Medicare Reimbursement in Hand and Upper Extremity Procedures: A 20-Year Analysis.

PURPOSE: Concern exists that Medicare physician fees for procedures have decreased over the past 20 years. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is set to re-evaluate these physician fees in the near future for concern that these procedures are overvalued. Our study sought to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement rates from 2000 to 2019 for the top 20 most billed hand and upper extremity surgical procedures at our institution. METHODS: The financial database of a single academic tertiary care center was queried to identify the Current Procedural Terminology codes most frequently utilized in orthopedic hand and upper extremity procedures in 2019. The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the CMS was queried for annual physician fee data. Monetary data were adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index of Urban Research Series (CPI-U-RS) and expressed in 2019 constant US dollars (USD). The average annual and total percent change in reimbursement were calculated via linear regression for all procedures (P < .05). RESULTS: Accounting for inflation, the total average physician reimbursement decreased by 20.9% from 2000 to 2019, with 12 of 20 codes decreasing by more than 20%. The greatest decrease pertained to arthrodesis of the wrist at 33.9%. Upon linear regression, all procedures were found to decrease annually, with arthrodesis of the wrist decreasing by an average of 2.3% annually over this period. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 2 decades, physician reimbursement for hand and upper extremity procedures has significantly decreased.

Reliability and accuracy in radiographic measurements of musculoskeletal tumors.

Tumor size and growth are important parameters when evaluating bone and soft tissue neoplasms. There are no reports comparing the intra- and interobserver reliability among physicians in their evaluation of musculoskeletal (MSK) tumor imaging. This study investigates the accuracy and precision of measurements made by orthopedic and radiology physicians in different stages of training. Blinded magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans from six patients, three soft tissue, and three bone tumors were selected: each case included an "old" and "new" scan that was performed at least 3 months apart. Fourteen participants were selected, representing varying levels of education and experience, including two of each of the following: medical students, orthopedic and radiology residents, oncology and nononcologic orthopedic attendings, and MSK and non-MSK radiology attendings. Participants compared the old and new studies, recording tumor size in the transverse, cranial-caudal, and anterior-posterior dimensions, and determined if the tumor was stable or unstable. The MRI's official report served as the "gold standard." Average intraobserver variability (|Trial 1 - Trial 2|/[(Trial 1 + Trial 2)/2])) in size measurements was 11.08% (0.00%-68.62%). The lowest variability was recorded by the MSK radiologist 1 (6.16%), and the greatest variability by Orthopedic Surgery Resident 1 (16.70%). Participants correctly determined stability 82% of the time (71%-100%). Only MSK radiologists correctly determined stability in over 90% of cases. There is considerable variability and inaccuracy in MRI-based measurements of MSK tumors. These findings motivate opportunities for improving MSK imaging education of radiology and orthopedic residents. Physicians ordering MRI scans should evaluate them themselves, instead of relying on the radiology report alone, to inform clinical decision-making.

Association between atrial fibrillation and bundle branch block.

BACKGROUND: The association between atrial fibrillation (Afib) and sinus and AV nodal dysfunction has previously been reported. However, no data are available regarding the association between Afib and bundle branch block (BBB). METHODS: Patient data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between years 2009 and 2015. Patients with a diagnosis of Afib and BBB were identified using validated International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, and Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. Statistical analysis using the chi-square test and multivariate linear regression analysis were performed to determine the association between Afib and BBB. RESULTS: The total number of patients with BBB was 3,116,204 (1.5%). Patients with BBB had a mean age of 73.5 ± 13.5 years, 53.6% were males, 39.1% belonged to the age group ≥80 years, and 72.9% were Caucasians. The prevalence of Afib was higher in the BBB group, as compared to the non-BBB group (29% vs 11.8%, p value<.001). This association remained significant in multivariate regression analysis with an odds ratio of 1.25 (CI: 1.24-1.25, P < .001). Among the subtypes of BBB, Afib was comparatively more associated with RBBB (1.32, CI 1.31-1.33, p value<.0001) than LBBB (1.17, CI 1.16-1.18, p value<.0001). The mean cost was higher among Afib with BBB, compared with Afib patients without BBB ($15 795 vs $14 391, p value<.0001). There was no significant difference in the mean length of stay (5.6 vs 5.9 days, p value<.0001) or inpatient mortality (4.9% vs 4.8%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that prevalence of Afib is higher in patients with BBB than without BBB. Cost are higher for Afib patients with BBB, compared to those without BBB, with no significant increase in mortality or length of stay.

What Is the Effect on Kinesio Taping on Pain and Gait in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome?

Introduction Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is one of the leading causes of anterior knee pain treated by orthopedists and physical therapists. This syndrome predominantly affects young, active individuals, and remains a challenging syndrome to manage due to the lack of quantitative diagnostic criteria to monitor during treatment. The etiology of this syndrome is believed to be multifactorial, with the gait and movement patterns of a patient potentially contributing to pain due to increased stress on the knee. In this study, we investigated the gait of participants with PFPS using the GaitRite system (CIR Systems Inc., Clifton, NJ) before and after the application of Kinesio Tape in order to assess the impact of Kinesio Tape on cadence, stance time, and pain. Methods A convenience sample of 10 participants were recruited for this study, with five participants without PFPS serving as controls, and five with PFPS in the Kinesio Tape group. Participants in the Kinesio Tape groups served as their own internal control, ambulating both before and after taping. All participants ambulated across the GaitRite carpet three times and completed a visual analogue scale pain score for each trip. Results The results of our study found there to be no significant difference in the cadence for gait between the participants without PFPS and participants with PFPS (105.2 seconds vs. 105.1 seconds, p = 0.272), or in the stance time between the control and PFPS group (1.43 seconds vs. 1.44, p = 0.907). Similarly, no significant difference was found in participants with PFPS before and after Kinesio Taping in the cadence and stance times (105.1 seconds vs. 107.4 seconds, p =0.288, and 1.44 vs. 1.40, p = 0.272). There was a significant difference in pain in PFPS participants before and after taping, with a 112.5% reduction in pain reported after taping (3.4 vs. 1.6, p < 0.05). Discussion and conclusion This study is one of the first studies to utilize the GaitRite system in order to analyze the impact of Kinesio Tape on gait in participants with PFPS. While our study failed to demonstrate a significant difference in the gait of participants with PFPS in comparison to those without PFPS, we did demonstrate a significant reduction in pain after the application of Kinesio Tape. These results suggest other variables addressed by the Kinesio Tape may be causing the pain associated with PFPS.

The Changing Nature of the Oncology Section of the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination.

INTRODUCTION: The Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) assesses orthopaedic resident knowledge over 275 multiple-choice questions.Since the first publication examining the contents of the pathology section was published over ten years ago, the pathology content has been renamed (oncology) and revamped. As the overall extent of these alterations is currently unknown, the efficacy of current orthopaedic oncology educational practices for optimal OITE performance should be questioned. To determine how the oncology (pathology) material has changed, we compared the following characteristics from previous examinations (2002 to 2006) to current examinations (2012 to 2016): (1) What are the average number of oncology questions being asked? (2) What are the specific imaging modalities presented for examinee interpretation? (3) Which pathologic diagnoses are commonly examined? (4) What is the pattern of taxonomic question classifications? METHODS: The 2012 to 2016 OITE study guides were reviewed, and each oncology question was categorized into one of the following: benign or malignant, imaging modality grouping, common pathologic diagnosis, question type, and taxonomic classification. The aforementioned information was extrapolated from the previous pathology publication published in 2010 to create the previous examination cohort (2002 to 2006). The current examination characteristics were then compared with those of the previous examinations. RESULTS: The current number of oncology OITE questions significantly decreased from previous years (27.2 versus 21.2; P = 0.015). Current examinations displayed a significant increase in testing the interpretation of diagnostic imaging modalities compared with previous examinations (78.3% versus 55.8%; P < 0.001). The current examinations examined a wide spectrum of pathologic diagnoses, including previously untested pathologies. The number of taxonomy 1 questions on current examinations significantly decreased (36.8% versus 24.5%; P = 0.032), whereas the number of taxonomy 3 questions significantly increased from previous examinations (48.1% versus 32.4%; P = 0.032). DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated that the nature of the orthopaedic oncology (pathology) section has changed over the past 10 years. Although the overall number of pathology-related questions decreased, the difficulty level of these questions increased, demanding a higher level of knowledge and critical thinking. A formal orthopaedic oncology rotation may be the best method to educate and improve OITE oncology performance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.