Early Versus Delayed Definitive Fixation Relative to Fasciotomy Closure in High-Energy Tibial Plateau Fractures With Compartment Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the timing of definitive fixation of tibial plateau fractures relative to fasciotomy closure with regard to alignment and articular reduction. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Four Level I trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Patients with tibial plateau fractures (TPF) with ipsilateral compartment syndrome treated with fasciotomy between 2006 and 2018 met inclusion criteria. Open fractures, patients younger than 18 years, patients with missed or delayed treatment of compartment syndrome, patients with a diagnosis of compartment syndrome after surgical fixation, and patients whose plateau fracture was not treated with open reduction and internal fixation were excluded. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on the relative timing of fixation to fasciotomy closure: early fixation (EF) was defined as fixation before or at the time of fasciotomy closure, and delayed fixation (DF) was defined as fixation after fasciotomy closure. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Radiographic limb alignment (categorized as anatomic alignment (no varus/valgus), ≤5 degrees varus/valgus, or >5 degrees varus/valgus) and articular reduction (categorized as anatomic alignment with no residual gap or step-off, <2 mm, 2-5 mm, and >5 mm of articular surface step-off) were compared between early and delayed fixation groups. In addition, superficial and deep infection rates were compared between those in the EF and DF cohorts. Subgroup analysis within the EF cohort was performed to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes between those that received fixation before closure and those that underwent concurrent fixation and closure within one operative episode. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Sixty-four patients (48.9%) were stratified into the delayed fixation group, and 67 patients (51.1%) were stratified into the early fixation group. In the EF cohort, 57 (85.1%) were male patients with an average age of 45.3 ± 13.6 years and an average body mass index of 31.0 ± 5.9. The DF cohort comprised primarily male patients (44, 68.8%), with an average age of 46.6 ± 13.9 years and an average body mass index of 28.4 ± 7.9. Fracture pattern distribution did not differ significantly between the early and delayed fixation cohorts ( P = 0.754 for Schatzker classification and P = 0.569 for OTA/AO classification). The relative risk of infection for the DF cohort was 2.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-4.54) compared with the EF cohort. Patients in the early fixation cohort were significantly more likely to have anatomic articular reduction compared with their delayed fixation counterparts (37.5% vs. 52.2%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated higher rates of anatomic articular reduction in patients who underwent fixation of tibial plateau fractures before or at the time of fasciotomy closure for acute compartment syndrome compared with their counterparts who underwent definitive fixation for tibial plateau fracture after fasciotomy closure. The relative risk of overall infection for those who underwent fasciotomy closure after definitive fixation for tibial plateau fracture was 2.17 compared with the cohort that underwent closure before or concomitantly with definitive fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of a Chronic Precordial Flail Chest Segment: A Case Report.

CASE: We report on a 35-year-old man presenting with disabling pain secondary to multiple rib nonunions and a costochondral dislocation 5 months after sustaining a chest wall crush injury. He underwent surgical reconstruction of the chest and was followed for 2 years. Surgical exposure to the heart was necessary during open reduction of the flail segment, followed by costochondral joint fixation with plates and screws. Although he was a workers' compensation patient, he returned to full gainful employment. CONCLUSION: Open reduction and internal fixation of a symptomatic, chronically displaced, precordial, flail segment can relieve pain and promote return to baseline function.

Discrepancy between DXA and CT-based assessment of spine bone mineral density.

PURPOSE: Adequate bone mineral density (BMD) is necessary for success in spine surgery. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard in determining BMD but may give spuriously high values. Hounsfield units (HU) from computed tomography (CT) may provide a more accurate depiction of the focal BMD encountered during spine surgery. Our objective is to determine the discrepancy rate between DXA and CT BMD determinations and how often DXA overestimates BMD compared to CT. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 93 patients with both DXA and CT within 6 months. DXA lumbar spine and overall T scores were classified as osteoporotic (T Score ≤ - 2.5) or non-osteoporotic (T Score > -2.5). L1 vertebral body HU were classified as osteoporotic or non-osteoporotic using cutoff thresholds of either ≤ 135 HU or ≤ 110 HU. Corresponding DXA and HU classifications were compared to determine disagreement and overestimation rates. RESULTS: Using lumbar T scores, the CT vs DXA disagreement rate was 40-54% depending on the HU threshold. DXA overestimated BMD 97-100% of the time compared to CT. Using overall DXA T scores, the disagreement rate was 33-47% with DXA greater than CT 74-87% of the time. In the sub-cohort of 10 patients with very low HU (HU < 80), DXA overestimated BMD compared to CT in every instance. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large discrepancy between DXA and CT BMD determinations. DXA frequently overestimates regional BMD encountered during spine surgery compared with CT. While DXA remains the gold standard in determining BMD, CT may play an important role in defining the focal BMD pertinent to spine surgery.

Cost and Cost Driver Analysis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Bone-Tendon-Bone Autograft Versus Hamstring Autograft.

As health care transitions toward value-based care, orthopaedics has started to implement time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to understand costs and cost drivers. TDABC has not previously been used to study cost drivers in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to use TDABC to (1) calculate bone-tendon-bone (BTB) and hamstring ACLR total costs of care and (2) evaluate the impact of graft choice and other factors on ACLR costs. Methods: Data were collected from electronic medical records for primary ACLR from the institutional patient-reported outcome registry between 2009 and 2016 in 1 ambulatory surgery center. Patients receiving allograft, revision ACLR, or concomitant meniscal repair or ligament reconstruction were excluded. The total cost of care was determined using TDABC. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted between ACLR cost and group characteristics. Results: A total of 328 patients were included; 211 (64.3%) received BTB autograft and 117 (35.7%) received hamstring autograft. The mean cost was $2,865.01 ± $263.45 (95% confidence interval: $2,829.26, $2,900.77) for BTB ACLR versus $3,377.44 ± $320.12 ($3,318.82, $3,436.05) for hamstring ACLR (p < 0.001). Operative time was 103.1 ± 25.1 (99.7, 106.5) minutes for BTB ACLR versus 113.1 ± 27.9 (108.0, 118.2) minutes for hamstring ACLR (p = 0.001). The total implant cost was $270.32 ± $97.08 ($257.15, $283.50) for BTB ACLR versus $587.36 ± $108.78 ($567.44, $607.28) for hamstring ACLR (p < 0.001). Hamstring graft (p = 0.006) and suspensory fixation on the femoral side (p = 0.011) were associated with increased costs. Conclusions: The mean cost of care and operative time for BTB autograft ACLR are less than those for hamstring autograft ACLR. Operative time, implant choice, and graft choice were identified as modifiable cost drivers that can empower surgeons to manage primary ACLR costs while maximizing the value of the procedure. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Factors influencing management of bilateral femur fractures: A multicenter retrospective cohort of early versus delayed definitive Fixation.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the factors that influence the timing of definitive fixation in the management of bilateral femoral shaft fractures and the outcomes for patients with these injuries. METHODS: Patients with bilateral femur fractures treated between 1998 to 2019 at ten level-1 trauma centers were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped into early or delayed fixation, which was defined as definitive fixation of both femurs within or greater than 24 hours from injury, respectively. Statistical analysis included reversed logistic odds regression to predict which variable(s) was most likely to determine timing to definitive fixation. The outcomes included age, sex, high-volume institution, ISS, GCS, admission lactate, and admission base deficit. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients were included; 164 patients were included in the early fixation group and 164 patients in the delayed fixation group. Patients managed with delayed fixation had a higher Injury Severity Score (26.8 vs 22.4; p<0.01), higher admission lactate (4.4 and 3.0; p<0.01), and a lower Glasgow Coma Scale (10.7 vs 13; p<0.01). High-volume institution was the most reliable influencer for time to definitive fixation, successfully determining 78.6% of patients, followed by admission lactate, 64.4%. When all variables were evaluated in conjunction, high-volume institution remained the strongest contributor (X2 statistic: institution: 45.6, ISS: 8.83, lactate: 6.77, GCS: 0.94). CONCLUSION: In this study, high-volume institution was the strongest predictor of timing to definitive fixation in patients with bilateral femur fractures. This study demonstrates an opportunity to create a standardized care pathway for patients with these injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Single-Stage Versus 2-Stage Bilateral Intramedullary Nail Fixation in Patients With Bilateral Femur Fractures: A Multicenter Retrospective Review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rates of complications in patients with bilateral femur fractures treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) during either 1 single procedure or 2 separate procedures. DESIGN: A multicenter retrospective review of patients sustaining bilateral femur fractures, treated with IMN in single or 2-stage procedure, from 1998 to 2018 was performed at 10 Level-1 trauma centers. SETTING: Ten Level-1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty-six patients with bilateral femur fractures. INTERVENTIONS: Intramedullary nailing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of complications. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were included, with 188 single-stage and 58 two-stage patients. Gender, age, injury severity score, abbreviated injury score, secondary injuries, Glasgow coma scale, and proportion of open fractures were similar between both groups. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occurred at higher rates in the 2-stage group (13.8% vs. 5.9%; P value = 0.05). When further adjusted for age, gender, injury severity score, abbreviated injury score, Glasgow coma scale, and admission lactate, the single-stage group had a 78% reduced risk for ARDS. In-hospital mortality was higher in the single-stage cohort (2.7% compared with 0%), although this did not meet statistical significance (P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study to date evaluating the outcomes between single- and 2-stage IMN fixation for bilateral femoral shaft fractures. Single-stage bilateral femur IMN may decrease rates of ARDS in polytrauma patients who are able to undergo simultaneous definitive fixation. However, a future prospective study with standardized protocols in place will be required to discern whether single- versus 2-stage fixation has an effect on mortality and to identify those individuals at risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Variation of the Inpatient Cost of Care in the Treatment of Isolated Geriatric Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric hip fractures are a major, costly public health issue, expected to increase in incidence and expense with the aging population. As healthcare transitions towards value-based care, understanding cost drivers of hip fracture treatment will be necessary to perform adequate risk adjustment. Historically, cost has been variable and difficult to determine. This study was purposed to identify variables that can predict the overall cost of care for geriatric intertrochanteric (IT) hip fractures and provide a better cost prediction to ensure the success of future bundled payment models. METHODS: A retrospective review of operatively-managed geriatric hip fractures was performed at single urban level I academic trauma center between 2013 and 2017. Patient variables were collected via the electronic medical record (EMR) including CCI, ACCI, ASA, overall length of stay (LOS), AO/OTA fracture classification and demographics. Direct and indirect costs were calculated by activity-based costing by the hospital's accounting software. Multivariable linear regression models evaluated which parameters predicted total inpatient cost of care. RESULTS: The mean cost of care was $19,822, ranging from $9,128 to $64,211. Critical care comprised 16.9% of total costs, followed by implant costs (13.6%), and nursing costs (12.6%). Regression analysis identified both ASA (p < 0.01) and ACCI (p = 0.01) as statistically significant associative parameters, but only LOS (r 2 = 0.77) as a strong correlative measure for inpatient care cost. CONCLUSION: This study found no correlation between ACCI or ASA and the total inpatient cost of care in isolated intertrochanteric geriatric hip fractures, suggesting that the inpatient episode-of-care costs cannot be accurately predicted by the patient demographics/comorbidities alone. Future bundled care payment models would have to be adjusted to account for variables beyond just patient characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV.

Does Implant Selection Affect the Inpatient Cost of Care for Geriatric Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures?

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric intertrochanteric (IT) femur fractures are a common and costly injury, expected to increase in incidence as the population ages. Understanding cost drivers will be essential for risk adjustments, and the surgeon's choice of implant may be an opportunity to reduce the overall cost of care. This study was purposed to identify the relationship between implant type and inpatient cost of care for isolated geriatric IT fractures. METHODS: A retrospective review of IT fractures from 2013-2017 was performed at an academic level I trauma center. Construct type and AO/OTA fracture classifications were obtained radiographically, and patient variables were collected via the electronic medical record (EMR). The total cost of care was obtained via time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). Multivariable linear regression and goodness-of-fit analyses were used to determine correlation between implant costs, inpatient cost of care, construct type, patient characteristics, and injury characteristics. RESULTS: Implant costs ranged from $765.17 to $5,045.62, averaging $2,699, and were highest among OTA 31-A3 fracture patterns (p < 0.01). Implant cost had a positive linear association with overall inpatient cost of care (p < 0.01), but remained highly variable (r2 = 0.16). Total cost of care ranged from $9,129.18 to $64,210.70, averaging $19,822, and patients receiving a sliding hip screw (SHS) had the lowest mean total cost of care at $17,077, followed by short and long intramedullary nails ($19,314 and $21,372, respectively). When construct type and fracture pattern were compared to total cost, 31-A1 fracture pattern treated with SHS had significantly lower cost than 31-A2 and 31-A3 and less variation in cost. CONCLUSION: The cost of care for IT fractures is poorly understood and difficult to determine. With alternative payment models on the horizon, implant selection should be utilized as an opportunity to decrease costs and increase the value of care provided to patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV.

Geriatric Femoral Neck Fractures: Hemiarthroplasty Implant Trends Across a Health System From 2006 to 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Hemiarthroplasty is increasingly used for the treatment of geriatric femoral neck fractures in an effort to optimize value-based care. The current American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines released in 2014 for the treatment of geriatric hip fractures recommend the utilization of monopolar cemented constructs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate hip hemiarthroplasty implant cost variability and implant selection trends from 2006 to 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 940 geriatric hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty was conducted across 3 institutions from 2006 to 2018. Variables examined were construct type, surgeon, operative time, patient mortality, and implant cost. Statistical analysis consisted of multigroup comparative tests and multiple linear regression analyses to evaluate correlative measures. RESULTS: The study population was 85.0 ± 7.9 years of age with a body mass index of 24.0 ± 5.5. A total of 33 (3.5%) patients were deceased at the 90-day postoperative mark and 45 (4.8%) patients at the 1-year mark. There was no statistical difference in terms of mortality between the 4 implant cohorts at the 90-day mark (P = .56) and 1-year mark (P = .24). The bipolar press-fit construct was the most expensive, US$3900.61 ± US$2607.54, and the monopolar cemented construct was the least expensive, US$2618.68 ± US$1834.16. The mean operative time was 6 minutes greater for press-fit implants, 93.6 ± 32.0, than cemented implants, 87.1 ± 33.6 (P = .02). The use of monopolar cemented implants increased from 12.1% to 83.3%, while bipolar press-fit decreased from 57.6% to 4.6% from 2013 to 2018. DISCUSSION: The use of a bipolar and/or press-fit implant significantly increases construct cost despite little evidence in the literature of improved outcomes. Contrary to previous research, cemented implants do not increase the operative time. CONCLUSIONS: Encouragingly, selection of the most cost-conscience implant, monopolar cemented, has been increasing since 2014, which may reflect the influence of current AAOS guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III.

Does Value Matter in Orthopaedic Trauma?: A Survey of Orthopaedic Trauma Association Members.

OBJECTIVES: With value-based payment models on the horizon, this study was designed to examine the perceptions of value-based care among orthopaedic traumatologists and how they influence their practice. DESIGN: Systems-based survey study. SETTING: Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) research surveys. PARTICIPANTS: OTA members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Thirty-eight-question surveys focusing on 5 areas related to value-based care: understanding value, assessing interest, barriers, perceptions around implementing value-based strategies, and policy. RESULTS: Of 1106 OTA members, 252 members responded for a response rate of 22.7%. Consideration around cost was not different between hospital, academic, and private practice settings (P = 0.47). Previous reported experience in finance increased the amount surgical decision-making was influenced by cost (P < 0.01), along with reported understanding of implant costs (P < 0.01). Over half of the respondents (59.4%) believed value-based payments are coming to orthopaedic trauma. The vast majority (88.5%) believed bundled payments would be unsuccessful or only partially successful. With respect to barriers, a third of respondents (34.7%) indicated accurate cost data prevented the implementation of programs that track and maximize value, another third (31.5%) attributed it to a limited ability to collect patient-reported outcomes, and the rest (33.8%) were split between lack of institutional interest and access to funding. CONCLUSION: Our study indicated the understanding of value in orthopaedic trauma is limited and practice integration is rare. Reported experience in finance was the only factor associated with increased consideration of value-based care in practice. Our results highlight the need for increased exposure and resources to changing health care policy, specifically for orthopaedic traumatologists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.