Practice Changes Induced by a Traveling Fellowship.

The John N. Insall Knee Society Traveling Fellowship selects four international arthroplasty or sports fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons to spend 1 month traveling to various Knee Society members' joint replacement and knee surgery centers in North America. The fellowship aims to foster research and education and shares ideas among fellows and Knee Society members. The role of such traveling fellowships on surgeon preferences has yet to be investigated. A 59-question survey encompassing patient selection, preoperative planning, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative protocols was completed by the four 2018 Insall Traveling Fellows before and immediately after the completion of traveling fellowship to assess anticipated practice changes (e.g., initial excitement) related to their participation in a traveling fellowship. The same survey was completed 4 years after the completion of the traveling fellowship to assess the implementation of the anticipated practice changes. Survey questions were divided into two groups based on levels of evidence in the literature. Immediately after fellowship, there was a median of 6.5 (range: 3-12) anticipated changes in consensus topics and a median of 14.5 (range: 5-17) anticipated changes in controversial topics. There was no statistical difference in the excitement to change consensus or controversial topics (p = 0.921). Four years after completing a traveling fellowship, a median of 2.5 (range: 0-3) consensus topics and 4 (range: 2-6) controversial topics were implemented. There was no statistical difference in the implementation of consensus or controversial topics (p = 0.709). There was a statistically significant decline in the implementation of changes in consensus and controversial preferences compared with the initial level of excitement (p = 0.038 and 0.031, respectively). After the John N. Insall Knee Society Traveling Fellowship, there is excitement for practice change in consensus and controversial topics related to total knee arthroplasty. However, few practice changes that had initial excitement were implemented after 4-year follow-up. Ultimately, the effects of time, practice inertia, and institutional friction overcome most of the anticipated changes induced by a traveling fellowship.

Comparison of Bone Mineral Density in Children and Adolescents on CT Versus DEXA Scan.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional. OBJECTIVES: To determine associations between Hounsfield Units (HU) within a Region of interest (ROI) on CT scans and Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements in children and adolescents. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: HU on CT scans as a proxy for bone mineral density (BMD) is widely used in adults. However, the utility of CT as a proxy for BMD have not been evaluated in children and adolescents. METHODS: Patients younger than 18 years with a lumbar spine CT scan and a DEXA within 6 months of each other were identified. A ROI was used to measure the HU at each lumbar vertebral body on mid-axial cuts. Charts were reviewed for demographics, medical co-morbidities and DEXA reports. Correlation coefficients were calculated between mean DEXA Z-score and HU value. Patients were also stratified by Z-score (≥ -1.0, between -1.0 and -2.0, and ≤-2.0) and matched by age and BMI to a cohort of healthy children and compared. RESULTS: A moderate correlation between mean DEXA Z-score and mean HU on CT was found (r2=0.42, P<0.001). After matching for age and BMI, 21 patients in each group between the age of 4 and 17 years were analyzed. The mean HU value of the control group was 231.69. When stratified by Z-score (≥ -1.0, between -1.0 and -2.0, and ≤-2.0), the mean HU values were 244.59, 216.50, and 176.54, respectively. Patients with a Z-score of ≤-2.0 had a significantly lower mean HU than age matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: HU on lumbar CT in children and adolescents with DEXA Z-scores less than -2.0, were lower when compared to healthy age and BMI matched controls. This study suggests that HU on opportunistic CT scans of the spine may be used as a reasonable proxy for BMD in the pediatric population.

Relationship between industry royalty and licensing payments and patent authorship among orthopedic spine surgeons.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices, medical supplies, and biologics to record all financial relationships with physicians in the Open Payments database with the goal of increasing transparency for patients and the general public. The majority of total money going to orthopedic surgeons has been found to go to a small number of surgeons in the form of royalties and licensing payments. This category of payment is intended to compensate physicians for use of their intellectual property. However, little research has been done to investigate the degree to which these physicians own intellectual property. PURPOSE: To the authors' knowledge, the association between patents and industry payments to orthopedic surgeons has not been explored. We quantify the association between the patents and academic productivity of orthopedic spine surgeons and the amount of royalty and licensing fees they receive. We then compared this with the associations observed for other categories of payments. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study METHODS: Top royalty and licensing earners, defined as those who collectively earned 50% of all royalty and licensing payments over the period August 2013-December 2018, were identified. The h-index, publication count, and patent count of this group were compared with top earners of other payment categories using the Mann-Whitney U test. The association between (1) earnings and patent counts, (2) earnings and manuscript counts, and (3) earnings and h-index among the top royalty and licensing earners was assessed using Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Top royalty and licensing earners had significantly more patents than every comparison group except the top earners of money derived from ownership in a biomedical company. For this one exception, there was a trend toward the top eight royalty and licensing earners having more patents (p=.054). The top royalty and licensing earners had significantly more manuscripts than three of the five comparison groups and significantly higher h-indices than four of the five comparison groups. Among the top royalty and licensing earners, receiving more royalty and licensing payments was associated with holding more patents, but not with publishing more papers or having higher h-indices. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between the number of patents authored by individual orthopedic spine surgeons and the amount of royalty and licensing fees they receive from industry. This supports the hypothesis that these payments serve as compensation to inventor-surgeons for their intellectual property. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings provide new, important context for the largest category of industry payments to orthopedic spine surgeons and suggests that physicians' patents should be considered when evaluating financial transactions between industry and physicians.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking-Cessation Interventions Prior to Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation represents an opportunity to reduce both short and long-term effects of smoking on complications after lumbar fusion and smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the cost-effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions prior to lumbar fusion is not fully known. METHODS: We created a decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 5 smoking-cessation strategies (behavioral counseling, nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], bupropion or varenicline monotherapy, and a combined intervention) prior to single-level, instrumented lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) from the health payer perspective. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published sources. We calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with each strategy over multiple time horizons and accounted for uncertainty with probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) consisting of 10,000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: Every smoking-cessation intervention was more effective and less costly than usual care at the lifetime horizon. In the short term, behavioral counseling, NRT, varenicline monotherapy, and the combined intervention were also cost-saving, while bupropion monotherapy was more effective but more costly than usual care. The mean lifetime cost savings for behavioral counseling, NRT, bupropion monotherapy, varenicline monotherapy, and the combined intervention were $3,291 (standard deviation [SD], $868), $2,571 (SD, $479), $2,851 (SD, $830), $6,767 (SD, $1,604), and $34,923 (SD, $4,248), respectively. The minimum efficacy threshold (relative risk for smoking cessation) for lifetime cost savings varied from 1.01 (behavioral counseling) to 1.15 (varenicline monotherapy). A PSA revealed that the combined smoking-cessation intervention was always more effective and less costly than usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Even brief smoking-cessation interventions yield large short-term and long-term cost savings. Smoking-cessation interventions prior to PLF can both reduce costs and improve patient outcomes as health payers/systems shift toward value-based reimbursement (e.g., bundled payments) or population health models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.