Declining trend in osteoporosis management and screening following vertebral compression fractures - a national analysis of commercial insurance and medicare advantage beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite the increasing national incidence, osteoporosis and its associated comanagement, often remain an overlooked issue in the orthopedic world. Screening and associated management of osteoporosis is often only considered by providers when patients present with multiple fragility fractures. Current evidence with regard to the trends in screening and medical comanagement/antiosteoporotic therapy of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) remains limited. PURPOSE: To understand trends, costs, and clinical impact associated the utilization of antiosteoporotic medication and screening with the 1 year following occurrences of sentinel/primary osteoporotic VCFs. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of 2008-2015Q3 Humana Administrative Claims (HAC) database. PATIENT SAMPLE: The 2008-2015Q3 HAC database was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition (ICD-9) diagnosis codes 805.2 and 805.4 to identify patients with primary closed osteoporotic thoracolumbar VCFs. Patients with a concurrent diagnosis of trauma and/or malignancy were excluded. Patients experiencing a fragility fracture of the hip, distal radius or proximal humerus, and/or those already on osteoporotic medications within the year before the VCF were excluded to prevent an overlap in the screening and/or antiresorptive medication rates. Finally, only those patients who had complete 2-year follow-up data were analyzed. OUTCOME MEASURES: To understand trends over time in the utilization of medication for osteoporosis and screening within 1 year following sentinel VCFs. The study also aimed to report per-prescription and per-patient average costs associated with different antiosteoporotic medications. As secondary objectives, we also assessed (1) risk factors associated with not receiving antiosteoporotic medication within the year following sentinel VCFs and (2) differences in rates of experiencing a secondary fragility fracture of vertebrae, hip, distal radius, and proximal humerus between patients who received medication following the sentinel VCF versus those who did not receive any medication. RESULTS: A total of 6,464 primary osteoporotic VCFs were retrieved from the database. A majority of the VCFs were seen in females (N=5,199; 80.4%). Only 28.8% (N=1,860) patients received some form of medication for osteoporosis medication in the year following the VCF. Over a 6-year interval, treatment with medication for osteoporosis declined from 38% in 2008 to 24% in 2014. The average cost of antiosteoporotic treatment per patient was $1,511. The most commonly prescribed treatment and associated average cost/patient was alendronate sodium (N=1,239; 66.6% to $120/patient). The most costly prescribed treatment was Forteo (N=177; 2.7%) with an average cost/patient of $12,074 and cost/injection being $2,373. Only 36.7% (N=2,371) received a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry/bone density scan in the year following the VCF with an average cost/patient of $76. Risk factors associated with no prescription of medication for osteoporosis within 1 year of VCF were male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.17 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.01-1.35]; p=.027), history of cerebrovascular accident/stroke (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.08-2.32]; p=.022), history of diabetes mellitus (OR 1.28 [95% CI 1.04-1.58]; p=.023). Of note, patients in the West versus Midwest (OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.04-1.51]; p=.016) and commercial insurance beneficiaries (OR 1.95 [95% CI 1.08-3.52]; p=.027) were more likely to receive antiosteoporotic medication. Patients who were placed on antiosteoporotic medication were significantly less likely to suffer a second fragility fracture compared with patients that did not receive medication (OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.24-0.31]; p=.033). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients starting antiosteoporotic medication within a year after a VCF remains low (28.8%). Furthermore, a declining trend of antiosteoporotic medication prescription was noted over time. Providers who care for patients with sentinel VCFs need to be more diligent in their efforts to diagnose and treat the underlying osteoporosis to reduce the burden of future fragility fractures.

A descriptive model for a multidisciplinary unit for colorectal and pelvic malformations.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with anorectal malformations (ARM), Hirschsprung disease (HD), and colonic motility disorders often require care from specialists across a variety of fields, including colorectal surgery, urology, gynecology, and GI motility. We sought to describe the process of creating a collaborative process for the care of these complex patients. METHODS: We developed a model of a devoted center for these conditions that includes physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and advanced practice nurses. Our weekly planning strategy includes a meeting with representatives of all specialties to review all patients prior to evaluation in our multidisciplinary clinic, followed by combined exams under anesthesia or surgical intervention as needed. RESULTS: There are 31 people working directly in the Center at present. From the Center's start in 2014 until 2017, 1258 patients were cared for from all 50 United States and 62 countries. 360 patients had an ARM (110 had a cloacal malformation, 11 had cloacal exstrophy), 223 presented with HD, 71 had a spinal malformation or injury causing neurogenic bowel, 321 had severe functional constipation or colonic dysmotility, and 162 had other diagnoses including familial polyposis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis. We have had 170 multidisciplinary meetings, 170 multispecialty outpatient, and 52 nurse practitioner clinics. In our bowel management program we have seen a total of 514 patients in 36 sessions. CONCLUSION: This is the first report describing the design of a multidisciplinary team approach for patients with colorectal and complex pelvic malformations. We found that approaching these patients in a collaborative way allows for combined medical and surgical decisions with many providers simultaneously, facilitates therapy, and can potentially improve patient outcomes. We hope that this model will help establish new-devoted centers in other locations to encourage centralized care for these rare malformations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Surgical Navigation Improves the Precision and Accuracy of Tibial Component Alignment in Canine Total Knee Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine whether computer-assisted surgical navigation improves the accuracy of tibial component alignment in canine total knee replacement (TKR). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective radiographic review and prospective ex vivo study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Canine TKR radiographs (n = 17 sets) and canine cadaveric stifles (n = 12). METHODS: Radiographs from TKR surgical workshops were reviewed to determine the incidence and magnitude of tibial component malalignment. Tibial component alignment was compared after either standard ("surgeon-guided") component placement or computer-assisted ("navigation-guided") placement. Results were compared against the current recommendations of a neutral (0° varus-valgus) ostectomy in the frontal plane and 6° of caudal slope in the sagittal plane. A prospective cadaveric study was then undertaken by performing TKR in 12 canine stifle joints. RESULTS: Malalignment of >3° in the frontal and sagittal planes was identified in 12% and 24% of the radiographs from the retrospective review, respectively. Surgical navigation reduced both the mean error (P = .007) and the variability in frontal plane alignment (P < .001) as compared with surgeon-guided procedures. The mean error in sagittal plane alignment was not significantly different (P = .321), but variability in alignment was significantly lower when navigation was used (P = .008). CONCLUSION: Surgical navigation significantly improved accuracy and decreased variability in tibial component alignment in canine TKR. Clinical trials would be required to determine whether these improvements in surgical accuracy lead to better clinical outcomes in terms of joint function and a reduction in long-term implant wear.