Utilization of Total Joint Arthroplasty by Rural-Urban Designation in Patients With Osteoarthritis in a Universal Coverage System.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is affected by differences linked to sex, race, and socioeconomic status; there is little information about how geographic variation contributes to these differences. We sought to determine whether discrepancies in TJA utilization exist in patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) based upon urban-rural designation in a universal coverage system. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using data from a US-integrated healthcare system (2015 to 2019). Patients aged ≥50 years who had a diagnosis of hip or knee OA were included. Total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty utilization (in respective OA cohorts) was evaluated by urban-rural designation (urban, mid, and rural). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for urban-rural regions were modeled using multivariable Poisson regressions. RESULTS: The study cohort included 93,642 patients who have hip OA and 275,967 patients who had knee OA. In adjusted analysis, utilization of primary total hip arthroplasty was lower in patients living in urban areas (IRR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval = 0.81 to 0.94) compared to patients in rural regions. Similarly, total knee arthroplasty was used at a lower rate in urban areas (IRR = 0.88, 95% confidence interval = 0.82 to 0.95) compared with rural regions. We found no differences in the hip and knee groups within the mid-region. CONCLUSIONS: In hip and knee OA patients enrolled in a universal coverage system, we found patients living in urban areas had lower TJA utilization compared to patients living in rural areas. Further research is needed to determine how patient location contributes to differences in elective TJA utilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Prolonged Opioid Usage Following Hip Fracture Surgery in Opioid-Naïve Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: While the risk of long-term dependence following the opioid treatment of musculoskeletal injury is often studied in younger populations, studies in older patients have centered on short-term risks such as oversedation and delirium. This study investigated prolonged opioid usage after hip fracture in older individuals, focusing on prevalence, risk factors, and changes over time. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of 47,309 opioid-naïve patients aged ≥ 60 years who underwent hip fracture surgery (2009 to 2020), outpatient opioid use was evaluated in 3 postoperative time periods: P1 (day 0 to 30 postsurgery); P2 (day 31 to 90); and P3 (day 91 to 180). The primary outcome was prolonged outpatient opioid use, defined as having one or more opioid prescriptions dispensed in all 3 time periods. RESULTS: The incidence of prolonged opioid usage among patients surviving to P3 was 6.3% (2,834 of 44,850). Initial prescription quantities decreased over time, as did the risk of prolonged opioid usage (from 8.0% in 2009 to 3.9% in 2019). In the multivariable analyses, risk factors for prolonged opioid usage included younger age, women, current/former smoking, fracture fixation (as compared to hemiarthroplasty), and anxiety. Prolonged opioid usage was less common among patients who were Asian or had a history of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: While prior research on the hazards of opioids in the elderly has focused on short-term risks such as oversedation and delirium, these findings suggest that prolonged opioid usage may be a risk for this older population as well. As initial prescription amounts have decreased, declines in prolonged opioid medication usage have also been observed.

The effect of a statewide COVID-19 shelter-in-place order on shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture volume and length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted elective shoulder arthroplasty throughput, traumatic shoulder arthroplasty procedures are less apt to be postponed. We sought to evaluate shoulder arthroplasty utilization for fracture during the COVID-19 pandemic and California's associated shelter-in-place order compared to historical controls. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study with historical controls, identifying patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture in California using our integrated electronic health record. The time period of interest was following the implementation of the statewide shelter-in-place order: March 19, 2020-May 31, 2020. This was compared to three historical periods: January 1, 2020-March 18, 2020, March 18, 2019-May 31, 2019, and January 1, 2019-March 18, 2019. Procedure volume, patient characteristics, in-hospital length of stay, and 30-day events (emergency department visit, readmission, infection, pneumonia, and death) were reported. Changes over time were analyzed using linear regression adjusted for usual seasonal and yearly changes and age, sex, comorbidities, and postadmission factors. RESULTS: Surgical volume dropped from an average of 4.4, 5.2, and 2.6 surgeries per week in the historical time periods, respectively, to 2.4 surgeries per week after shelter-in-place. While no more than 30% of all shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed during any given week were for fracture during the historical time periods, arthroplasties performed for fracture was the overwhelming primary indication immediately after the shelter-in-place order. More patients were discharged the day of surgery (+33.2%, P = .019) after the shelter-in-place order, but we did not observe a change in any of the corresponding 30-day events. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of shoulder arthroplasty for fracture dropped during the time of COVID-19. The reduction in volume could be due to less shoulder trauma due to shelter-in-place or a change in the indications for arthroplasty given the perceived higher risks associated with intubation and surgical care. We noted more patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for fracture were safely discharged on the day of surgery, suggesting this may be a safe practice that can be adopted moving forward. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; Retrospective Case-control Comparative Study.

Most Orthopaedic Studies Using the National Inpatient Sample Fail to Adhere to Recommended Research Practices: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database is accessible, inexpensive, and increasingly used in orthopaedic research, but it has complex design features that require nuanced methodological considerations for appropriate use and interpretation. A recent study showed poor adherence to recommended research practices for the NIS across a broad spectrum of medical and surgical fields, but the degree and patterns of nonadherence among orthopaedic publications remain unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought: (1) to quantify nonadherence to recommended research practices provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for using the NIS data in orthopaedic studies from 2016-2017; and, (2) to identify the most common nonadherence practices. METHODS: We evaluated all 136 manuscripts published across the 74 orthopaedic journals listed on Scimago Journal & Country Rank that used the NIS from January 2016 through December 2017. Of those studies, 2% (3 of 136) were excluded because NIS was not used for analysis. The studies were evaluated for adherence to seven recommended research practices by the AHRQ: (1) identifying observations as hospitalization events rather than unique patients; (2) not performing state-level analyses; (3) limiting hospital-level analyses to data from year 1988-2011; (4) not performing physician-level analyses; (5) avoiding the use of nonspecific secondary diagnosis codes to infer in-hospital events; (6) using survey-specific analysis methods that account for clustering, stratification, and weighting; and (7) accounting for data changes in trend analyses spanning major transition periods in the data set (1997-1998 and 2011-2012). RESULTS: Overall, 93% (124 of 133) of the studies did not adhere to one or more practices. For each of the research practices assessed, 80% (106 of 133) of the studies did not account for the clustering and stratification in survey design; 56% (75 of 133) implied records were unique patients rather than hospitalization events; 41% (54 of 133) inappropriately used secondary diagnosis codes to infer in-hospital events. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all manuscripts published in orthopaedic journals using the NIS database in 2016 and 2017 failed to adhere to recommended research practices. Future research quantifying variations in study results on the basis of adherence to recommended research practices would be of value. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With the ubiquitous presence of large-database studies in orthopaedic journals, our work points to the importance of rigorous methodological appraisal when evaluating results, and encourages journals to require the use of the methodology checklists upon submission of such studies. More research is needed to determine whether deviations from recommended research practices actually lead to biased conclusions that affect patient care and policy-related decisions.

The Association of Race/Ethnicity and Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes in a Universally Insured Population.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have documented racial/ethnic disparities in the United States for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes. One factor cited as a potential mediator is unequal access to care. We sought to assess whether racial/ethnic disparities persist in a universally insured TKA population. METHODS: A US integrated health system's total joint replacement registry was used to identify elective primary TKA (2000-2016). Racial/ethnic differences in revision and 90-day postoperative events (readmission, emergency department [ED] visit, infection, venous thromboembolism, and mortality) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression with adjustment for confounders. RESULTS: Of 129,402 TKA, 68.8% were white, 16.2% were Hispanic, 8.4% were black, and 6.6% were Asian. Compared to white patients, Hispanic patients had lower risks of septic revision (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57-0.83) and infection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.30-0.59), but a higher likelihood of ED visit (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.22-1.34). Black patients had higher risks of aseptic revision (HR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.42-1.83), readmission (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.02-1.24), and ED visit (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.23-1.39). Asian patients had lower risks of aseptic revision (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.54-0.83), septic revision (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.60-0.99), readmission (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79-1.00), and venous thromboembolism (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.45-0.78). CONCLUSION: We observed differences in TKA outcome, even within a universally insured population. While lower risks in some outcomes were observed for Asian and Hispanic patients, the higher risks of aseptic revision and readmission for black patients and ED visit for black and Hispanic patients warrant further research to determine reasons for these findings to mitigate disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Association Between Uncemented vs Cemented Hemiarthroplasty and Revision Surgery Among Patients With Hip Fracture.

IMPORTANCE: Consensus guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that cemented fixation is more effective than uncemented fixation in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Given that these recommendations are based on research performed outside the United States, it is uncertain whether these findings also reflect the US experience. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes associated with cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 12 491 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent hemiarthroplasty treatment of a hip fracture between 2009 and 2017 at 1 of the 36 hospitals owned by Kaiser Permanente, a large US health maintenance organization. Patients were followed up until membership termination, death, or the study end date of December 31, 2017. EXPOSURES: Hemiarthroplasty (prosthetic replacement of the femoral head) fixation via bony growth into a porous-coated implant (uncemented) or with cement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the index procedure involving exchange of the existing implant for reasons other than infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, postdischarge, and overall), 90-day medical complications, 90-day emergency department visits, and 90-day unplanned readmissions. RESULTS: Among 12 491 patients in the study cohort who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture (median age, 83 years; 8660 women [69.3%]), 6042 (48.4%) had undergone uncemented fixation and 6449 (51.6%) had undergone cemented fixation, and the median length of follow-up was 3.8 years. In the multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders, uncemented fixation was associated with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.43-2.19]; P < .001). Of the 6 prespecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% for uncemented fixation vs 2.0% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.21]; P = .61) and overall mortality (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation: 20.0% for uncemented fixation vs 22.8% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system, uncemented fixation, compared with cemented fixation, was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision. These findings suggest that US surgeons should consider cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the absence of contraindications.

A Comparison of Online Physician Ratings and Internal Patient-Submitted Ratings from a Large Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Physician online ratings are ubiquitous and influential, but they also have their detractors. Given the lack of scientific survey methodology used in online ratings, some health systems have begun to publish their own internal patient-submitted ratings of physicians. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare online physician ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing online ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated healthcare delivery system. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians in the Southern California region of Kaiser Permanente, including all specialties with ambulatory clinic visits. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was correlation between online physician ratings and internal ratings from the integrated healthcare delivery system. RESULTS: Of 5438 physicians who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4191 (77.1%) were rated both online and internally. The online ratings were based on a mean of 3.5 patient reviews, while the internal ratings were based on a mean of 119 survey returns. The overall correlation between the online and internal ratings was weak (Spearman's rho .23), but increased with the number of reviews used to formulate each online rating. CONCLUSIONS: Physician online ratings did not correlate well with internal ratings from a large integrated healthcare delivery system, although the correlation increased with the number of reviews used to formulate each online rating. Given that many consumers are not aware of the statistical issues associated with small sample sizes, we would recommend that online rating websites refrain from displaying a physician's rating until the sample size is sufficiently large (for example, at least 15 patient reviews). However, hospitals and health systems may be able to provide better information for patients by publishing the internal ratings of their physicians.

Association Between Physician Online Rating and Quality of Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly using physician review websites to find "a good doctor." However, to our knowledge, no prior study has examined the relationship between online rating and an accepted measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between online physician rating and an accepted measure of quality: 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rate following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: In the US states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania-which together account for over one-quarter of the US population-risk-adjusted mortality rates are publicly reported for all cardiac surgeons. From these reports, we recorded the 30-day mortality rate following isolated CABG surgery for each surgeon practicing in these 5 states. For each surgeon listed in the state reports, we then conducted Internet-based searches to determine his or her online rating(s). We then assessed the relationship between physician online rating and risk-adjusted mortality rate. RESULTS: Of the 614 surgeons listed in the state reports, we found 96.1% (590/614) to be rated online. The average online rating was 4.4 out of 5, and 78.7% (483/614) of the online ratings were 4 or higher. The median number of reviews used to formulate each rating was 4 (range 1-89), and 32.70% (503/1538) of the ratings were based on 2 or fewer reviews. Overall, there was no correlation between surgeon online rating and risk-adjusted mortality rate (P=.13). Risk-adjusted mortality rates were similar for surgeons across categories of average online rating (P>.05), and surgeon average online rating was similar across quartiles of surgeon risk-adjusted mortality rate (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of cardiac surgeons practicing in the 5 US states that publicly report outcomes, we found no correlation between online rating and risk-adjusted mortality rates. Patients using online rating websites to guide their choice of physician should recognize that these ratings may not reflect actual quality of care as defined by accepted metrics.

Racial/Ethnic and Gender Diversity of Orthopaedic Journal Editorial Boards.

BACKGROUND: In the current era of evidence-based medicine, scientific publications play a crucial role in guiding patient care. While the lack of diversity among orthopaedic surgeons has been well documented, little is known about the diversity of orthopaedic journal editorial boards. The purpose of this study was to assess the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of U.S. orthopaedic journal editorial boards. METHODS: The editorial boards of 13 orthopaedic journals were examined, including 10 subspecialty and 3 general orthopaedic journals. Race/ethnicity and gender were determined for each editorial board member. The representation observed on orthopaedic journal editorial boards was compared with representation at other phases of the orthopaedic pipeline, as well as within the various subspecialty fields of orthopaedics. Logistic regression and t tests were used to evaluate these comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 876 editorial board members of the 13 journals; 14.0% were Asian, 1.9% were Black, 1.9% were Hispanic, 2.4% were multiracial/other, and 79.7% were White. Racial/ethnic representation was similar across the subspecialty fields of orthopaedics (p > 0.05). The representation of women on orthopaedic editorial boards was 7.9%, with differences in gender diversity observed across subspecialty fields (p < 0.05). Among journals in the subspecialty fields of spine and trauma, female editorial board representation was lower than expected, even after taking into account the representation of women in these subspecialty fields (2.0% versus 9.0% [p = 0.002] and 3.8% versus 10.0% [p = 0.03], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of 13 subspecialty and general orthopaedic journals, the representation of racial/ethnic minorities and women on editorial boards was similar to their representation in academic orthopaedics. However, these values remain low in comparison with the population of patients treated by orthopaedic surgeons. Given the importance of scientific publications in the current era of evidence-based medicine, orthopaedic journals should continue working to diversify the membership of their editorial boards.

Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty, Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty, or Total Hip Arthroplasty for Hip Fracture in Older Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Practice patterns regarding the use of unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fractures in older patients vary widely. This is due in part to limited data stipulating the specific circumstances under which each form of arthroplasty provides the most predictable outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the patient characteristics for which unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA might be preferable due to a lower risk of all-cause revision. METHODS: A U.S. health-care system's hip fracture registry was used to identify patients ≥60 years old who underwent unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA for hip fracture from 2009 through 2021. Unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty were compared with THA within patient subgroups defined by age (60 to 79 versus ≥80 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (I or II versus III); patients with an ASA classification of IV or higher were excluded. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk while adjusting for confounders, with mortality considered as a competing risk. RESULTS: There were 14,277 patients in the final sample (median age, 82 years; 70% female; 80% White; 69% with an ASA classification of III; median follow-up, 2.7 years), and the procedures included 7,587 unipolar hemiarthroplasties, 5,479 bipolar hemiarthroplasties, and 1,211 THAs. In the multivariable analysis of all patients, both unipolar (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48 to 3.12; p < 0.001) and bipolar (HR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.80; p < 0.001) hemiarthroplasty had higher revision risks than THA. In the age-stratified multivariable analysis of patients aged 60 to 79 years, both unipolar (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.34; p = 0.004) and bipolar (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.08 to 2.65; p = 0.022) hemiarthroplasty also had higher revision risks than THA. In the ASA-stratified multivariable analysis, patients with an ASA classification of I or II had a higher revision risk after either unipolar (HR = 3.52, 95% CI = 1.87 to 6.64; p < 0.001) or bipolar (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.19 to 4.49; p = 0.013) hemiarthroplasty than after THA. No difference in revision risk between either of the hemiarthroplasties and THA was observed among patients with an age of ≥80 years or those with an ASA classification of III. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of hip fractures in older patients, THA was associated with a lower risk of all-cause revision compared with unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty among patients who were 60 to 79 years old and those who had an ASA classification of I or II. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Improvements in Quality, Safety and Costs Associated with Use of Implant Registries Within a Health System.

BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are intended to enhance quality, safety, and cost reduction using real-world data for a self-improving health system. Starting in 2001, Kaiser Permanente established several medical device CQRs as a quality improvement initiative. This report examines the contributions of these CQRs on improvement in health outcomes, changes in clinical practice, and cost-effectiveness over the past 20 years. METHODS: Eight implant registries were instituted with standardized collection from the electronic health record and other institutional data sources of patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, implant attributes, procedure details, surgical techniques, and outcomes (including complications, revisions, reoperations, hospital readmissions, and other utilization measures). A rigorous quality control system is in place to improve and maintain the quality of data. Data from the Implant Registries form the basis for multiple quality improvement and patient safety initiatives to minimize variation in care, promote clinical best practices, facilitate recalls, perform benchmarking, identify patients at risk, and construct reports about individual surgeons. RESULTS: Following the inception of the Implant Registries, there was an observed (1) reduction in opioid utilization following orthopedic procedures, (2) reduction in use of bone morphogenic protein during lumbar fusion allowing for cost savings, (3) reduction in allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and subsequent decrease in organizationwide revision rates, (4) cost savings through expansion of same-day discharge programs for joint arthroplasty, (5) increase in the use of cement fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fracture, and (6) organizationwide discontinuation of an endograft device associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. CONCLUSION: The use of Implant Registries within our health system, along with clinical leadership and organizational commitment to a learning health system, was associated with improved quality and safety outcomes and reduced costs. The exact mechanisms by which such registries affect health outcomes and costs require further study.

Predictors of quality of life, economic impact, and loss to follow-up after open tibial shaft fractures in Ghana.

Objectives: Open tibia fractures are associated with substantial morbidity and impact on quality of life. Despite increasing incidence in low-resource settings, most open tibia fracture research comes from high-resource settings. This study aimed to assess the impact of socioeconomic status on treatment modality and evaluate predictors of health-related quality of life following open tibia fractures in Ghana. Design: A single-center prospective observational study was conducted in Kumasi, Ghana, from May 2020 to April 2022. Adults with open tibial shaft fractures presenting within 2 weeks of injury were eligible. Demographics, comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, and hospital course were collected at enrollment. Follow-up was scheduled at 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. A telephone survey assessing reasons for loss to follow-up was initiated on enrollment completion. Results: A total of 180 patients were enrolled. Most patients were employed before injury (79.9%), had government insurance (67.2%), and were from rural areas (59.4%). Fracture classification was primarily Gustilo-Anderson type 3A (49.1%). No relationship between socioeconomic predictors and treatment modality was identified. The largest barriers to follow-up were preference for bonesetter treatment (63.1%), treatment cost (48.8%), and travel cost (29.8%). Of the lost to follow-up patients contacted, 67 (79.8%) reported receiving traditional bonesetter care. Reasons for seeking traditional bonesetter care included ease of access (83.6%), lower cost (77.6%), and familial influence (50.7%). Conclusion: No association was identified between socioeconomic predictors and choice of treatment. Bonesetter treatment plays a substantial role in the care of open tibia fractures in Ghana, largely because of ease of access and lower cost.

Risk of Aseptic Revision and Periprosthetic Fracture Following Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty.

Hemiarthroplasty is currently the most common treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. While bipolar hemiarthroplasty was developed to reduce the risk of acetabular erosion that is associated with traditional unipolar hemiarthroplasty, meta-analyses have reported similar outcomes for bipolar and unipolar hemiarthroplasty devices. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the risks of aseptic revision and periprosthetic fracture following bipolar versus unipolar hemiarthroplasty in a large integrated health-care system in the United States. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the hip fracture registry of an integrated health-care system. Patients aged ≥60 years who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture between 2009 and 2019 were included. The primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, and the secondary outcome measure was revision for periprosthetic fracture. Cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression was performed, with mortality considered as a competing event. In the multivariable analysis, estimates were adjusted for potential confounders such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, femoral fixation, surgeon volume, type of anesthesia, and discharge disposition. Results: The study sample included 13,939 patients who had been treated with hemiarthroplasty by 498 surgeons at 35 hospitals. The mean follow-up time was 3.7 ± 2.9 years. The overall incidence of aseptic revision at 5 years following hemiarthroplasty was 2.8% (386). In the multivariable analysis controlling for potential confounders, bipolar hemiarthroplasty was associated with a lower risk of aseptic revision than unipolar hemiarthroplasty (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.94; p = 0.012). Rates of revision for periprosthetic fracture were similar between the bipolar and unipolar devices (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.10; p = 0.16). Conclusions: In this study of hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture in elderly patients, bipolar designs were associated with a lower risk of aseptic revision than unipolar designs. In contrast to prior research, we did not find any difference in the risk of periprosthetic fracture between the 2 designs. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians.

BACKGROUND: The recent public reporting of payments made to physicians by manufacturers of orthopedic devices provides an opportunity to assess the accuracy of physicians' conflict-of-interest disclosures. METHODS: We analyzed the reports of payments made to physicians by five manufacturers of total hip and knee prostheses in 2007. For each payment recipient who was an author of a presentation or served as a committee member or board member at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the disclosure statement was reviewed to determine whether the payment had been disclosed. To ascertain the reasons for nondisclosure, a survey was administered to physicians who had received payments that were not disclosed. RESULTS: The overall rate of disclosure was 71.2% (245 of 344 payments). For payments that were directly related to the topic of the presentation at the meeting, the rate was 79.3% (165 of 208); for payments that were indirectly related, the rate was 50.0% (16 of 32); and for payments that were unrelated, the rate was 49.2% (29 of 59) (P=0.008). In the multivariate analysis, payments were also more likely to have been disclosed if they exceeded $10,000 (P<0.001), were directed toward an individual physician rather than a company or organization (P=0.04), or included an in-kind component (P=0.002). Among the 36 physicians who responded to the survey regarding reasons for nondisclosure (response rate, 39.6%), the reasons most commonly given for nondisclosure were that the payment was unrelated to the topic of presentation at the annual meeting (38.9% of respondents) and that the physician had misunderstood the disclosure requirements (13.9%); 11.1% reported that the payment had been disclosed but was mistakenly omitted from the program. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of self-reported conflict-of-interest disclosure by physicians at a large annual meeting, the rate of disclosure was 79.3% for directly related payments and 50.0% for indirectly related payments.

Association Between the Femoral Stem Design Type and the Risk of Aseptic Revision After Hemiarthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Although noncemented hemiarthroplasty has been associated with a higher risk of revision surgery as compared with cemented fixation, it remains uncertain whether this increased risk applies to all noncemented stem design types or only a subset. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of aseptic revision associated with three common types of noncemented stem designs as compared with cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 60 years and older who sustained a hip fracture and underwent hemiarthroplasty between 2009 and 2018 at one of 35 hospitals owned by a large US health maintenance organization. Hemiarthroplasty fixation was categorized as cemented or noncemented, with the noncemented stems further classified as single wedge without collar, fit and fill without collar, or fit and fill with collar. The primary outcome was aseptic revision, and the median follow-up time was 4.8 years. RESULTS: Of 12,071 patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty during the study period (average age 82.0 ± 8.4 years, 67.9% women), 807 (6.7%) received a single-wedge stem without collar, 2,124 (17.6%) received a fit-and-fill stem without collar, 2,453 (20.3%) received a fit-and-fill stem with collar, and 6,687 (55.4%) received a cemented stem. Compared with cemented fixation, all the noncemented stem design types were associated with a markedly higher risk of aseptic revision in the multivariable analysis, including single wedge without collar (hazard ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38 to 2.89, P < 0.001), fit and fill without collar (HR 1.52, 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.04, P = 0.005), and fit and fill with collar (HR 2.11, 95% CI, 1.63 to 2.72, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the hemiarthroplasty treatment of elderly patients with hip fracture, all routinely used noncemented stem design types were associated with a higher risk of aseptic revision as compared with cemented fixation.

Association Between Race/Ethnicity and Total Joint Arthroplasty Utilization in a Universally Insured Population.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have documented racial and ethnic disparities in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) utilization in the United States. A potential mediator of healthcare disparities is unequal access to care, and studies have suggested that disparities may be ameliorated in systems of universal access. The purpose of this study was to assess whether racial/ethnic disparities in TJA utilization persist in a universally insured population of patients enrolled in a managed healthcare system. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from a US integrated healthcare system (2015 to 2019). Patients aged 50 years and older with a diagnosis of hip or knee osteoarthritis were included. The outcome of interest was utilization of primary total hip arthroplasty and/or total knee arthroplasty, and the exposure of interest was race/ethnicity. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were modeled using multivariable Poisson regression controlling for confounders. RESULTS: There were 99,548 patients in the hip analysis and 290,324 in the knee analysis. Overall, 10.2% of the patients were Black, 20.5% were Hispanic, 9.6% were Asian, and 59.7% were White. In the multivariable analysis, utilization of primary total hip arthroplasty was significantly lower for all minority groups including Black (IRR, 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.57, P < 0.0001), Hispanic (IRR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.60-0.66, P < 0.0001), and Asian (IRR, 0.64, 95% CI, 0.61-0.68, P < 0.0001). Similarly, utilization of primary total knee arthroplasty was significantly lower for all minority groups including Black (IRR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.49-0.54, P < 0.0001), Hispanic (IRR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.70-0.75, P < 0.0001), and Asian (IRR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.57-0.63, P < 0.0001) (all in comparison with White as reference). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of TJA utilization in a universally insured population of patients enrolled in a managed healthcare system, disparities on the basis of race and ethnicity persisted. Additional research is required to determine the reasons for this finding and to identify interventions which could ameliorate these disparities.

Risk of Revision After Hip Fracture Fixation Using DePuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail or Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced: A Cohort Study of 7,979 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Prior reports of the DePuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced (TFNA) revealed a potential mode of fatigue failure at the proximal screw aperture following fixation of extracapsular hip fractures. We sought to compare the revision risk between the TFNA and its prior-generation forebear, the Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a U.S. integrated health-care system's hip fracture registry. The study sample comprised patients who underwent cephalomedullary nail fixation for hip fracture with a TFN (n = 4,007) or TFNA (n = 3,972) from 2014 to 2019. We evaluated the charts and radiographs for patients who underwent any revision. Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate the risk of revision related to the index fracture. RESULTS: At the 3-year follow-up, the cumulative probability of revision related to the index fracture was 1.8% for the TFN and 1.9% for the TFNA. After adjustment for covariates, no difference was observed in revision risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80 to 1.75]; p = 0.40) for the TFNA compared with the TFN. The TFNA was associated with a higher risk of revision for nonunion than the TFN (HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.11 to 3.12]; p = 0.018). At the 3-year follow-up, implant breakage was 0.06% for the TFN and 0.2% for the TFNA; with regard to aperture failures related to the index fracture, there were 1 failure for the TFN group and 3 failures for the TFNA group. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort from a U.S. hip fracture registry, the TFNA had an overall revision rate that was similar to that of the earlier TFN, with implant breakage being a rare revision reason for both groups. Chart and radiographic review found that the TFNA was associated with a higher risk of revision for nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.