Addressing social determinants of health in orthopaedics: A systematic review of strategies and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Barriers stemming from Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) are known to contribute to higher rates of complications, poor patient adherence to treatment plans, and suboptimal outcomes following orthopaedic care. While SDOH's impact has been characterized, interventions to address SDOH-related inequities in orthopaedics have not yet been optimized. PURPOSE: The objective of the present systematic review was to identify and synthesize current peer-reviewed literature focused interventions to address SDOH-related inequities to develop optimal mitigation strategies that improve outcomes for orthopaedic patients. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, OVID, and CINAHL identified articles that referenced SDOH and an intervention to address inequities. RESULTS: After screening 419 studies, 19 met inclusion criteria. Studies commonly looked at the impact of insurance policy change on the rate of the population with active insurance and associated use of elective surgery. Nine studies found that policy changes generally increased the rate of insured patients, though inequities remained for younger and racial minority patients. The relative paucity of literature in conjunction with methodological differences among studies highlights the need for further development and validation of effective interventions to address SDOH-related inequities in orthopaedics. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance expansion was the focus of the majority of included articles, finding that expansion is associated with higher rates of insured patients undergoing elective and emergent procedures, however, gaps remain for young patients and racial minorities. Further research is needed to determine effective healthcare team, healthcare system, and policy-level interventions that overcome SDOH-related barriers to optimal care and outcomes for orthopaedic patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-II.

Characterizing Osteochondral Allograft Biomechanics for Optimizing Transplant Success: A Systematic Review.

Osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation has been largely successful in treating symptomatic articular cartilage lesions; however, treatment failures persist. While OCA biomechanics have been consistently cited as mechanisms of treatment failure, the relationships among mechanical and biological variables that contribute to success after OCA transplantation have yet to be fully characterized. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the clinically relevant peer-reviewed evidence targeting the biomechanics of OCAs and the impact on graft integration and functional survival toward developing and implementing strategies for improving patient outcomes. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Google Scholar, and EMBASE were searched to identify articles for systematic review. This review of relevant peer-reviewed literature provided evidence that the biomechanics related to OCA transplantation in the knee have direct and indirect effects on functional graft survival and patient outcomes. The evidence suggests that biomechanical variables can be optimized further to enhance benefits and mitigate detrimental effects. Each of these modifiable variables should be considered regarding indications, patient selection criteria, graft preservation methodology, graft preparation, transplantation, fixation techniques, and prescribed postoperative restriction and rehabilitation protocols. Criteria, methods, techniques, and protocols should target OCA quality (chondrocyte viability, extracellular matrix integrity, material properties), favorable patient and joint characteristics, rigid fixation with protected loading, and innovative ways to foster rapid and complete OCA cartilage and bone integration to optimize outcomes for OCA transplant patients.

Differences in evaluation and management coding of outpatient clinic visits for patients undergoing elective spine surgery with use of a standardized template.

Background: In a large teaching institution with providers of various levels of training and backgrounds, and a coding department responsible for all evaluation and management (E&M) billing, variations in documentation can hinder accurate medical management and compensation. The purpose of this study is to assess differences in re-imbursement between templated and non-templated outpatient documentation for patients who eventually underwent single level lumbar microdiscectomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) both before and after the E&M billing changes were implemented in 2021. Methods: Data was collected from three spine surgeons on 41 patients who underwent a single level lumbar microdiscectomy at a tertiary care center from July 2018 to June 2019 and 35 patients seen by four spine surgeons from January through December of 2021 given the new E&M billing changes. ACDF data was collected for 52 patients between 2018 and 2019 for three spine surgeons and 30 patients from January through December of 2021 from four spine surgeons. Billing level was decided by independent coders for preoperative visits. Results: During the study period from 2018-2019 for lumbar microdiscectomy, each surgeon averaged about 14 patients. Results showed variability of billing level between the three spine surgeons (surgeon 1, 3.2±0.4; surgeon 2, 3.5±0.6; and surgeon 3, 2.9±0.8). Interestingly, even after the implementation of the 2021 E&M billing changes, there was a statistically significant increased level of billing for templated notes for lumbar microdiscectomy (P=0.013). However, this did not translate to the clinic visits for patients who underwent ACDF in 2021. When data was aggregated for all the patients from 2021 who either underwent lumbar microdiscectomy or ACDF, using a template still resulted in a statistically significant higher level of billing (P<0.05). Conclusions: Utilization of templates for clinical documentation reduces variability in billing codes. This impacts subsequent reimbursements and potentially prevents significant financial losses at large tertiary care facilities.