Static Non-articulating Knee Spacers Are Associated with a High Degree of Morbidity in Challenging Clinical Scenarios.

The morbidity associated with the use of static non-articulating knee spacers for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in challenging clinical scenarios has not been well described. From 2011-2019, 63 molded block static spacers were utilized at two academic institutions for the treatment of PJI with associated severe soft tissue compromise (59%), collateral ligament deficiency (49%), extensor mechanism compromise (48%), or type 3 bone defects (44%). Complications and outcomes were assessed. Complications with the use of static spacers were common and included further bone loss (46%), spacer migration (16%), extensor mechanism compromise (16%), cast or related soft tissue injuries (16%), fracture (13%), and spacer breakage (3%). Ultimately, 22% of patients underwent amputation. Patient variables such as age and body mass index were not associated with outcomes. Static knee spacers are associated with substantial morbidity in challenging clinical scenarios and alternatives may need to be considered. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 32(2):122-126, 2023).

Higher cost of arthroplasty for hip fractures in patients transferred from outside hospitals vs primary emergency department presentation.

BACKGROUND: In 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed bundled payments for hip fractures to improve the quality and decrease costs of care. Patients transferred from other facilities may be imposing a financial risk on the hospitals that accept these patients. AIM: To determine the costs associated with patients that either presented to the emergency department or were transferred from another hospital or skilled nursing facility (SNF) with the diagnosis of a hip fracture requiring operative intervention. METHODS: A retrospective single institution review was conducted for all arthroplasty patients from 2010 to 2015. Inclusion criteria included a total or partial hip replacement for a hip fracture. Exclusion criteria included pathologic, periprosthetic, and fracture non-union. Data was collected to compare total observed costs for patients from the emergency department, patients from skilled nursing facilities, and patients from an outside hospital. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients met the inclusion criteria. 135 (60.54%) of these patients presented primarily to the emergency department, 58 patients (26.01%) were transferred from an outside hospital, and 30 patients (13.43%) were transferred from a SNF. Cost data analysis showed that outside hospital patients demonstrated significantly greater total cost for their hospitalization ($43302) compared to emergency department patients ($28875, P = 0.000) and SNF patients ($28282, P = 0.000). CONCLUSION: Patients transferred from an outside hospital incurred greater costs for their hospitalization than patients presenting from an emergency department or SNF. This is a strong argument for risk-adjustment models when bundling payments for the care of hip fracture patients.

Reimbursements for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Have Increased for Hospitals but Not for Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: With increases in total hip arthroplasty procedures the need for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has increased as well. This study aims to analyze the trends in hospital charges and payments relative to corresponding surgeon charges and payments in a Medicare population for rTHA for aseptic revisions, stage 1 and stage 2 revisions. METHODS: The 5% Medicare sample database was used to capture hospital and surgeon charges and payments related to 4449 patients undergoing aseptic revision, 517 for stage 1 revision, and 300 for stage 2 revision in between the years 2004 and 2014. Two values were calculated: (1) the ratio of hospital to surgeon charges (CM) and (2) the ratio of hospital to surgeon payments (PM). Year-to-year variation and trends in patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), length of stay (LOS), CM, and PM were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean CCI for aseptic revisions and stage 1 revisions did not significantly change (P < .088 and P < .063). The CCI slightly increased for stage 2 revisions (P < .04). The mean LOS decreased significantly over time in all 3 procedure types. The CM increased by 39% (P < .02) in aseptic revisions, 109% in stage 1 revisions (P < .001) but did not significantly change in stage 2 revisions (P < .877). PM for aseptic revisions increased around 103% (P < .001), 107% for stage 1 revisions (P < .001), and 9.7% for stage 2 revisions (P < .176). CONCLUSION: Hospital charges and payments relative to surgeon charges and payments have increased substantially for THA aseptic revisions, stage 1 revisions, and stage 2 revisions despite stable patient complexity and decreasing LOS.

Preoperative Pain Management: Is Tramadol a Safe Alternative to Traditional Opioids Before Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Preoperative opioid use has been associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher rates of prolonged opioid use following lower extremity arthroplasty. Tramadol has been recommended for management of osteoarthritis-related pain; however, outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients taking tramadol in the preoperative period have not been well described. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of preoperative tramadol use on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing elective THA. METHODS: A total of 5304 patients who underwent primary THA for degenerative hip pathology from 2008 to 2014 were identified using the Humana Claims Database. Patients were grouped by preoperative pain management modality into 3 mutually exclusive populations including tramadol, traditional opioid, or nonopioid only. A multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate all postsurgical outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Tramadol users had an increased risk of developing prolonged narcotic use (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; confidence interval [CI], 1.89-2.49; P < .001) following surgery compared to nonopioid-only users. When compared to traditional opioid use, tramadol use was associated with decreased risk of subsequent 90-day minor medical complications (OR, 0.75; CI, 0.62-0.90; P = .002), emergency department visits (OR, 0.70; CI, 0.57-0.85; P < .001), and prolonged narcotic use (OR, 0.43; CI, 0.37-0.49; P < .001). Traditional opioid use significantly increased length of stay by 0.20 days (P = .001) when compared to tramadol use. CONCLUSION: Preoperative tramadol use is associated with prolonged opioid use following THA but is not associated with other postoperative complications. Patients taking tramadol preoperatively appear to have a lower risk of postoperative complications compared to patients taking traditional opioids preoperatively.

Corrections in alpha angle following two different operative approaches for CAM-type femoral acetabular impingement - Ganz surgical hip dislocation vs anterior mini-open.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a predisposing factor for secondary osteoarthritis of the hip joint. The two extensively described impingement mechanisms of FAI are CAM and Pincer-type. Initially managed conservatively, operative intervention should be offered to the persistently symptomatic patient. The measurement of the alpha angle is considered a standard method of assessing the severity of pathology in Cam-type FAI on pre-operative plain radiographs. The radiological correction of the alpha angle has not been previously compared between different surgical approaches. We hypothesize that there is no difference in alpha angle correction between Ganz surgical hip dislocation and the anterior mini-open approach. AIM: To compare the magnitude of alpha angle correction achieved by using the Ganz surgical hip dislocation and the anterior mini-open approach. METHODS: This is a retrospective study assessing seventy-nine patients identified in a 5-year period. These patients had preoperative radiographic evidence of FAI and underwent surgery by a single surgeon at our institution, a tertiary care center. Patients with missing radiographic documentation, radiographs with insufficient quality which then precluded accurate measurement of the angle α, a diagnosed congenital condition, isolated type II pathology (Pincer), and history of prior surgery were excluded from the study. Either the Ganz surgical hip dislocation or the anterior mini open approach was used. Postoperative radiographic evaluation of the alpha angle between the two surgical methods was done and corrected for age and gender using two-sample t-tests and Chi-square analyses. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Forty-seven males (mean age of 35.3, range 16-53) and 32 females (mean age 36.7, range 16-60) were enrolled. Forty-seven patients underwent the anterior mini-open approach, and 32 underwent the Ganz surgical hip dislocation. There were no significant differences in age between the two surgical groups or in pre- and post-operative alpha angles based on patient gender. The mean pre-operative alpha angle for the Ganz surgical hip dislocation group was 88.0 degrees (SD 12.3) and 99.4 degrees (SD 7.2) for the anterior mini-open group. Mean post-operative angles were 49.9 degrees (SD 4.3) for the Ganz surgical hip dislocation and 43.8 (SD 4.3) degrees for the anterior mini-open group. There was a statistically significant difference in patient's pre-operative and post-operative angles (P = 0.000) with both surgical approaches. CONCLUSION: Statistically significant decreases in alpha angle were noted for both surgical techniques, with larger decreases seen in the anterior mini-open group.

Appropriateness of patients transferred with orthopedic injuries: experience of a level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are frequently transferred to a higher level of care for specialized orthopedic care. Many of these transfers are not necessary and waste valuable resources. The purpose of this study was to quantify our own experience and to assess the appropriateness of orthopedic transfers to a level I trauma center emergency department. METHODS: A retrospective review of orthopedic emergency department transfers to a level I trauma center was performed. Data collected included time of transfer, injury severity score (ISS), age, gender, race, orthopedic coverage at transfer institution, and insurance status. Two orthopedic trauma surgeons graded the appropriateness of transfer. A weighted logistic regression model was used to compare dependent and independent variables. RESULTS: A total of 324 patient transfers were reviewed; 65 (20.1%) of them were graded as inappropriate. There was no statistically significant relationship between appropriateness of transfer and age, availability of orthopedic coverage, night/weekend transfer, or insurance status. Regression analysis showed that only ISS (OR 1.130, p = .008) and "polytrauma" (OR 25.39, p < .0001) designation were associated with increased odds ratio of appropriate transfer. The kappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability between the two raters was 0.505 (95% CI, 0.388-0.623) reflecting moderate agreement. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate transfers create a significant medical burden to our health care system using valuable resources. Our study found similar results of inappropriate transfers compared to previous studies. However, we did not find a relationship between insurance status or nights/weekends and transfer appropriateness.