Site of Service Disparities Exist for Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The rate of outpatient total joint arthroplasty procedures, including those performed at ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and hospital outpatient departments, is increasing. The purpose of this study was to analyze if type of insurance is associated with site of service (in-patient vs outpatient) for total joint arthroplasty and adverse outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), or total hip arthroplasty (THA) using Current Procedural Terminology codes in a national administrative claims database. Eligible patients were stratified by type of insurance (Medicaid, Medicare, private). The primary outcome was site of service. Secondary outcomes included general complications, procedural complications, and revision procedures. We evaluated the associations using adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 951,568 patients for analysis; 46,703 (4.9%) patients underwent UKA, 607,221 (63.8%) underwent TKA, and 297,644 (31.3%) underwent THA. Overall, 9.6% of procedures were outpatient. Patients with Medicaid were less likely than privately insured patients to receive outpatient UKA or THA (UKA: odds ratio [OR], 0.729 [95% CI, 0.640-0.829]; THA: OR, 0.625 [95% CI, 0.557-0.702]) but more likely than patients with Medicare to receive outpatient TKA or THA (TKA: OR, 1.391 [95% CI, 1.315-1.472]; THA: OR, 1.327 [95% CI, 1.166-1.506]). Patients with Medicaid were more likely to experience complications and revision procedures. CONCLUSION: Differences in site of service and complication rates following hip and knee arthroplasty exist based on type of insurance, suggesting a disparity in care. Further exploration of drivers of this disparity is warranted and can inform interventions (eg, progressive value-based payments) to support equity in orthopedic services. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):179-184.].

Medicaid insurance is associated with treatment disparities for proximal humerus fractures in a national database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are the third most common type of fragility fracture in the elderly and are increasing in incidence. Disparities in treatment type, time to surgery (TTS), and complications based upon insurance type have been identified for other orthopedic conditions. Given the incidence and burden of PHFs, we sought to evaluate if insurance type was associated with treatment received, TTS, and complications in the treatment of PHFs. METHODS: We used PearlDiver, a national administrative claims database that consists of 122 million patient records. Patients diagnosed with an isolated PHF between 2010 and 2019 were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision diagnostic codes and stratified by insurance type (Medicaid, private, or Medicare). Outcomes evaluated were rate of surgery within 3 months of diagnosis with open reduction and internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, or reverse shoulder arthroplasty; average TTS; 90-day readmissions and medical postoperative complications (deep vein thrombosis, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, sepsis, acute respiratory failure, cerebrovascular event, and acute renal failure); and 1-year surgical postoperative complications (stiffness, noninfectious wound complications, dislocation, and infection). Multivariable logistic regressions adjusting for age, sex, and Elixhauser comorbidity index were utilized to determine the association between insurance type and surgery rate/complications. RESULTS: We included 245,396 patients for analysis. Fourteen percent of Medicaid patients (1789/12,498) underwent surgery compared to 17% (25,347/149,830) of privately insured patients and 16% (13,305/83,068) of Medicare patients (pairwise, P < .001). TTS (Medicaid: 11.7 days, private: 10.6 days [P < .001]; Medicare: 10.7 days [P = .003]) varied by insurance type. Private or Medicare-insured patients were less likely to be readmitted (adjusted odds ratio: 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.93] for private vs. Medicaid and 0.71 [95% CI: 0.59-0.88] for Medicare vs. Medicaid) and experienced fewer 90-day postoperative complications (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.62-0.85] for private vs. Medicaid, 0.65 [95% CI: 0.55-0.77] for Medicare vs. Medicaid), such as acute renal failure. TTS was also associated with differing rates of readmissions and complications. CONCLUSION: There are differences in rates of surgery, TTS, and complications after PHFs based on insurance type, representing opportunities for quality improvement initiatives. Potential methods to address these disparities include implementing standardized PHF protocols and/or reimbursement models and quality metrics that reward equitable treatment. Further research and policy adaptations should be incorporated to decrease barriers that patients face and minimize health care inequities seen in the treatment of PHFs based on insurance type.

Has the Use of Electrodiagnostic Studies for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Changed After the 2016 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline?

PURPOSE: A 2016 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guideline (CPG) de-emphasized the need for electrodiagnostic studies (EDS) for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We tested the hypothesis that use of EDS decreased after the AAOS CPG. METHODS: Using a national administrative claims database, we measured the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of CTS who underwent EDS within 1 year after diagnosis between 2011 and 2019. Using an interrupted time series design, we defined 2 time periods (pre-CPG and post-CPG) and compared EDS usage between the periods using segmented regression analysis. We conducted a subgroup analysis of preoperative EDS usage in patients who underwent carpal tunnel release. RESULTS: Of 2,081,829 patients with CTS, 315,449 (15.2%) underwent EDS within 1 year after diagnosis. The segmented regression analysis showed a decrease in the level of EDS usage after publication of the AAOS CPG (-11.50 per 1,000 patients [95% CI, -1.47 to -0.95 per 1,000 patients]); however, the rate of EDS usage increased in the post-CPG period (+1.75 per 1,000 patients per quarter [95% CI, 0.97-2.54 per 1,000 patients per quarter]). Of 473,753 eligible patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, 139,186 (29.4%) underwent EDS within 6 months before surgery. After publication of the AAOS CPG, preoperative EDS usage decreased by -23.57 per 1,000 patients (95% CI, -37.72 to -9.42 per 1,000 patients). However, these decreasing trends in EDS usage predated the 2016 AAOS CPG. CONCLUSIONS: The overall and preoperative EDS usage for CTS has been decreasing since at least 2014, predating the 2016 AAOS CPG, reflecting the rapid implementation of evidence into practice. However, EDS usage has increased in the post-CPG period, and a considerable proportion of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release still received EDS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given its high costs and disputed value, routine EDS usage should be considered for further deimplementation initiatives.

Delayed ACL reconstruction increases rates of concomitant procedures and risk of subsequent surgery.

PURPOSE: To utilise a large cross-sectional database to analyse the effects of time duration between diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on concomitant procedures performed and subsequent surgery within 2 years. METHODS: An analysis from 2015 to 2018 was performed using the Mariner PearlDiver Patient Records Database. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), and International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes identified patients with a diagnosis of ACL tear who underwent subsequent ACLR. Patients were stratified in biweekly and bimonthly increments based on the time duration between initial diagnosis of ACL tear and surgical treatment. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare categorical variables, and trend analysis was performed with Cochran-Armitage independence testing. RESULTS: Of 11,867 patients who underwent ACLR, 76.1% underwent surgery within 2 months of injury diagnosis. Patients aged 10-19 were most likely to undergo surgery within 2 months of injury diagnosis (83.5%, P < 0.0001). As duration from injury diagnosis to ACLR increased from < 2 months to > 6 months, rates of concomitant meniscectomy increased from 9.1% to 20.5% (P < 0.0001). The overall 2-year subsequent surgery rate was 5.3%. The incidence of revision ACLR was highest for patients who underwent surgery > 6 months after diagnosis (P < 0.0001), whilst the incidence of ipsilateral lysis of adhesions and manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) was highest for patients who underwent surgery < 2 months after diagnosis (P < 0.0001). ACLR at 6-8 weeks after diagnosis demonstrated the lowest risk for concomitant procedures as well as 2-year subsequent surgery. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients undergo ACL reconstruction within 2 months of initial ACL tear diagnosis. Delayed surgery greater than 6 months after the diagnosis of an ACL rupture leads to increased need for concomitant meniscectomy as well as higher risk for revision ACLR within 2 years, but immediate surgery may increase risk for knee arthrofibrosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Does Time to Surgery for Distal Radius Fractures Impact Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes? A Systematic Literature Review.

Distal radius fractures are one of the most common upper extremity fractures across all age groups. Although the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS) Clinical Practice Guidelines have defined recommendations for the treatment of distal radius fractures, the optimal time to surgery was not included. There remains relatively little guidance or consensus regarding the optimal timing of surgical intervention for distal radius fractures and the impact of time to surgery on outcomes. As such, the purpose of this investigation is to systematically review clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with time to surgical management of distal radius fractures.

Trends in Surgical Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures and Analysis of Postoperative Complications Over a Decade in 384,158 Patients.

Surgical treatment options for proximal humeral fractures include hemiarthroplasty (HA), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The objectives of this study were to analyze the trends in surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures across a decade and to compare complications, reoperation rates, and readmission rates between ORIF and RSA. Methods: The PearlDiver MUExtr Database was used to identify patients with proximal humeral fractures who were treated with ORIF, HA, or RSA between 2010 and 2019 and analyze yearly trends. Complications, revision procedures, demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and emergency room visits and hospital readmissions within 90 days of the surgical procedure were compared between ORIF and RSA cohorts for patients who had at least 2-year follow-up data. Results: In this study, 384,158 patients with proximal humeral fractures were identified in the 10-year period between 2010 and 2019. There was a significant increase in the frequency of RSA and a decrease in the frequency of ORIF and HA over time (p < 0.0001). Compared with patients who underwent ORIF or HA, patients who underwent RSA were more likely to be older (p < 0.0001), to be female, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. Patients who underwent ORIF had higher complication rates (23.03% compared with 18.62%; p < 0.0001) and higher reoperation rates (20.3% compared with 10.3%; p < 0.0001) than patients who underwent RSA. Patients who underwent RSA had higher emergency room visit rates (20.0% compared with 16.7%; p < 0.001) and hospital readmission rates (12.9% compared with 7.3%; p < 0.0001) within 90 days of the surgical procedure compared with patients who underwent ORIF. Conclusions: There has been an increasing trend in RSA utilization for the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures, along with a decreasing trend in HA and ORIF, over time. Patients who underwent ORIF for a proximal humeral fracture had higher complication and reoperation rates compared with patients who underwent RSA. Patients who underwent RSA had higher emergency room visit and hospital readmission rates within 90 days of the surgical procedure compared with patients who underwent ORIF, which may be attributable to the RSA cohort being older and having more comorbidities. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Arthroscopic Treatment Yields Lower Reoperation Rates than Open Treatment for Native Knee but Not Native Shoulder Septic Arthritis.

Purpose: To compare the incidence, patient demographics, complication rates, readmission rates, and reoperation rates of open and arthroscopic surgery performed for septic arthritis in native knee and shoulder joints. Methods: Records of patients who were diagnosed with native knee or shoulder septic arthritis and underwent open or arthroscopic irrigation and debridement (I&D) between 2015 and 2018 were queried from the PearlDiver Mariner Database. International Classification of Diseases 10th (ICD-10) diagnosis and procedure codes were used to identify patients and track reoperations. Reoperation procedures, including revision open and arthroscopic I&D, were analyzed at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years. Complications, emergency department (ED) admissions, and hospital readmissions within 30 days were analyzed and compared between the open and arthroscopic cohorts. Results: The query resulted with 1,993 patients who underwent knee I&D (75.3% arthroscopic, 24.7% open, P < .001) and 476 patients who underwent shoulder I&D (64.8% arthroscopic, 35.2% open, P < .001). One-month complication rates (11.6-22.7%) and hospital readmission rates (15.8-19.6%) were similar for arthroscopic and open treatment for knee and shoulder septic arthritis. Reoperation rates for revision I&D of the knee were higher after open compared to arthroscopic treatment at 1 month, 1 and 2 years (20.9% vs. 16.7%, 32.5% vs 27.6% and 34.1% vs. 29.4%, P < .05, respectively). For shoulder septic arthritis 1-month, 1-year, and 2-year reoperation rates were similar for open and arthroscopic treatment (16.0% vs 11.7%, 22.0% vs 19.3%, and 22.7% vs 20.0%, P = .57, respectively). Lastly, 6.7% of patients with native septic knee arthritis underwent subsequent arthroplasty by 2 years. Conclusion: Arthroscopic treatment carries a lower reoperation rate than open surgery for knee septic arthritis, but in the shoulder, the risk for revision I&D is similar after arthroscopic or open surgery.

Biceps Tenodesis Demonstrates Lower Reoperation Rates Compared to SLAP Repair for Treatment of SLAP Tears in a Large Cross-Sectional Population.

PURPOSE: To use a contemporary cross-sectional data set to evaluate trends in surgical treatment for superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tears and compare surgical outcomes with respect to 2-year revision surgery rates following index SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis (BT). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with a SLAP tear between 2010 and 2017 were queried using the Mariner PearlDiver database and stratified by demographic variables and surgical treatment with arthroscopic SLAP repair or arthroscopic/open BT. From 2015 to 2017, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) codes were used to track ipsilateral subsequent reoperation within 2-years of index surgery. RESULTS: Between 2010 to 2017, 16.6% of 377,463 patients diagnosed with a SLAP tear underwent surgery (62.3% SLAP repair vs 37.7% BT). 52.4% of BT procedures were arthroscopic (47.6% open). The frequency of SLAP repairs decreased from 74.0% to 46.2% (61%), while the frequency of BTs increased from 26.0% to 53.8% (202%) during the study period. Patients under age 50 were more likely to undergo SLAP repair, and those undergoing BT were more likely to be over 50 with higher CCI and comorbidity risk. 6.3% of 16,186 patients identified with ICD-10 coding required reoperation within 2-years postoperatively. SLAP repair demonstrated a higher revision rate (6.8%; 95% CI, 6.3-7.4%) than BT (5.7%; 95% CI, 5.2-6.2%; P =.0002), (open 5.8% vs arthroscopic BT 5.5%). Arthroscopic debridement, including biceps tenotomy, revision SLAP repair, and revision BT were the most common subsequent procedures. Patients aged 40 to 49 had the highest rate of revision surgery (7.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment trend for SLAP tears is changing, with SLAP repair becoming significantly less utilized and BT now becoming the preferred option, especially in patients over 50. Arthroscopic and open BT demonstrated slightly lower risk for reoperation than SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, cross-sectional study.

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Results in Lower Two-Year Reoperation Rates Compared With Open Rotator Cuff Repair in a Large Cross-sectional Cohort.

PURPOSE: To use a large, contemporary database to perform a cross-sectional analysis of current practice trends in rotator cuff repair (RCR) for the treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tear (RCT) and determine outcomes of arthroscopic and open RCR, including hospital readmissions and 2-year reoperation rates with accurate laterality tracking using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. METHODS: The PearlDiver Mariner dataset was used to query patients with full-thickness RCTs from 2010 to 2017. Propensity-score matching was performed to account for differences in age and comorbidities and allow for comparison between those undergoing open RCR and arthroscopic RCR. Subsequent procedures were tracked using ICD-10 codes to identify ipsilateral surgery within 2 years of index surgery. Hospital and emergency department admission within 30 days of surgery were investigated. RESULTS: Of 534,076 patients diagnosed with full-thickness RCT, 37% underwent RCR; 73% of which were arthroscopic. From 2010 to 2017, arthroscopic RCRs increased from 65% to 80%, whereas open RCRs decreased from 35% to 20% (P < .0001). Younger patients underwent arthroscopic RCR more frequently, and patients who underwent open RCR had greater rates of 30-day emergency department (7.0%) and hospital readmission (2.0%) compared with arthroscopic RCR (6.3%, 1.0%, respectively) (P < .0001). For 24,392 patients with ICD-10 coding and 2-year follow-up, 10.4% of patients required reoperation, with the most common procedure being revision RCR, and 1.3% required conversion to arthroplasty. Open RCRs were more likely to require subsequent surgery (11.3%) compared with arthroscopic RCR (9.5%) (P < .0001). Patients aged 50 to 59 had the greatest rate of reoperation (14.0%), but no patients younger than age 40 years required reoperation, and no patients younger than age 50 years required conversion to arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of arthroscopic RCR has continued to increase compared to open RCR. In this large cross-sectional analysis, arthroscopic RCR demonstrated lower 2-year reoperation rates and 30-day readmission rates compared to open RCR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, cross-sectional study.