Impact of consensus guideline publication on the timing of elective pediatric umbilical hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics published consensus guidelines advising observation of asymptomatic umbilical hernias until age 4 or 5, given unnecessary risks of early intervention and substantial practice variation. Yet, the impact of guidelines on early repair (age <4) or if certain groups remain at risk for avoidable intervention is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from children's hospitals participating in the Pediatric Health Information System database. Children aged 17 years and younger who underwent umbilical hernia repair from July 2017 to August 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Children with recurrent hernias, an emergency, or urgent presentation were excluded. An interrupted time series using segmented multivariable logistic regression estimated the association of guideline publication in November 2019 with the odds of guideline-adherent repair (age ≥4) after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and hospital-level random effects. RESULTS: 16,544 children underwent repair, of which 3,115 (18.8%) were children <4 years old. After adjustment, guideline publication was associated with an immediate increase in guideline-adherent repairs (odds ratio = 1.25 95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.49). The interrupted time series found that each month after publication was associated with a 2% increase in the odds of guideline-adherent repair (odds ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.03). Children with public insurance were nearly 20% less likely to receive guideline-adherent repair than privately insured children (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.74-0.91). Children in the Midwest had lower odds of guideline-adherent repair (Midwest versus Northeast: odds ratio = 0.45. 95% confidence interval = 0.24-0.84). CONCLUSION: Guideline publication was associated with greater odds of guideline-adherent repair, yet public insurance coverage and Midwest location remain significant predictors of early repair against recommendations.

Quality Metrics in Hand Surgery: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 placed an emphasis on measuring the quality of care. However, the issue of how best to measure quality remains in question. Although some surgical specialties frequently rely on quality measures such as the mortality rate, measuring quality in hand surgery necessitates the use of metrics beyond this traditional scope. A review was performed of the potential quality metrics used in the hand surgery literature published after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, to identify current trends in quality measurement and guide efforts to improve the quality of care in hand surgery. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify original research articles within hand surgery to assess how care is being measured. Data extracted from the articles included study characteristics, quality metrics, and the domain(s) of quality. RESULTS: A total of 7,308 articles were identified, and 63 prospective and retrospective articles were included in the analysis. The most common quality measure reported in the hand surgery literature was an outcome measure (100%) and the least common was a structure measure (30.2%). The most common metrics were pain (44.4%) and patient-reported measures (41.3%). Effectiveness (42.9%) was the most frequently assessed domain of quality, whereas efficiency (3.2%) was the least studied. CONCLUSIONS: We identified quality measures used in contemporary hand surgery literature and found a substantial variation in the representation of quality metrics. Structure and process measures can be leveraged to provide a more holistic assessment of the quality of care in hand surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although outcome measurements are critical to understanding effectiveness, structure and process measures should be considered and reported as necessary, because these metrics may influence treatment outcomes and the development of quality measures.

Insurance Reimbursement in Plastic Surgery.

SUMMARY: The ambiguity of medical finances, both to the patient and to the provider, has direct effects on the quality of care that is delivered to the patient. To encourage transparency in health care, physician reimbursement is a process that must be understood to ensure patient satisfaction, a physician's willingness to deliver care, and the success of health care facilities. Furthermore, physicians should be aware of the effects that legislative action, such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has on their income. As a field that encompasses both cosmetic and reconstructive surgery, plastic surgeons must know this process intimately to ensure efficient services and appropriate reimbursement. In particular, plastic surgeons should be familiar with how the Affordable Care Act affects their income, practice, and the patient's access to care. As Medicare and Medicaid continue to increase health care access for many Americans, specialists such as plastic surgeons will need to reinforce the value of the specialty in the continuum of care. As the health care industry moves away from a fee-for-service system to one of value-based care, plastic surgeons need to be at the forefront of this transition to ensure that they are delivering quality care, and receiving appropriate reimbursement. The authors have provided data from the University of Michigan to demonstrate the reimbursement patterns seen in plastic surgery. This Special Topic article provides insight into the reimbursement process in the era of the Affordable Care Act and the various challenges that may be encountered within this field.

Efficacy of Nonoperative Treatments for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylitis is a common overuse injury affecting approximately 1 to 3 percent of the population. Although symptoms may disappear spontaneously within 1 year, the clinical guidelines for conservative treatment are not clear. The authors' objective was to examine the outcomes of nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis through a meta-analysis and provide a treatment recommendation using the available evidence. METHODS: The authors searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify primary research articles studying conservative treatments (electrophysiotherapy, physical therapy, and injections) for lateral epicondylitis. The authors included randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. Data related to outcomes (pain, grip strength, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score) and complications were extracted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Electrophysiotherapy was effective in improving pain [mean difference, -10.0 (95 percent CI, -13.8 to -6.1)], Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score [mean difference, -10.7 (95 percent CI, -16.3 to -5.0)], and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score [mean difference, -11.9 (95 percent CI, -15.8 to -7.9)]; and physical therapy improved pain [mean difference, -6.0 (95 percent CI, -9.7 to -2.3)] and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores [mean difference, -7.5 (95 percent CI, -11.8 to -3.2)] compared to placebo. Injections did not improve any outcome measures. Patients who received electrophysiotherapy and injections reported higher adverse effects than physical therapy patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received electrophysiotherapy and physical therapy reported statistically and clinically improved scores in pain and function compared to placebo. Injections may put patients at higher risk for adverse effects compared to other conservative treatments. When managing lateral epicondylitis conservatively, electrophysiotherapy and physical therapy should be prioritized before other interventions. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

Articulating the "So, What?" in Clinical Research: Insight from the M-CHOIR Group.

With the academic culture of "publish or perish," authors must ensure that they are delivering high-quality data with a meaningful impact on clinical practice. Even for physician-scientists at the top of their fields, establishing the relevance of a study to clinical practice is a challenge. Thus, it is essential that research proposals ask questions that are clinically important, use appropriate methodologies, and examine outcomes that are relevant to both the physicians and the patients. The question of "so, what?" or in other words, "who cares?" is one that can make or break a study's impact on clinical practice. Researchers should use models such as PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design) and FINER (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant) and ask why readers will care about their study's findings before the study is conducted. By doing so, researchers can ensure the successful execution of their study and a meaningful impact of their findings, in both academia and clinical practice. This Special Topic article aims to guide researchers in producing relevant, impactful conclusions of their studies by providing input and resources from the Michigan Center for Hand Outcomes and Innovation (M-CHOIR) group.

Mitigating Biases in a Cohort Study: A Critical Examination of the Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis Study.

Research bias, or the systematic errors of a study, can arise before, during, or after a trial ends. These biases hinder the internal validity of the study, which is the accuracy of a study's conclusions regarding the effects of an intervention on a given group of subjects. With the growing use of evidence-based medicine, there is a demand for high-quality evidence from the research community. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence, followed by individual randomized controlled trials. However, most surgical trials cannot be conducted as randomized controlled trials because of factors such as patient preferences and lack of equipoise among surgeons. Therefore, surgical trials may lack features that are held as important standards for high-quality evidence, such as randomization and blinding. To demonstrate the biases that surgical trials may encounter, the authors examined a prospective cohort study, the Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis study. The authors focus on the challenges that arise during a surgical trial, including the design, implementation, and methods used to report the clinical evidence. By recognizing and addressing obstacles that exist in research, investigators will provide health care providers with high-quality evidence needed to make well-informed, evidence-based clinical decisions.

Implementing Precision Medicine and Artificial Intelligence in Plastic Surgery: Concepts and Future Prospects.

Precision medicine, or the individualization of evidence-based medicine, is forthcoming. As surgeons, we must be prepared for the integration of patient and system factors. Plastic surgeons regard themselves as innovators and early adopters. As such, we need our adaptability now more than ever to implement digital advancements and precision medicine into our practices. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and the capture of big data techniques should foster the next great leaps in medicine and surgery, allowing us to capture the detailed minutiae of precision medicine. The algorithmic process of artificial neural networks will guide large-scale analysis of data, including features such as pattern recognition and rapid quantification, to organize and distribute data to surgeons seamlessly. This vast digital collection of information, commonly termed "big data," is only one potential application of AI. By incorporating big data, the cognitive abilities of a surgeon can be complemented by the computer to improve patient-centered care. Furthermore, the use of AI will provide individual patients with increased access to the broadening world of precision medicine. Therefore, plastic surgeons must learn how to use AI within the contexts of our practices to keep up with an evolving field in medicine. Although rudimentary in its practice, we present a glimpse of the potential applications of AI in plastic surgery to incorporate the practice of precision medicine into the care that we deliver.

Writing an Evidence-based Article in Plastic Surgery: Translating Research into High-quality Care.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a triad that integrates the physician's medical expertise and the patient's individual characteristics with the best available scientific evidence. As patients become more active in the clinical decision-making process, the application of evidence-based practice in the field of plastic surgery is more critical now than ever. As a field that is recognized by its innovation, plastic surgeons must understand the various aspects of EBM to enhance and keep the field at the top of medical discovery. Many initiatives have been implemented to guide researchers in the collection, analysis, and distribution of high-quality evidence. In particular, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery introduced a new EBM series to provide plastic surgeons with the appropriate resources to generate and integrate high-quality evidence into their practices. As a part of this initiative, this article will assist researchers in producing an evidence-based article that is well-written, relevant, and impactful to incorporate evidence-based practice into the specialty.