Complications and opioid-prescribing patterns following genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation versus intra-articular injection: a matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GNRFA) is an emerging procedure used to relieve pain from severe knee osteoarthritis. While there have been rare reports of significant complications, their incidence has not been well established. The objective of this study was to examine complication rates at 30 and 90 days post treatment as well as characterize opioid-prescribing patterns before and after treatment. METHODS: A large national database was queried to identify patients undergoing GNRFA from 2015 to 2022 and matched to control cohorts composed of patients receiving either intra-articular corticosteroid (CSI) or hyaluronic acid injection (HAI) of the knee. Complication rates at 30 and 90 days were analyzed. Opioid utilization was assessed in the 6 months before and after treatment. RESULTS: Rates of infection (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), septic arthritis (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5%), deep vein thrombosis (2.0%, CI 1.3% to 2.7% vs 1.6%, CI 1.0% to 2.2%), pulmonary embolism (1.2%, CI 0.6% to 1.7% vs 1.3%, CI 1.1% to 2.5%), bleeding (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), seroma (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%) and thermal injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%) were not different between CSI and GNRFA cohorts at 30 days. Rate of swelling was significantly greater in the GNRFA cohort (9.4%, CI 7.6% to 10.4% vs 6.4%, CI 4.8% to 7.2%, p=0.003) at 30 days. At 90 days, rates of septic arthritis (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.3%, CI 0.08% to 0.7%), deep vein thrombosis (3.1%, CI 2.1% to 3.8% vs 3.1%, CI 2.2% to 3.9%), pulmonary embolism (1.5%, CI 0.9% to 2.1% vs 1.8%, CI 1.2% to 2.5%), and nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs <0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4%) were not significantly different.Between HAI versus GNRFA cohorts, no significant differences were seen in rates of infection (0.3%, CI 0.08% to 0.07% vs 0.7%, CI 0.3% to 1.2%), septic arthritis (0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6% vs 0.4%, CI 0.2% to 0.9%), deep vein thrombosis (2.0%, CI 1.3% to 2.7% vs 1.9%, CI 1.2% to 2.7%), pulmonary embolism (1.5%, CI 0.9% to 2.2% vs 1.7%, CI 1.1% to 2.5%), bleeding (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), seroma (<0.1%, CI 0.03% to 0.4% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), swelling (14.0%, CI 11.6% to 15.1% vs 12.0%, CI 10.3% to 13.6%), and thermal injury (<0.1%, CI 0.03% to 0.4% vs <0.01%, CI 0.3% to 0.4%) at 30 days. Rates of infection (0.7%, CI 0.3% to 1.2% vs 1.4%, CI 0.9% to 2.1%), septic arthritis (0.3%, CI 0.1% to 0.8% vs 0.5%, CI 0.2% to 1.1%), deep vein thrombosis (3.6%, CI 2.6% to 4.4% vs 3.1%, CI 2.2% to 4.0%), pulmonary embolism (2.3%, CI 1.5% to 3.0% vs 2.1%, CI 1.4% to 3.0%) and nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5%) were not significantly different at 90 days.There were no significant differences in level of pretreatment opioid utilization although overall consumption in mean daily morphine equivalents was greater in the GNRFA cohort. Opioid utilization significantly increased in the first 30 days after ablation in patients with no prior opioid use compared to controls. In patients with some and chronic prior opioid use, opioid requirements were generally decreased in all treatment groups at 6 months with no clearly superior treatment in reducing opioid consumption. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that GNRFA possesses a safety profile similar to that of intra-articular injections although significant adverse events such as venous thromboembolism and septic arthritis may occur rarely. Although opioid utilization generally increased in the 30 days after ablation compared with intra-articular injection, similar reduction in opioid consumption at 6 months was seen in patients with prior opioid use in the ablation and control cohorts.

COVID-19-Related Publications by Hospitalists in the United States.

Objective To determine the degree to which hospitalists published academic manuscripts related to COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic. Patients and methods The study was a cross-sectional analysis of the author's specialty, defined by byline or professional online biography, from articles related to COVID-19 published between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. It included the top four internal medicine journals by impact factor: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Participants were all United States (US)-based physician authors contributing to COVID-19 publications. Our primary outcome was the percentage of US-based physician authors of COVID-19 articles who were hospitalists. Subgroup analyses characterized author specialty by authorship position (first, middle, last) and article type (research vs. non-research). Results Between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021, the top four US-based medical journals published 870 articles related to COVID-19 of which 712 articles with 1940 US-based physician authors were included. Hospitalists accounted for 4.2% (82) of authorship positions including 4.7% (49/1038) of authorship positions in research articles and 3.7% (33/902) of authorship positions in non-research articles. First, middle, and last authorship positions were held by hospitalists at 3.7% (18/485), 4.4% (45/1034), and 4.5% (19/421) of the time, respectively. Conclusions Despite caring for a large number of patients with COVID-19, hospitalists were rarely involved in disseminating COVID-19 knowledge. Limited authorship by hospitalists could constrain the dissemination of inpatient medicine knowledge, impact patient outcomes, and affect the academic promotion of early-career hospitalists.

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages. OBJECTIVE: Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals. RESULTS: During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women. CONCLUSIONS: Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Lateral Capsular Meniscal Tear in a Cross-country Runner.

Tears of the meniscal capsular junction present unique diagnostic and treatment challenges for practitioners because they are rich in blood supply yet often not visualized on magnetic resonance imaging. The authors report the case of a young man with a meniscal capsular junction tear, difficulties related to his diagnosis, and his short-term outcomes following surgical treatment. An 18-year-old male cross-country runner presented to the authors for nonradiating lateral right knee pain after a failed course of physical therapy. This tear was only definitively diagnosed after inconclusive magnetic resonance imaging, an ultrasound-guided cortisone injection, and a direct arthroscopic visualization. He underwent an uncomplicated repair of his meniscal capsular junction tear with injection into the repair of bone marrow aspirate concentration taken from his iliac crest. At his 6-month follow-up visit, he had returned to cross-country running, achieved satisfactory Knee Outcome Scores, and reported minimal pain per the visual analog scale. This case is unique in that meniscal capsular junction tears often occur at the posteromedial portion. Given the rarity of these injuries, future studies should focus on longer-term outcomes following surgical repair of meniscal capsular junction tears and which techniques may portend to superior outcomes. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(6):e1201-e1204.].