Does Medicaid payer status affect patient's shoulder outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Low socioeconomic status and Medicaid insurance as a primary payer have been shown to influence resource utilization and risk-adjusted outcomes for total joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of Medicaid primary payer status on outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty (SA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of shoulder surgery patients was undertaken to identify a matched cohort of 51 patients who underwent SA and were stratified based on insurance type into two cohorts: 28 Medicaid (M) patients and 23 non-Medicaid (NM) patients. Baseline demographics, resource utilization, and outcomes were compared as well as pre-and-postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and functional scores. PRO scores included the American shoulder and elbow surgeons score (ASES), the Penn shoulder score (PSS), and the subjective shoulder value (SSV). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, or preoperative baseline scores between the cohorts, except for age (M: 55.3 years; NM: 67.5 years; p ≤ 0.001) and smoking status (M: 13 patients; NM: 4 patients; p = 0.029). Medicaid patients showed a slightly higher rate of missed follow-ups (M: 1.1 vs. NM: 0.9; p = 0.370). All Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients experienced significant improvement on PRO scores and active forward flexion. Medicaid patients demonstrated equivalent final postoperative scores for ASES (M: 65; NM: 57; p = 0.454), PSS (M: 63; NM: 51; p = 0.242), SSV (M: 70; NM: 69; p = 1.0) and range of motion measurements. DISCUSSION: Overall results suggest that Medicaid patients can expect significant improvement after SA and the same level of PRO's compared to non-Medicaid-insured population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Design, Treatment Study.

Relationship between hospital size and teaching status on outcomes for reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) continues to grow with expanding indications and increased surgeon awareness. Previous data for other lower extremity joint replacements indicate that high-volume centers have better outcomes, with lower complication rates, decreased length of stay, and complications for both hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of hospital size and setting on adverse events for RSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database was queried for RSA performed using ICD-9 codes. Primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), total hospital charges, discharge disposition, and postoperative complications. Odds ratios were used to assess the risk of inpatient postoperative complications. RESULTS: A weighted national estimate of 24,056 discharges for patients undergoing RSA was included in the study. Patients at larger hospitals experienced higher total charges, increased average LOS, and slightly higher complication rates compared to those of small and medium hospitals. Patients in larger hospitals had significantly increased rates of genitourinary and central nervous system complications, while patients in small/medium hospitals experienced higher rates of hematoma/seroma. CONCLUSION: Results from this study indicate that large and non-teaching hospitals overall tend to burden the patients with higher hospital charges, longer hospital stay, and more frequent non-routine discharges. Also, larger hospitals are associated with higher risk of genitourinary and central nervous system complications rates, whereas non-teaching hospitals are associated with lower risk of infection and higher risk of anemia after RSA. With the growth in RSA in the USA, continued attention needs to be placed on improving outcomes and resource utilization for RSA patients even in larger hospitals.

3D preoperative planning for humeral head selection in total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Recreation of glenohumeral biomechanics and humeral anatomy has been shown to improve outcomes in shoulder arthroplasty. Recent research has focused on utilizing simulation software and intraoperative instrumentation to improve glenoid implant selection and positioning, but no study had evaluated the reliability of new features in 3D preoperative planning software for humeral planning in total shoulder arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative plans were created for 26 patients using three different simulation software programs: an independent preoperative planning simulation (IPPS) software (OrthoVis) and two automated manufacturers preoperative simulation systems: ArthrexVIP™ (AMPS I) and Tornier Blueprint™ 3D Planning (AMPS II). Preoperative plans were compared for reliability and consistency among different software systems based on available variables including humeral head diameter (HD) and head height (HH). RESULTS: The measured HD was consistent between the three systems with a maximum mean difference of 0.2 mm for HD among IPPS, AMPS I, and AMPS II (p = 0.964). There was a significant difference in measured humeral HH with 1.7 mm difference between IPPS and AMPS II (p ≤ 0.001). The strongest correlation when comparing humeral head measurements (diameter or height) obtained from all systems was seen between IPPS and AMPS I for humeral HD (r = 0.8; p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: There was a high level of consistency between independent and manufacturer preoperative planning software for humeral head measurements. These preoperative planning systems can improve efficiency and workflow during surgery by guiding surgeons on implant size selection to optimally reconstruct the glenohumeral kinematics, in order to improve patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, study of nonconsecutive patients and without a universally applied "gold" standard study of diagnostic test.

The effect of Medicaid payer status on patient outcomes following repair of massive rotator cuff tears.

BACKGROUND: The influence of socioeconomic status and insurance type has not been studied extensively for RCR, particularly not in the high risk massive RCT population. The purpose of this study is to identify relationships between Medicaid payer status and patient outcomes following massive RCR. METHODS: A retrospective review of shoulder surgery database identified 29 patients undergoing massive rotator cuff repair. Patients were stratified based on insurance type into two cohorts, Medicaid (14 patients) and non-Medicaid (15 patients). Missed routine follow-up appointments and comorbidities were recorded and compared between groups. Group comparisons were made for pre- and postoperative patient-reported and functional outcomes. Outcome scores included American Shoulder and Elbow Shoulder Score (ASES), the Penn Shoulder Score, and the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant for all statistical analyses. RESULTS: Medicaid patients were on average 7.1 years younger than non-Medicaid patients (49.8 vs. 56.9 years, respectively), and remaining demographics were comparable between groups. Preoperative patient-reported outcomes were only significantly different for ASES and ASES pain (p = 0.010, 0.037). There was excellent average improvement for Medicaid patients but no significant differences compared to non-Medicaid patients for ASES (p = 0.630), PENN scores (p = 0.395), and SSV (p = 0.198). Medicaid patients also had a higher number of missed and canceled appointments (28%) compared to non-Medicaid patients (18%). CONCLUSION: Medicaid coverage will expand to millions of uninsured Americans under current healthcare reform. Medicaid patients with massive RCT appear to significantly improve with surgical treatment.