Fix or Replace? Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Geriatric Lower Extremity Fractures: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Introduction: When considering treatment options for geriatric patients with lower extremity fractures, little is known about which outcomes are prioritized by patients. This study aimed to determine the patient preferences for outcomes after a geriatric lower extremity fracture. Materials and Methods: We administered a discrete choice experiment survey to 150 patients who were at least 60 years of age and treated for a lower extremity fracture at a Level I trauma center. The discrete choice experiment presented study participants with 8 sets of hypothetical outcome comparisons, including joint preservation (yes or no), risk of reoperation at 6 months and 24 months, postoperative weightbearing status, disposition, and function as measured by return to baseline walking distance. We estimated the relative importance of these potential outcomes using multinomial logit modeling. Results: The strongest patient preference was for maintained function after treatment (59%, P < .001), followed by reoperation within 6 months (12%, P < .001). Although patients generally favored joint preservation, patients were willing to change their preference in favor of joint replacement if it increased function (walking distance) by 13% (SE, 66%). Reducing the short-term reoperation risk (12%, P < .001) was more important to patients than reducing long-term reoperation risk (4%, P = .33). Disposition and weightbearing status were lesser priorities to patients (9%, P < .001 and 7%, P < .001, respectively). Discussion: After a lower extremity fracture, geriatric patients prioritized maintained walking function. Avoiding short-term reoperation was more important than avoiding long-term reoperation. Joint preservation through fracture fixation was the preferred treatment of geriatric patients unless arthroplasty or arthrodesis provides a meaningful functional benefit. Hospital disposition and postoperative weightbearing status were less important to patients than the other included outcomes. Conclusions: Geriatric patients strongly prioritize function over other outcomes after a lower extremity fracture.

Infection Rates and Surgical Procedures Associated With Isolated Open Talar Neck and Body Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Open fractures of the talar body and neck are uncommon. Previous reports of associated deep infection rates and resulting surgical requirements vary widely. The primary objective of this study is to report the incidence of deep infections for isolated open talar body and neck fractures, and secondarily the incidence and number of total surgeries performed (TSP), secondary salvage procedures (SSPs), and nonsalvage procedures (NSPs). METHODS: Retrospective case-control study of 32 consecutive isolated open talus fracture patients (22 neck, 10 body) were followed for an average of 39.2 months. RESULTS: Five (15.6%) fractures developed deep infections. Fifty percent of open body fractures became infected compared with 0% of neck fractures (P < .001). There was no difference between infected group (IG) and uninfected fracture group (UG) with respect to age, sex, body mass index, tobacco, diabetes, vascular disease, open fracture type, wound location, hours to irrigation and debridement, or definitive treatment. The majority (92.6%) of UG fractures used a dual incision with open wound extension. There were more single extensile approaches in the IG group (P = .04). The IG required 5.8 TSP per patient compared with 2.1 in the UG (P = .004). All (100%) of the IG required an SSP compared with 29.6% of the UG (P = .006). All (100%) of the IG required an NSP compared to 40.7% of the UG (P = .043). In the IG, 2.8 NSPs per patient were required after definitive surgery compared with 1.18 in the UG (P = .003). Of those followed 1 year, the incidence of SSP remained higher in the IG (P = .016). CONCLUSION: The incidence of deep infection following isolated open talar fractures is high and occurs disproportionally in body fractures. Infected fractures required nearly 6 surgeries, and all required SSP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic.

Risk factors for failure of manipulation under anesthesia in posttraumatic knee stiffness.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients who fail manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) as a treatment for posttraumatic knee stiffness and determine the risk factors for MUA failure. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a level I trauma center. We identified 213 knees in 199 patients with arthrofibrosis treated by MUA within 1 year of injury from 2007 to 2020. The primary outcome was MUA failure as defined by need for repeat MUA or surgical release after MUA. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between MUA failure and potential risk factors. RESULTS: Overall, 111 knees (52%) failed treatment with MUA. An association was demonstrated between MUA failure and delay in treatment >90 days after injury (OR 3.6, p < 0.01), neurologic injury (OR 2.2, p = 0.02), and pre-procedure knee flexion <45° (OR 1.9, p < 0.01). The rate of failure for knees with no risk factors was 0% (0 of 14), 37% for knees with one risk factor (27 of 73), and 67% (84 of 126) for knees with two or more risk factors. CONCLUSION: For patients whose MUA is delayed beyond 90 days postinjury, pre-manipulation knee flexion is <45°, or those with associated neurologic injury; odds of MUA failing to correct posttraumatic arthrofibrosis are significantly increased. The likelihood of obtaining adequate range of motion (ROM) with MUA alone is lower than reported in other populations, with a higher likelihood of being treated with surgical release or additional MUA to attempt to obtain adequate ROM.

Is External Beam Radiation Therapy Really Associated With Low Rates of Heterotopic Ossification After Acetabular Surgery?

OBJECTIVES: Describe rate of postoperative heterotopic ossification (HO) after acetabular surgery in patients who received external beam radiation (XRT) as HO prophylaxis. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive series of patients who presented to a single, level I, academic trauma center over a 10-year period (2008-2018) for surgical fixation of an acetabular fracture. Patients eligible for inclusion were those who underwent surgical fixation of an acetabular fracture through a posterior (Kocher-Langenbeck), combined anterior and posterior, or extensile exposure. Patients were excluded if an isolated anterior approach was performed or if an acute total hip arthroplasty was performed at the time of index surgery. INTERVENTION: XRT. MAIN OUTCOME: Severe HO (Brooker class III or IV). RESULTS: The severe HO (Brooker class III or IV) rate for entire cohort was 12% (44 of 361 patients). Of these 44 patients, 30 patients were classified as Brooker III and 14 patients were classified as Brooker IV. The Brooker IV rate for the entire cohort was 4% (14 of 361 patients). Severe HO rates showed a declining trend over the period examined, with a risk reduction of -1.0% per year (95% confidence interval -2.1% to 0.2%; P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest single consecutive series on acetabular fracture patients who received XRT as HO prophylaxis. The overall severe HO rate was 12%, which is similar to other comparably large series data on patients who did not receive XRT after surgical fixation acetabular fractures. Although these data suggest that XRT may not be beneficial when used universally for all patients, comparative studies are required to rule out the benefits of XRT for preventing HO in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does iliosacral screw removal reduce postoperative pain in unstable pelvic fracture patients? A matched prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To compare pain and function in patients with unstable posterior pelvic fractures stabilized with posterior fixation who undergo iliosacral screw removal versus those who retain their iliosacral screws. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study identified 59 patients who reported pain at least 4 months after iliosacral screw fixation of an unstable posterior pelvic ring fracture from 2015-2019. The primary intervention was iliosacral screw removal versus a matched iliosacral screw retention control group. Patient-reported pain was measured with the 10-point Brief Pain Inventory, and patient-reported function was measured with the Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score. Both measured within 6 months of the intervention. RESULTS: Before iliosacral screw removal, the mean pain was 4.7 (SD, 3.0) compared with 4.7 (SD, 3.0) in the matched control group. Following iliosacral screw removal, the average pain in the screw removal group was 3.7 (SD, 2.7) and 3.3 (SD, 2.5) in the matched control group. We found no evidence that iliosacral screw removal reduced pain in this population (mean difference, 0.2 points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 1.5; p = 0.71). In addition, the improvement in function after iliosacral screw removal was not statistically indistinguishable from zero (mean difference, 3.1 points; 95% CI, -4.6 to 10.9; p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that iliosacral screw removal offers no significant pelvic pain or function benefit when compared with a matched control group. Surgeons should consider these data when managing patients with pelvic pain who are candidates for iliosacral screw removal.

The Orthopaedic Match: Defining the Academic Profile of Successful Candidates.

BACKGROUND: Research productivity forms a vital part of the resident selection process and can markedly affect the chance of a successful match. Current reports regarding the publication record among prospective orthopaedic surgery residents are likely inaccurate. Potential applicants have a poor understanding of the strength of their research credentials in comparison to other candidates. METHODS: We identified matched applicants from the 2013 to 2017 orthopaedic surgery residency application cycles. We performed a bibliometric analysis of these residents using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify published articles and calculate the h-index of each applicant at the time of application. Details were collected on medical school, advanced degrees, publication type, first authorship, and article relatedness to orthopaedic surgery. RESULTS: We included 3,199 matched orthopaedic surgery applicants. At the time of application, the median h-index was 0, the median number of publications was 1, and 40% of successful candidates did not hold any publications. The h-index (R 0.08, P < 0.0001) and median number of publications of matched orthopaedic surgery residency candidates significantly increased (R 0.09, P < 0.0001) across application cycles. Furthermore, the proportion of matched applicants without publications at the time of application significantly decreased (R -0.90, P = 0.0350). Conversely, the percentage of articles first-authored by applicants decreased (R -0.96, P = 0.0093), but article relatedness to orthopaedic surgery remained constant (R 0.82, P = 0.0905). Strikingly, notable changes were observed in the type of articles published by successful applicants: the proportion of preclinical studies decreased (R -0.07, P = 0.0041), whereas clinical research articles increased (R 0.07, P = 0.0024). CONCLUSION: The publication count held by successful orthopaedic surgery applicants is substantially lower than the nationally reported average. Matched orthopaedic surgery candidates demonstrate increasingly impressive research achievements each application cycle. However, increased academic productivity comes at the cost of reduced project responsibility and a shift toward faster-to-publish articles.

A Review of Insurance Coverage of Gender-Affirming Genital Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite the multiple benefits of gender-affirming surgery for treatment of gender dysphoria, research shows that barriers to care still exist. Third-party payers play a pivotal role in enabling access to transition-related care. The authors assessed insurance coverage of genital reconstructive ("bottom") surgery and evaluated the differences between policy criteria and international standards of care. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of bottom surgery was conducted. Insurance companies were selected based on their state enrollment data and market share. A Web-based search and telephone interviews were performed to identify the policies and coverage status. Medical necessity criteria were abstracted from publicly available policies. RESULTS: Fifty-seven insurers met inclusion criteria. Almost one in 10 providers did not hold a favorable policy for bottom surgery. Of the 52 insurers who provided coverage, 17 percent held criteria that matched international recommendations. No single criterion was universally required by insurers. Minimum age and definition of gender dysphoria were the requirements with most variation across policies. Almost one in five insurers used proof of legal name change as a coverage requirement. Ten percent would provide coverage for fertility preservation, while 17 percent would cover reversal of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the medical necessity, legislative mandates, and economic benefits, global provision of gender-affirming genital surgery is not in place. Furthermore, there is variable adherence to international standards of care. Use of surplus criteria, such as legal name change, may act as an additional barrier to care even when insurance coverage is provided.

Gender Surgery Beyond Chest and Genitals: Current Insurance Landscape.

BACKGROUND: Plastic surgery plays an essential role in the treatment of gender dysphoria. International standards of care currently consider genital and chest surgeries to be medically necessary. Ancillary procedures such as facial surgery, chondrolaryngoplasty, hair restoration/removal, and body contouring are considered cosmetic surgeries except in individual circumstances. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to assess the frequency of coverage provision for ancillary transition-related surgeries through a cross-sectional analysis of US insurance policies. METHODS: The authors selected insurance companies based on state enrollment data and market share. Policies were identified through web-based search and telephone interviews. A list of eligible procedures was compiled and grouped into 5 categories: body masculinization, body feminization, facial procedures, hair restoration/removal, and chondrolaryngoplasty. Medical necessity criteria from publicly accessible policies were then abstracted. RESULTS: Sixty-one insurance companies held an established policy. One-third of these policies offered favorable coverage for at least 1 ancillary procedure. Chondrolaryngoplasty was the most covered category (26%, n = 16), whereas body masculinization was the least covered (8%, n = 5). Almost two-thirds of the companies with favorable policies listed coverage criteria. We identified 4 recurring requirements: age, hormone therapy, continuous living in a congruent gender role, and referral from a mental health professional. CONCLUSIONS: There is a low prevalence of US insurance coverage for ancillary gender surgeries and wide variability in coverage criteria. Reevaluation of ancillary transition-related procedures from cosmetic to medically necessary based on clinical judgement or establishment of defined coverage criteria may augment coverage and better address the needs of transgender patients.

Health Insurance Coverage of Gender-Affirming Top Surgery in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the medical necessity, legislative mandates, and economic benefits of gender-affirming surgery, access to treatment remains limited. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has proposed guidelines for transition-related surgery in conjunction with criteria to delineate medical necessity. The authors assessed insurance coverage of "top" gender-affirming surgery and evaluated the differences between insurance policy criteria and WPATH recommendations. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of top gender-affirming surgery. Insurance companies were selected based on their state enrollment data and market share. A Web-based search and individual telephone interviews were conducted to identify the policy. Medical necessity criteria were abstracted from publicly available policies. RESULTS: Of the 57 insurers evaluated, bilateral mastectomy (transmasculine) was covered by significantly more insurers than breast augmentation (transfeminine) (96 percent versus 68 percent; p < 0.0001). Only 4 percent of companies used WPATH-consistent criteria. No criterion was universally required by insurers. Additional prerequisites for coverage that extended beyond WPATH guidelines for top surgery were continuous living in congruent gender role, two referring mental health professionals, and hormone therapy before surgery. Hormone therapy was required in a significantly higher proportion of transfeminine policies compared with transmasculine policies (90 percent versus 21 percent; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the marked intercompany variation in criteria for insurance coverage that often deviated from WPATH recommendations, there are health care insurers who categorically deny access to top gender-affirming surgery. A greater evidence base is needed to provide further support for the medical necessity criteria in current use.