RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: We examined practice patterns and surgical indications in the management of common shoulder procedures by surgeons practicing at physician-owned facilities. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of 501 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder procedures performed by five surgeons in our practice at one of five facilities during an 18-month period. Two of the facilities were physician-owned, and three of the five surgeons were shareholders. Demographics, insurance status, symptom duration, time from injury/symptom onset to the decision to perform surgery (at which time surgical consent is obtained), and time to schedule surgery were studied to determine the influence of facility type and physician shareholder status. RESULTS: Median duration of symptoms before surgery was significantly shorter in workers' compensation patients than in non-workers' compensation patients (47% less; P < 0.0001) and in men than in women (31% less; P < 0.001), but was not influenced by shareholder status or facility ownership (P > 0.05). Time between presentation and surgical consent was not influenced by facility ownership (P = 0.39) or shareholder status (P = 0.50). Time from consent to procedure was 13% faster in physician-owned facilities than in non-physician-owned facilities (P = 0.03) and 35% slower with shareholder physicians than with nonshareholder physicians (P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: The role of physician investment in private healthcare facilities has caused considerable debate in the orthopaedic surgery field. To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the effects of shareholder status and facility ownership on surgeons' practice patterns, surgical timing, and measures of nonsurgical treatment before shoulder surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Neither shareholder status nor facility ownership characteristics influenced the speed with which surgeons determined that shoulder surgery was indicated or surgeons' use of preoperative nonsurgical treatment. After the need for surgery was determined, patients underwent surgery sooner at physician-owned facilities than at non-physician-owned facilities and with nonshareholder physicians than with shareholder physicians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Assuntos
Artroscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Instalações de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Propriedade/estatística & dados numéricos , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Ombro/cirurgia , Adulto , Artroscopia/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
The incidence of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) continues to rise. Given the changing healthcare climate, it is becoming increasingly important to critically evaluate current practice and attempt to make modifications that decrease costs without compromising patient outcomes. We conducted a study of the costs associated with arthroscopic anchorless (transosseous [TO]) RCR and those associated with the more commonly performed anchor-based TO-equivalent (TOE) method to determine whether there are any cost savings with the TO-RCR method. Twenty-one consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic TO-RCR were prospectively enrolled in the study and matched on tear size and concomitant procedures with patients who underwent arthroscopic TOE-RCR. The groups' implant costs and operative times were obtained and compared. Outcome measures, including scores on the VAS (visual analog scale) for pain, the SANE (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation), and the SST (Simple Shoulder Test), recorded at 3, 6, and >12 months after surgery, were compared between the TO and TOE groups. Mean implant cost was $946.91 less for the TO group than the TOE group-a significant difference. Mean operative time was not significantly different between the TO and TOE groups. There was significant improvement on all outcomes measures (VAS, SANE, SST) at >12 months, and this improvement was not significantly different between the groups. Arthroscopic TO-RCR provides significant cost savings over TOE-RCR with no significant difference in operative time or short-term outcomes.