RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: International rates of patellar resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are highly variable. This study sought to determine how trends in patellar resurfacing rates have changed between 2004 and 2022. In addition, we investigated how modern rates of revision have varied between resurfaced and un-resurfaced patellae in primary TKA among national joint registries. METHODS: Data between 2004 and 2022 was obtained either from the publicly available joint registry annual reports, a literature review, or via direct correspondence with registry personnel in Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, and India. Only English-language national joint registries or data via direct correspondence with registry administrators were utilized. Additionally, the 10-year cumulative risk of revision TKA with and without patellar resurfacing was pulled from those registries that had this data available. RESULTS: There were persistent differences in the rates of patellar resurfacing among countries. Australia documented a 40% increase in patellar resurfacing rates, while other countries demonstrated modest or little change in resurfacing rates. This may indicate that surgeons are making the decision to resurface based on national TKA revision rates. The average rates of patellar resurfacing in primary TKA ranged from 4% in Sweden to 94% in the United States. Canada, the United States, Australia, and Switzerland documented a lower risk of revision when the patella was resurfaced, while Sweden, conversely, showed a higher risk of revision with resurfacing. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of patellar resurfacing in primary TKA were highly variable among countries, as were rates of change over time. It appears that the optimal patellar resurfacing strategy may depend mostly on unique patient factors and surgeon expertise. Future studies should attempt to elucidate the individual patient characteristics that contribute to increased risks of revision or anterior knee pain to determine who will most benefit from patellar resurfacing in primary TKA.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Medicare reimbursement for arthroplasty procedures has been declining, but little has been reported on Medicaid reimbursement. We sought to determine Medicaid reimbursement rates using state Medicaid data for nine arthroplasty procedure codes and compare them to Medicare rates. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services physician fee schedule was used to collect Medicare reimbursement rates, and state Medicaid fee schedules were accessed to collect Medicaid rates for nine procedures encompassing primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty surgery. State Medicare and Medicaid rates were compared to determine the mean dollar difference and dollar difference per relative value unit (RVU). A cost of living adjustment was performed using the Medicare Wage Index for each state. Coefficients of variation were calculated for each state to determine overall variability between the two systems. RESULTS: The mean reimbursement rates for Medicaid were lower for eight of the nine codes used in the study. Medicaid reimbursed physicians an average of 11.3% less overall and 23.1% less when adjusted for cost of living. The amount of variability in the Medicare rates was low with a consistent coefficient of variation of 0.06, but was higher in the Medicaid rates with a range of 0.26 to 0.29 in the unadjusted rates and 0.34 to 0.37 in the adjusted rates. There was a mean $6.73 decreased reimbursement per RVU for Medicaid procedures. CONCLUSION: For the most common arthroplasty procedures, Medicaid reimbursed physicians less than Medicare on average. Medicaid also demonstrated increased variability when compared to Medicare rates between states.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to evaluate the variability of Medicaid reimbursement and compare it to Medicare reimbursement using the 20 most commonly billed orthopedic trauma CPT codes nationwide. The authors anticipate significant variability between states and hypothesize that Medicaid payment will be significantly less than Medicare payment. METHODS: The top 20 most common orthopedic trauma surgery procedural codes were identified from a previous analysis performed by Haglin et al.1 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services physician fee schedule was used to determine reimbursement rates from Medicare, and state Medicaid fee schedules were used to determine reimbursement rates for Medicaid. State Medicaid rates were compared to their corresponding Medicare rates to determine a dollar difference. Additionally, the dollar difference for each CPT code was divided by its respective physician relative value unit (RVU). This was utilized to acknowledge the possible variability in the complexity of orthopedic procedures and the related physician effort. The Medicare Wage Index was used to adjust Medicaid rates based on the cost of living for the state as well. Coefficients of variation were calculated to represent overall variability in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: The mean reimbursement rates for Medicaid were lower for all 20 procedures compared to Medicare. On average, Medicaid reimbursed 16.0% less than Medicare, and 29.6% less when adjusting for cost-of-living. MCD reimbursed at a higher rate than MCR for all procedures in only nine states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, and North Dakota, and South Dakota) while 38 states reimbursed at a lower rate than MCR, on average. The coefficient of variation ranged from 0.24 to 0.34 for the Medicaid unadjusted group and from 0.35 to 0.46 for the Medicare Wage-Index adjusted group. In contrast, the Medicare group was consistent at 0.06 for all 20 procedures. The average dollar difference across the 20 CPT codes for Medicaid reimbursement compared to Medicare ranged from -$76.89 to -$225.17, and the dollar difference per relative value unit ranged from -$5.96 to -$15.16. CONCLUSION: This study found a high amount of variation between state Medicaid reimbursement rates and average rates that were significantly lower than Medicare reimbursement rates for the top twenty most utilized orthopedic trauma CPT codes as identified by Haglin et al. The discrepancy in reimbursement was increased when Medicaid rates were adjusted for state cost-of-living. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Surgical management of intertrochanteric hip fractures is a common surgery with low rates of intraoperative complications. Vascular injuries are exceptionally rare when placing an intramedullary nail without open reduction. There are very few reported cases of direct arterial injury and active bleed at the level of the distal interlocking screw following closed reduction and intramedullary nailing of a hip fracture. We report one such case. Case Presentation: An 88-year-old female presented to the emergency department with a left intertrochanteric hip fracture. Closed reduction with a cephalomedullary nail fixation of the left hip fracture occurred as planned without any obvious intraoperative technical issues. The patient remained stable intraoperatively. No open reduction was required. Postoperatively, the patient developed hemorrhagic shock and required massive transfusion protocol. Angiography demonstrated an intramuscular hematoma at the level of the distal intramedullary nail interlocking screw with active extravasation. The patient subsequently required embolization. Nine days following surgery, she began Eliquis for DVT prophylaxis and was ambulating independently with signs of hematoma resolution. Discussion: Profunda femoris artery injury can stem from various mechanisms during surgery. Atherosclerosis places patients at a higher risk of complication due to rigid vessels. In this case, it is believed that drilling beyond the medial femoral cortex led to the arterial injury. Conclusion: Care should be taken to prevent drills from plunging beyond the medial femoral cortex during surgery. Cautious observation of patient's vitals and clinical course can allow for early detection of vascular complication.

RESUMEN

The use of robotics is a growing area within the field of surgery, especially in orthopaedics. To date, there is no literature examining orthopaedic trainee perception of or comfort with robotics in orthopaedics. An assessment of the next generation's attitudes regarding this technology is necessary. An anonymous, national, web-based questionnaire containing 16 multiple-choice questions and 25 5-point Likert's scale questions was sent to 66 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-approved orthopaedic residency training programs. The survey was designed to discern the attitude of orthopaedic trainees toward robotics. Demographics, extent of exposure and training, and trainee perception regarding robotics were collected. A bivariate analysis using Pearson's Chi-square test or Fisher's was used to determine factors associated with trainee's future plans to use robotics. A total of 280 trainees completed the survey (response rate of 18%). Also, 67.9% have been exposed to and 42.9% trained to use robotics in surgical training. Of those trained, 44.4% were given increasing autonomy to use the technology. Further, 67.1% of trainees do not feel comfortable using robotic technology; however, 71.4% believe robotics has the potential to facilitate their education. Over 90% believe that robotic technology is here to stay. While residents have legitimate concerns about robotic implementation in orthopaedics, the majority of residents and fellows believe robotics will be a part of the future. However, few feel they receive adequate training or experience with the technology.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The United States accounts for the majority of prescription opioids consumed worldwide. Recent literature has focused on opioid prescribing patterns among orthopedic surgeons; however, public and patient expectations about postoperative opioid use remain understudied. Purpose: We sought to explore public perceptions of opioid use after elective orthopedic surgery. Methods: We posted a 32-question survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online platform with over 500,000 unique registered users that is a validated tool for collecting survey responses in medical research. The survey asked about attitudes regarding opioid use after elective orthopedic surgery and sociodemographic factors, as well as validated assessments of health literacy and patient engagement. Results: Of 727 respondents who completed surveys, nearly half (46%) said they would prefer nonopioid pain medication after elective orthopedic surgery, although 86% said they would expect to be prescribed opioids for 1 week to 1 month postoperatively. About half said they would expect to be prescribed extra opioid medication in case of unexpected pain following surgery, and 50% reported that they would save their pills to treat future pain. Approximately 63% said they would understand their surgeon's opioid weaning, but over ⅓ said weaning would lead to decreased satisfaction with their surgeon. Roughly ⅔ reported that pain control after surgery would directly affect their opinion of the surgeon. Conclusions: Our survey found that some members of the general public reported expectations regarding postoperative opioid prescribing that could lead to decreased patient satisfaction. These findings suggest the need for further research on the value of preoperative patient education in pain management, on patient expectations of pain control after elective surgery, and on the use of opioids following orthopedic surgery.