Orthopaedic surgeons frequently underestimate the cost of orthopaedic implants.

BACKGROUND: A poor understanding of cost among healthcare providers may contribute to high healthcare expenditures. Currently, it is unclear whether and how much surgeons know about the costs of implantable medical devices (IMDs). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We (1) determined the level of comfort with orthopaedic IMD costs among orthopaedic residents and attending surgeons, (2) quantified how accurately surgeons understand the costs of orthopaedic IMDs, and (3) identified which constructs yield the most accurate cost estimations among residents and attending surgeons. METHODS: A questionnaire was presented to 60 residents and 37 attending orthopaedic surgeons from two large academic medical centers. Respondents estimated the cost of 13 commonly used orthopaedic devices. Fifty-one surgeons participated (36 residents, 15 attending surgeons), for an overall response rate of 53%. Cost estimates were compared against the actual material costs, and we recorded the percentage error for each estimate. RESULTS: More than ½ of the respondents rated their knowledge of IMD cost as poor. The mean percentage error in estimation for all respondents was 69% (range, 29%-289%). Overall, 67% of responses were underestimations and 33% were overestimations. Residents demonstrated a mean percentage error of 73% (range, 29%-289%) while attending surgeons had a mean percentage error of 59% (range, 49%-79%). Residents and attending surgeons demonstrated differences in accuracy within groups and between groups based on the IMD being estimated. CONCLUSIONS: We found the knowledge of orthopaedic IMD costs among the orthopaedic residents and attending surgeons surveyed was poor. Further investigation of how physicians conceptualize material costs will be important to healthcare cost control.

Anatomic considerations of transclavicular-transcoracoid drilling for coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS: Acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries vary in severity and damage to the AC and coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments. We hypothesized that transclavicular-transcoracoid drilling techniques, which allow for arthroscopic passage and fixation of tendon grafts in bone sockets to replace the insufficient conoid and trapezoid ligaments, cannot restore the footprints of the conoid and trapezoid ligaments without significant risk of cortical breach and coracoid fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from a prospective computed tomography shoulder registry were used to create 23 distinct shoulders. Three-dimensional models were constructed the shoulders in which virtual CC ligament reconstruction tunnels were superimposed using previously described anatomic distances and landmarks. RESULTS: Transclavicular-transcoracoid techniques resulted in mean remaining medial and lateral wall thicknesses before cortical breach of 7.3 ± 1.7 and 7.0 ± 1.6 mm, respectively. The distance from the entry point of this tunnel from the anatomic midpoint of the CC ligaments was 9.9 ± 2.2 mm. Attempts to recapitulate the CC ligament anatomy by using anatomic distances and landmarks with transcoracoid, transclavicular techniques resulted in medial cortical breach of the coracoid in 91.3% of the shoulders. CONCLUSION: Transclavicular-transcoracoid reconstructive techniques cannot restore the footprints of the conoid and trapezoid ligaments without significant risk of cortical breach and fracture. Attempts to correct this nonanatomic configuration by creating a tunnel based on the anatomic footprints results in a nearly universal medial cortical breach of the coracoid process.

Meta-analysis of joint preservation versus arthroplasty for the treatment of displaced 3- and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of joint preservation versus arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies published between 1970 and 2011 reporting outcomes of the treatment of 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fractures using the Constant-Murley score in skeletally mature patients. Randomised and cohort studies with ≥ 1-year follow-up were included. Two individuals independently extracted data, and study results were divided into subgroups based on type of treatment. RESULTS: A meta-analysis with meta regressions was performed on the mean Constant score. Of 610 total participants in the studies analysed, 340 were treated with joint-preserving techniques. The random-effects mean Constant score across all treatment types was 62.7 (95% CI, 61.6-63.9, P<0.001), with joint-preserving treatments demonstrating higher scores than arthroplasty (70 vs. 49, P<0.001). The studies displayed significant heterogeneity (Q statistic=516, P<0.001, I(2)=94.8). In the meta-regression analyses, Constant scores decreased significantly with increasing age, fracture severity, and rate of osteonecrosis (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the existing literature, displaced proximal humerus fractures demonstrate improved Constant scores when treated with joint-preserving options. Age, fracture pattern, and complication rate are significant predictors of the Constant score independent of the selected treatment. Given the observed heterogeneity and variance in treatment techniques in the included studies, more comparative studies are needed to definitively recommend joint-preserving techniques versus arthroplasty for specific fracture patterns.