use may actually be associated with an increased incidence of postoperative infection. Our results do not support the routine use of antibiotics between injury and surgical repair in patients with mandible fractures.

Are Residents Prepared for Surgical Cases? Implications in Patient Safety and Education.

OBJECTIVE: In surgical education, the areas of focus and evaluation are skewed toward technical skill and operative knowledge; less emphasized is familiarity with the patient's medical history. The purposes of this study were to characterize how surgical trainees prepare for cases and to determine the comprehensiveness of their preparation. DESIGN: A 27-question survey was created through a web-based software program and distributed to all resident physicians and fellows in the Departments of Surgery, Neurosurgery, and Otolaryngology at our institution. Survey responses were collected anonymously and analyzed. Institutional review board exemption was obtained. SETTING: This study was performed at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, at an institutional hospital setting. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was distributed to current surgical trainees at Washington University in St. Louis in the Departments of Surgery, Neurosurgery, and Otolaryngology. Further, 130 of 169 surgical residents and fellows completed the survey. RESULTS: Most respondents (96%) taught themselves case preparation. Only 57% of respondents reviewed the patients medical record before every surgery. Although most respondents (83%) felt they were prepared or very prepared from a patient-specific standpoint, only 24% felt that their handoff of a patient to on-call colleagues was comprehensive enough to include all pertinent aspects of a patient's history and expected perioperative course. From a technical perspective, most residents (63%) felt they were prepared or very prepared, and this level of comfort increased with postgraduate year; 76% of respondents would not feel comfortable telling their attending they were not adequately prepared. CONCLUSIONS: Although most trainees feel prepared or very prepared for cases from a patient-specific regard, only half review the patient's medical record before every surgery. Furthermore, almost all trainees have taught themselves how to prepare for surgery. This represents a critical gap in residency education and an opportunity to improve patient safety and quality of care.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Variations in Reimbursement for Breast Reconstruction: Is A Healthcare Disparity On the Horizon?

BACKGROUND: Despite growing demand for breast reconstruction, financial disincentives to perform breast reconstruction in patients with government-sponsored insurance plans may lead to longer wait times and decreased access to care. We identify the variation in reimbursement for implant and autologous reconstruction as a step toward understanding these financial implications, to develop safeguards to minimize effects on access to care. METHODS: Billing data were collected over a 10-year period for patients undergoing implant-based (19357) or free-flap (19364) breast reconstruction. Patients were placed into cohorts according to insurance type-Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance, and these were directly compared. RESULTS: A total of 2691 women underwent breast reconstruction between 2003 and 2013; 71.2% had private insurance, 13.3% had Medicaid, and 14.49% had Medicare. For implant-based reconstructions, the average reimbursement of total charges was 16.3% for Medicaid, 28.3% for Medicare, and 67.2% for private insurance. For autologous reconstruction, average reimbursement was 12.37% for Medicaid, 22.9% for Medicare, and 35.35% for private insurance. Hourly reimbursement estimates for Medicaid patients undergoing autologous reconstruction were lowest. The highest hourly reimbursement estimate was for privately insured patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction. Over time, reimbursement for autologous reconstruction has declined significantly for all payor types, whereas implant-based reimbursement disparities are narrowing. CONCLUSIONS: We found that wide variations in reimbursement for breast reconstruction procedures exist and may preclude some surgeons from offering certain reconstructive options to a subset of patients. Understanding these discrepancies is a key first step in minimizing a potential care delivery disparity for this patient population.

A Retrospective Cohort Study on Payor Type and the Effect on Revisions in Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are insured by Medicare and Medicaid are less likely to undergo breast reconstruction than their privately insured counterparts. Whether insurance type also affects subsequent revisions remains unknown. This study explores the relationship among payor type, revision procedures, and the completion of breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was created including patients who underwent breast reconstruction at the authors' institution from 1996 to 2016. Data collected included age, cancer stage, race, laterality, initial breast reconstruction type, total number of procedures, number of trips to the operating room, and subsequent revisions. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression were used to estimate the controlled mean number of revisions and probability of completion of reconstruction as a function of insurance type. RESULTS: A total of 3113 patients were included: 2271 (72.9 percent) with private insurance, 450 (14.5 percent) with Medicare, and 392 (12.6 percent) with Medicaid. On controlled analysis, there was no difference in total number of procedures, number of revisions, or number of trips to the operating room among the three insurance types. There was no difference in the proportion of patients undergoing symmetry procedures or nipple-areola reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate discrepancies in number of procedures, revisions, and the proportion of patients completing breast reconstruction among insurance types. When controlling for other factors, the authors report no differences in care based solely on payor type. Instead, patient and surgeon variables may be responsible for the differences observed, and should be targeted in future research to improve equity. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Paravertebral Blocks Reduce Narcotic Use Without Affecting Perfusion in Patients Undergoing Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Autologous breast reconstruction offers excellent long term outcomes after mastectomy. However, maintaining adequate postoperative analgesia remains challenging. Use of paravertebral blocks (PVBs) reduces postoperative narcotic use and length of stay, and enhanced recovery protocols with mixed analgesia methods are gaining popularity, but few studies have explored the intraoperative effects of these interventions. METHODS: Patients who underwent abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction between 2010 and 2016 were compiled into a retrospective database. We used electronic medical records to determine demographics, as well as perioperative and intraoperative vital signs and narcotic, anxiolytic, crystalloid, colloid, blood product, and vasopressor requirements, and postoperative complications. Results were compared between patients who had a PVB and those who did not and those who had a PVB alone and those who followed our enhanced recovery protocol using standard statistical methods and adjusting for preoperative values. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were included in the study. Sixty-six had a PVB, and 104 did not. Of the 66 who had a PVB, 19 followed our enhanced recovery protocol. Patients who did not have a PVB required 171.6 mg of total narcotic medication in the perioperative period, those with a PVB alone required 146.9 mg, and those who followed the ERAS protocol 95.2 mg (p = 0.01). There was no difference in intraoperative mean arterial pressure, time with mean arterial pressure <80% of baseline, vasopressor use, or fluid requirement. There was no difference in complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: PVBs and an enhanced recovery protocol reduce the use of narcotic medications in autologous breast reconstruction without impacting intraoperative hemodynamics. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy restores body image and improves health-related quality of life, satisfaction with appearance and physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being (Donovan et al. in J Clin Oncol 7(7):959-968, 1989; Eltahir et al. in Plast Reconstr Surg 132(2):201e-209e, 2013; Jagsi et al. in Ann Surg 261(6):1198-1206, 2015). For patients pursuing breast reconstruction, there are two major options: prosthetic (tissue expander/implant) or autologous reconstruction. However, while providing exceptional long-term outcomes, postoperative pain and length of hospital stay remains a major challenge preventing more widespread adoption of autologous breast reconstruction (Albornoz et al. in Plast Reconstr Surg 131(1):15-23, 2013; Gurunluoglu et al. in Ann Plast Surg 70(1):103-110, 2013; Kulkarni et al. in Plast Reconstr Surg 132(3):534-541, 2013; Sbitany et al. in Plast Reconstr Surg 124(6):1781-1789, 2009). Acute postoperative pain contributes to prolonged hospital stays, increased narcotic use, and associated risks of the aforementioned.

Difficult removal of subdermal contraceptive implants: a multidisciplinary approach involving a peripheral nerve expert.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe our experiences and identify patients who may benefit from referral to a peripheral nerve surgeon for removal of contraceptive subdermal implants in which neurovascular injury may occur, and describe a treatment pathway for optimal care. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed the charts of 22 patients who were referred to the Division of Family Planning for difficult removal of etonogestrel contraceptive implants between January 1, 2014, and April, 1 2016. Of these, five were referred to a peripheral nerve surgeon due to pain or location of the implant. We evaluated and described these cases and, from our findings, developed recommendations for care in a multidisciplinary team approach. RESULTS: Two patients reported pain, including one with four previous failed removal attempts. In the two patients with pain, the implants were adherent to a sensory nerve. In another, the implant was within the biceps muscle and difficult to locate. In all cases, ultrasound imaging, general anesthesia and a wide exposure allowed for safe removal and good outcomes. Our multidisciplinary care approach has elucidated important referral and technical considerations that improve patient care and safety. CONCLUSION: When necessary, multidisciplinary care with a Family Planning expert and possibly a peripheral nerve surgeon may be beneficial in safely removing etonogestrel contraceptive implants that would be difficult or risky to remove in an ambulatory setting.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Aesthetics and Satisfaction in Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Implants and Fat Grafting.

Background: Direct-to-implant (DTI) and tissue expander/implant (TE/I) reconstructions are the most common implant-based reconstructions after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). However, there are little data beyond complication rates comparing these options. Fat grafting has emerged as an adjunct in NSM reconstructions to improve aesthetic results; however, its impact on patient perceptions of aesthetic outcomes remain unknown. To improve patient-centered care, aesthetic outcomes must be considered from the patients' perspective. Objectives: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes of aesthetic satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing immediate DTI vs TE/I reconstruction after NSM and to assess the role of fat grafting on these outcomes. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study comparing NSM patients undergoing DTI or TE/I reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the BREAST-Q. Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed using t test and Fisher's exact test, respectively. Results: Fifty-nine patients underwent 113 reconstructions with either DTI (n = 41) or TE/I (n = 18). Mean follow up was 12.1 months. DTI and TE/I patients had comparable satisfaction with outcome, though TE/I patients had significantly larger final implant sizes. TE/I who underwent fat grafting also had significantly higher satisfaction with outcome and psychosocial wellbeing. Conclusions: Patient-reported outcomes are comparable between DTI and TE/I reconstructions after NSM. In order for TE/I patients to achieve a similar level of satisfaction, they may require a larger final implant and additional operations compared to DTI patients. Additionally, fat grafting improves overall satisfaction. TE/I patients may have different aesthetic expectations than DTI patients, emphasizing patient-centered discussions are essential to optimizing outcomes after NSM. Level of Evidence: 3.

Complications and thromboembolic events associated with tamoxifen therapy in patients with breast cancer undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tamoxifen therapy is integral in the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, there is an association between tamoxifen and thromboembolic events. Flap and systemic thromboembolic events have devastating consequences in microvascular breast reconstruction. Currently, there are conflicting data on the association between tamoxifen therapy and thromboembolic complications for patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction. The objective of this study is to determine if perioperative tamoxifen therapy modifies the risk of complications and thromboembolic events for patients with breast cancer undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed across six databases from January 2003 to February 2016. Pooled estimates and relative risk (RR) were calculated using a random-effects model, confounding was examined with meta-regression, and risk of bias was evaluated. Primary outcomes were thrombotic flap complications and total flap loss. Study quality was assessed using Downs and Black criteria. RESULTS: Of 95 studies reviewed, 4 studies comprising 1700 patients and 2245 procedures were included for analysis. Compared to non-recipients, patients on tamoxifen were at increased risk of developing thrombotic flap complications (pooled RR 1.5; 95% CI 1.14-1.98) and total flap loss (pooled RR 3.35; 95% CI 0.95-11.91). There was no significant heterogeneity present in either outcome and no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative tamoxifen therapy may increase the risk of thrombotic flap complications and flap loss for patients with breast cancer undergoing microvascular reconstruction. These findings further the ability of providers to make evidence-based recommendations in the perioperative management of patients with breast cancer.

Long-Term Incisal Relationships After Palatoplasty in Patients With Isolated Cleft Palate.

PURPOSE: Various palatoplasty techniques have limited incisions in the hard palate due to concerns that these incisions may limit maxillary growth. There is little convincing long-term evidence to support this. Our purpose is to determine incisal relationships, an indicator for future orthognathic procedure, in patients after repair of an isolated cleft of the secondary palate. METHODS: Our craniofacial database was used to identify patients aged 10 years or greater with an isolated cleft of the secondary palate who underwent palatoplasty between 1985 and 2002. Data collected included age at palatoplasty and follow-up, cleft type, associated syndrome, Robin sequence, surgeon, repair technique, number of operations, and occlusion. Incisal relationship was determined through clinical observation by a pediatric dentist and orthodontist. RESULTS: Seventy eligible patients operated on by 9 surgeons were identified. Class III incisal relationship was seen in 5 patients (7.1%). Palatoplasty techniques over the hard palate (63 of 70 patients) included 2-flap palatoplasty, VY-pushback, and Von Langenbeck repair. There was an association between class III incisal relationship and syndromic diagnosis (P <0.001). Other study variables were not associated with class III incisal relationships. CONCLUSION: In patients with an isolated cleft of the secondary palate, there was no association between class III incisal relationship and surgeon, age at repair, cleft type, palatoplasty technique, or number of operations. Increased likelihood of class III incisal relationship was associated primarily with syndromic diagnosis.

Mandible Fracture Complications and Infection: The Influence of Demographics and Modifiable Factors.

BACKGROUND: Mandible fractures account for 36 to 70 percent of all facial fractures. Despite their high prevalence, the literature lacks a comprehensive review of demographics, fracture patterns, timing of management, antibiotic selection, and outcomes, particularly when evaluating pediatric versus adult patients. The authors aim to determine the complication and infection rates after surgical treatment of mandibular fractures and the bacterial isolates and antibiotic sensitivities from mandible infections after open reduction and internal fixation at their institution. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for all mandible fractures treated at the authors' institution between 2003 and 2013. Patients were divided into pediatric (younger than 16 years) and adult (16 years or older) subgroups. Demographics, fracture location, fracture cause, comorbidities, antibiotic choice, and subsequent complications and infections were analyzed. Data were evaluated using appropriate statistical tests for each variable. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-five patients were evaluated. Demographics and fracture cause were similar to those reported in current literature. Of the 56 pediatric patients, complications occurred in 5.6 percent. Time from injury to operative intervention did not affect outcome. The complication rate was 17.5 percent and the infection rate was 9.4 percent in the adult subgroup. Time from injury to operative intervention, sex, and edentulism were not significant predictors of complication or infection. Tobacco use, number of fractures, number of fractures fixated, and surgical approach were predictors of complication and infection. Perioperative ampicillin-sulbactam had a significantly lower risk of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Certain demographic and operative factors lead to significantly higher risks of complications after surgical management of mandibular fractures. Ampicillin-sulbactam provides effective antibiotic prophylaxis. Risk factor modification may improve outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, IV.