Effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers on need for operative intervention for idiopathic adhesive capsulitis.

Background: The exact pathogenesis of idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC) is not fully understood, but an inflammatory profibrotic cascade, largely mediated by transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF- ß1) has been implicated. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) both decrease the activity of TGF-ß1. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of ACE-Is or ARBs use on the need for operative intervention in IAC. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from a single institutional database with IAC, divided into two cohorts, with and without ACE-I and/or ARB use as the primary exposure and a minimum 2-year follow-up. The primary outcome measured was the incidence of operative intervention including manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). Additional multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate associations between ACE-I/ARB use and likelihood of undergoing an operative procedure. Results: A total of 17,645 patients met inclusion criteria, with 5424 patients in the ACE-I/ARB cohort and 12,221 in the non-ACE-I/ARB cohort. Overall, 422 (2.4%) patients underwent surgical treatment, 378 (2.1%) ACR, and 74 (0.4%) MUA. There was no significant difference between cohorts in the frequency of surgical procedures or time to procedure since diagnosis. There were no significant differences between individual ACE-Is or ARBs, although Losartan was found to have a trend of decreased rate of intervention (31.7% vs. 36.8%, P = .209) when compared to patients not on losartan that did not reach statistical significance. Patient factors predictive of undergoing MUA/ACR were diabetes (P = .013), obesity (P < .001), and male sex (P < .001). Increasing patient age reduces the likelihood of undergoing operative intervention, with patients aged 50-70 years (P = .022) and age >70 years (P < .001) demonstrating reduced odds as compared to patients aged <30 years. Conclusion: Patients with IAC have an overall low (2.4%) rate of requiring surgical intervention. While the antifibrotic mechanism of ACE inhibitors and ARBs did not significantly affect the rate of requiring surgical intervention, male gender, obesity, younger age, and diabetes, all increased the risk for operative intervention. Losartan, specifically, may have a disease modifying effect on IAC that should be investigated with larger controlled trials.

An Analysis of Component Positioning, Offset, and Limb Length Restoration in Computer-Assisted Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is a surgical option with positive outcomes at medium-term follow-up for young, active patients with osteoarthritis. However, early failures of HRA often occur due to improper implant placement. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of computer-assisted navigation in the effort to optimize implant positioning following HRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 262 consecutive HRAs at a single institution was performed. Radiographic analysis included measurements of cup inclination and anteversion, leg length restoration (LLR), and offset. Cup position was evaluated based on placement within Lewinnek parameters and the surgeon's preferred anteversion (10° to 20°). Chi-squared and unpaired Student's t-test were performed for all categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six cases were performed using conventional technique and 106 cases used computernavigation. Computer-assisted HRA (caHRA) had a longer mean surgical time (129 vs. 110 minutes; p < 0.001) but shorter average LOS (1.1 vs. 1.5 days; p < 0.001). Cup position was within the surgeon-preferred target zone in 47% of caHRA versus 22% of conventional HRA (p = 0.0001). Cup position fell within the Lewinnek safe zone in 86% of caHRA versus 60% of conventional HRA (p < 0.001). Global offset was reduced by a mean of 6.4 mm in caHRA versus 8.4 mm (p = 0.036). No differences in rates of complication (p = 0.406), reoperation (p = 1.00), or 90-day readmission (p = 0.568) were observed. CONCLUSION: Computer-assisted technology in HRA allows for comparable clinical outcomes to conventional technique. Cup position accuracy and precision is improved by computer navigation in HRA.

The Effects of Patient Point of Entry and Medicaid Status on Postoperative Opioid Consumption and Pain After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Medicaid expansion has allowed more patients to undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA). Given the continued focus on the opioid epidemic, we sought to determine whether patients with Medicaid insurance differed in their postoperative pain and narcotic requirements compared with privately or Medicare-insured patients. METHODS: A single-institution database was used to identify adult patients who underwent elective THA between 2016 and 2019. Patients in the Medicaid group received Medicaid insurance, while the non-Medicaid group was insured commercially or through Medicare. Subgroup analysis was done, separating the private pay from Medicare patients. RESULTS: A total of 5,845 cases were identified: 326 Medicaid (5.6%) and 5,519 non-Medicaid (94.4%). Two thousand six hundred thirty-five of the non-Medicaid group were insured by private payors. Medicaid patients were younger (56.1 versus 63.28 versus 57.4 years; P < 0.001, P < 0.05), less likely to be White (39.1% versus 78.2% versus 76.2%; P < 0.001), and more likely to be active smokers (21.6% versus 8.8% versus 10.5%; P < 0.001). Surgical time (113 versus 96 versus 98 mins; P < 0.001) and length of stay (2.7 versus 1.7 versus 1.4 days; P < 0.001) were longer for Medicaid patients, with lower home discharge (86.5% versus 91.8% versus 97.2%; P < 0.001). Total opioid consumption (178 morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs] versus 89 MME versus 82 MME; P < 0.001) and average MME/day in the first 24 hours and 24 to 48 hours (52.3 versus 44.7 versus 44.45; P < 0.001 and 73.8 versus 28.4 versus 29.8; P < 0.001) were higher for Medicaid patients. This paralleled higher pain scores (2.71 versus 2.31 versus 2.38; P < 0.001) and lower Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care scores (18.77 versus 20.98 versus 21.61; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid patients presenting for THA demonstrated worse postoperative pain and required more opioids than their non-Medicaid counterparts. This highlights the need for preoperative counseling and optimization in this at-risk population. These patients may benefit from multidisciplinary intervention to ensure that pain is controlled while mitigating the risk of continuation to long-term opioid use.

The effect of patient point of entry and Medicaid status on quality outcomes following total hip arthroplasty.

AIMS: Previous studies have reported an increased risk for postoperative complications in the Medicaid population undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). These studies have not controlled for the surgeon's practice or patient care setting. This study aims to evaluate whether patient point of entry and Medicaid status plays a role in quality outcomes and discharge disposition following THA. METHODS: The electronic medical record at our institution was retrospectively reviewed for all primary, unilateral THA between January 2016 and January 2018. THA recipients were categorized as either Medicaid or non-Medicaid patients based on a visit to our institution's Hospital Ambulatory Care Center (HACC) within the six months prior to surgery. Only patients who had been operated on by surgeons (CML, JV, JDS, RS) with at least ten Medicaid and ten non-Medicaid patients were included in the study. The patients included in this study were 56.33% female, had a mean age of 60.85 years, and had a mean BMI of 29.14. The average length of follow-up was 343.73 days. RESULTS: A total of 426 hips in 403 patients were included in this study, with 114 Medicaid patients and 312 non-Medicaid patients. Medicaid patients had a significantly lower mean age (54.68 years (SD 12.33) vs 63.10 years (SD 12.38); p < 0.001), more likely to be black or 'other' race (27.19% vs 13.46% black; 26.32% vs 12.82% other; p < 0.001), and more likely to be a current smoker (19.30% vs 9.29%; p = 0.001). After adjusting for patient risk factors, there was a significant Medicaid effect on length of stay (LOS) (rate ratio 1.129, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.048 to 1.216; p = 0.001) and facility discharge (odds ratio 2.010, 95% CI 1.398 to 2.890; p < 0.001). There was no Medicaid effect on surgical time (exponentiated ß coefficient 1.015, 95% CI 0.995 to 1.036; p = 0.136). There was no difference in 30-day readmission, 90-day readmission, 30-day infections, 90-day infections, and 90-day mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSION: After controlling for patient variables, there was a statistically significant Medicaid effect on LOS and facility discharge. These results indicate that clinically similar outcomes can be achieved for Medicaid patients; however, further work is needed on maximizing social support and preoperative patient education with a focus on successful home discharge. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):78-84.

Barriers to Revision Total Hip Service Lines: A Surgeon's Perspective Through a Deterministic Financial Model.

BACKGROUND: Revision THA represents approximately 5% to 10% of all THAs. Despite the complexity of these procedures, revision arthroplasty service lines are generally absent even at high-volume orthopaedic centers. We wanted to evaluate whether financial compensation is a barrier for the development of revision THA service lines as assessed by RVUs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Therefore, we asked: (1) Are physicians fairly compensated for revision THA on a per-minute basis compared with primary THA? (2) Are physicians fairly compensated for revision THA on a per-day basis compared with primary THA? METHODS: Our deterministic financial model was derived from retrospective data of all patients undergoing primary or revision THA between January 2016 and June 2018 at an academic healthcare organization. Patients were divided into five cohorts based on their surgical procedure: primary THA, head and liner exchange, acetabular component revision THA, femoral component revision THA, and combined femoral and acetabular component revision THA. Mean surgical times were calculated for each cohort, and each cohort was assigned a relative value unit (RVU) derived from the 2018 Center for Medicaid and Medicare assigned RVU fee schedule. Using a combination of mean surgical time and RVUs rewarded for each procedure, three models were developed to assess the financial incentive to perform THA services for each cohort. These models included: (1) RVUs earned per the mean surgical time, (2) RVUs earned for a single operating room for a full day of THAs, and (3) RVUs earned for two operating rooms for a full day of primary THAs versus a single rooms for a full day of revision THAs. A sixth cohort was added in the latter two models to more accurately reflect the variety in a typical surgical day. This consisted of a blend of revision THAs: one acetabular, one femoral, and one full revision. The RVUs generated in each model were compared across the cohorts. RESULTS: Compared with primary THA by RVU per minute, in revision THA, head and liner exchange demonstrated a 4% per minute deficit, acetabular component revision demonstrated a 29% deficit, femoral component revision demonstrated a 32% deficit, and full revision demonstrated a 27% deficit. Compared with primary service lines with one room, revision surgeons with a variety of revision THA surgeries lost 26% potential relative value units per day. Compared with a two-room primary THA service, revision surgeons lost 55% potential relative value units per day. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of relative value units of a typical two-room primary THA service line versus those of a dedicated revision THA service line, we found that revision specialists may lose between 28% and 55% of their RVU earnings. The current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement model is not viable for the arthroplasty surgeon and limits patient access to revision THA specialists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analysis.