Search

Background: Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs can be substantial financial burdens for patients and may even cause patients to delay or forgo necessary medical procedures. Although overall healthcare costs are rising in the United States, recent trends in patient OOP costs for foot and ankle orthopaedic surgical procedures have not been reported. Fully understanding patient OOP costs for common orthopaedic surgical procedures, such as those performed on the foot and ankle, might help patients and professionals make informed decisions regarding treatment options and demonstrate to policymakers the growing unaffordability of these procedures., Questions/purposes: (1) How do OOP costs for common outpatient foot and ankle surgical procedures for commercially insured patients compare between elective and trauma surgical procedures? (2) How do these OOP costs compare between patients enrolled in various insurance plan types? (3) How do these OOP costs compare between surgical procedures performed in hospital-based outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs)? (4) How have these OOP costs changed over time?, Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative study drawn from a large, longitudinally maintained database. Data on adult patients who underwent elective or trauma outpatient foot or ankle surgical procedures between 2010 and 2020 were extracted using the MarketScan Database, which contains well-delineated cost variables for all patient claims, which are particularly advantageous for assessing OOP costs. Of the 1,031,279 patient encounters initially identified, 41% (427,879) met the inclusion criteria. Demographic, procedural, and financial data were recorded. The median patient age was 50 years (IQR 39 to 57); 65% were women, and more than half of patients were enrolled in preferred provider organization insurance plans. Approximately 75% of surgical procedures were classified as elective (rather than trauma), and 69% of procedures were performed in hospital-based outpatient departments (rather than ASCs). The primary outcome was OOP costs incurred by the patient, which were defined as the sum of the deductible, coinsurance, and copayment paid for each episode of care. Monetary data were adjusted to 2020 USD. A general linear regression, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were used for analysis, as appropriate. Alpha was set at 0.05., Results: For foot and ankle indications, trauma surgical procedures generated higher median OOP costs than elective procedures (USD 942 [IQR USD 150 to 2052] versus USD 568 [IQR USD 51 to 1426], difference of medians USD 374; p < 0.001). Of the insurance plans studied, high-deductible health plans had the highest median OOP costs. OOP costs were lower for procedures performed in ASCs than in hospital-based outpatient departments (USD 645 [IQR USD 114 to 1447] versus USD 681 [IQR USD 64 to 1683], difference of medians USD 36; p < 0.001). This trend was driven by higher coinsurance for hospital-based outpatient departments than for ASCs (USD 391 [IQR USD 0 to 1136] versus USD 337 [IQR USD 0 to 797], difference of medians USD 54; p < 0.001). The median OOP costs for common outpatient foot and ankle surgical procedures increased by 102%, from USD 450 in 2010 to USD 907 in 2020., Conclusion: Rapidly increasing OOP costs of common foot and ankle orthopaedic surgical procedures warrant a thorough investigation of potential cost-saving strategies and initiatives to enhance healthcare affordability for patients. In particular, measures should be taken to reduce underuse of necessary care for patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, such as shorter-term deductible timespans and placing additional regulations on the implementation of these plans. Moreover, policymakers and physicians could consider finding ways to increase the proportion of procedures performed at ASCs for procedure types that have been shown to be equally safe and effective as in hospital-based outpatient departments. Future studies should extend this analysis to publicly insured patients and further investigate the health and financial effects of high-deductible health plans and ASCs, respectively., Level of Evidence: Level III, economic and decision analysis., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2023 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Pain management after foot and ankle surgery must surmount unique challenges that are not present in orthopaedic surgery performed on other parts of the body. However, disparate and inconsistent evidence makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies., Questions/purposes: In this systematic review, we asked: what are (1) the patterns of opioid use or prescription (quantity, duration, incidence of persistent use), (2) factors associated with increased or decreased risk of persistent opioid use, and (3) the clinical outcomes (principally pain relief and adverse events) associated with opioid use in patients undergoing foot or ankle fracture surgery?, Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for our review. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science on October 15, 2021. We included studies published from 2010 to 2021 that assessed patterns of opioid use, factors associated with increased or decreased opioid use, and other outcomes associated with opioid use after foot or ankle fracture surgery (principally pain relief and adverse events). We excluded studies on pediatric populations and studies focused on acute postoperative pain where short-term opioid use (< 1 week) was a secondary outcome only. A total of 1713 articles were assessed and 18 were included. The quality of the 16 included retrospective observational studies and two randomized trials was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and the Jadad scale, respectively; study quality was determined to be low to moderate for observational studies and good for randomized trials. Mean patient age ranged from 42 to 53 years. Fractures studied included unimalleolar, bimalleolar, trimalleolar, and pilon fractures., Results: Proportions of postoperative persistent opioid use (defined as use beyond 3 or 6 months postoperatively) ranged from 2.6% (546 of 20,992) to 18.5% (32 of 173) and reached 39% (28 of 72) when including patients with prior opioid use. Among the numerous associations reported by observational studies, two or more preoperative opioid prescriptions had the strongest overall association with increased opioid use, but this was assessed by only one study (OR 11.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.16 to 13.30]; p < 0.001). Meanwhile, spinal and regional anesthesia (-13.5 to -41.1 oral morphine equivalents (OME) difference; all p < 0.01) and postoperative ketorolac use (40 OME difference; p = 0.037) were associated with decreased opioid consumption in two observational studies and a randomized trial, respectively. Three observational studies found that opioid use preoperatively was associated with a higher proportion of emergency department visits and readmission (OR 1.41 to 17.4; all p < 0.001), and opioid use at 2 weeks postoperatively was associated with slightly higher pain scores compared with nonopioid regimens (β = 0.042; p < 0.001 and Likert scale 2.5 versus 1.6; p < 0.05) in one study., Conclusion: Even after noting possible inflation of the harms of opioids in this review, our findings nonetheless highlight the need for opioid prescription guidelines specific for foot and ankle surgery. In this context, surgeons should utilize short (< 1 week) opioid prescriptions, regional anesthesia, and multimodal pain management techniques, especially in patients at increased risk of prolonged opioid use., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: The authors certify that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2022 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)