Search

Background: American hospitals are required to provide price transparency data (known as a chargemaster) for medical services, which is intended to allow consumers to accurately estimate the cost of medical services. Our purpose was to identify hospital compliance in publishing chargemaster documents and to assess the price information published for common upper-extremity services and procedures. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available chargemaster data from 122 hospitals, which included the top-20-ranked Honor Roll hospitals from US News and World Report and 2 top-ranked hospitals from each state. Chargemaster files were accessed for each hospital, and price information was recorded for 10 common upper-extremity procedures including radiographs, injections, and surgeries. Mean procedural prices were compared between academic and nonacademic hospitals. Results: Chargemaster files were able to be accessed for 107 (88%) of 122 institutions. Price estimates for imaging studies were more frequently reported (73%) than those of procedures (23%-41%). With 50 hospitals reporting a price estimate, carpal tunnel injection was the most frequently reported procedure, whereas trigger finger release was the least frequently reported (41% and 23%, respectively). Wide price ranges were noted, with mean charges for a total shoulder arthroplasty listed as US $51 723 (range, US $247-US $364 024). Mean prices between academic and nonacademic hospital systems were similar. Conclusions: While most (88%) of the included hospitals have been compliant with publishing their price transparency files, price estimates for common upper-extremity procedures and imaging studies are inconsistently reported and, when present, demonstrate high levels of price variability between and within hospital systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Increasing incidence of fragility fractures has spurred development of protocols, largely focused on peri-operative care, with numerous proven benefits. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate outcomes of our hip fracture treatment program regarding successful protocol implementation, compliance, effect on subsequent fracture rates, and mortality during the first decade of adoption. Methods: A retrospective review identified patients >65 years old with fragility hip fractures between 2010 and 2022. The HiROC (+) cohort consisted of patients who received a "High-Risk Osteoporosis Clinic" (HiROC) referral for bone health evaluation and bisphosphonate initiation as indicated. Additional fracture rates and mortality at 3 years were calculated. Protocol implementation and compliance over the first 10 years was analyzed in the four identified cohorts. Results: A total of 1671 fragility hip fractures were identified, with 386 excluded due to insufficient follow-up, with an average age of 81.6 years and a median follow-up of 36.4 months. Of the 1280 included cases, 56% (n = 717) had a HiROC referral placed. HiROC(+) groups had lower subsequent fracture rates at two years, compared to those without referral (28% vs 13%, P < 0.0001) and those completing more steps of the protocol had lower subsequent fracture rates (28% vs 15% vs 13% vs 5%, P < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was observed between the cohorts for anatomic site of subsequent fractures. Discussion: Greater than half of all eligible patients were successfully captured by the protocol. Patients completing more steps of the protocol had lower subsequent fracture rates. Captured patients demonstrated reduced mortality rates when compared to current literature. Conclusion: Successful implementation of this geriatric hip fracture protocol was associated with reduced additional fractures and mortality rates. Identifying steps of process failures in the protocol can provide opportunities for increased compliance and reduction in future fracture occurrences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Traumatic elbow instability (subluxation and dislocation) represents a challenging clinical entity that can be complicated by persistent intraoperative instability after attempted stabilization or recurrent postoperative instability. Both static and dynamic supplemental stabilization procedures have been described for cases where fracture fixation and ligament repair fail to restore stability. There is a paucity of prior studies involving ulnohumeral cross-pinning (UCP), which is a type of static supplemental stabilization. Our purpose was to assess complications and outcomes after UCP., Methods: We reviewed all surgical cases involving primary and revision UCP for traumatic elbow instability at a single center from 2017-2023. Baseline demographics were recorded. Outcomes including radiographs, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were analyzed., Results: Fourteen patients undergoing UCP were included with a mean follow-up of 27 months. Five cross-pinnings (36%) were performed during revision procedures. Mean visual analog scale (VAS) pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores were 2.4, 34, and 69, respectively. The mean flexion-extension and pronation-supination arcs were 114° and 140°, with 85% achieving at least a 100° arc for flexion and forearm rotation. Five patients (36%) had complications, all of which required reoperation. Two complications involved postoperative instability: one radial head subluxation and one radial head dislocation. Both occurred in revision UCP cases indicated for recurrent postoperative instability., Conclusions: Ulnohumeral cross-pinning for persistent and recurrent elbow instability results in maintained ulnohumeral joint alignment, functional arcs of elbow range of motion, and acceptable patient-reported outcome measures, particularly in the setting of a primary procedure indicated for persistent intraoperative instability. Ulnohumeral cross-pinning is a reasonable supplemental stabilization procedure for complex elbow instability., Type of Study/level of Evidence: Therapeutic IV., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest No benefits in any form have been received or will be received related directly to this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction The creation of research groups and consortiums has become more common in all medical and surgical specialities. The purpose of this investigation was to assess and describe collaborative research groups and consortiums within orthopaedic surgery. In addition, we aimed to define the demographics of the research consortium members with particular attention to female and minority members. Methods  Journals with a musculoskeletal/orthopaedic focus and a few medical journals were selected to identify articles published by research groups and consortiums. Articles published from 2020 to 2022 were manually reviewed. Bibliographic information, author information and level of evidence (LOE) were recorded. For identified consortium members, sex and race were defined in a binary manner. Results A total of 92 research consortiums were identified. A list of members was identified for 77 groups (83.7%), totalling 2,260 researchers. The remaining group members were not able to be identified due to the lack of information in the included publications, research group websites or after communicating with the corresponding author for respective articles. Most researchers were male (n=1,748, 77.3%) and white (n=1,694, 75%). Orthopaedic surgeons comprised 1,613 (71.4%) identified researchers. The most common fellowship training for orthopaedic surgeons was paediatrics (n=370, 16.4%), trauma (n=266, 11.8%) and sports medicine (n=229, 10.1%). The consortiums published 261 articles: women were lead (first) authors in 23% and senior (last) authors in 11.1%. Non-white researchers were lead authors in 24.5% (n=64) and senior authors in 17.2% (n=45). The most common level of evidence was level 3, accounting for 45.6% (n=119) of all publications. Level 1 evidence accounted for 12.6% (n=33) of published articles. Discussion Representation of women in orthopaedic research consortiums exceeds their representation in almost every orthopaedic professional society. There is less publicly available data to compare the involvement of under-represented minorities (URMs) in research consortiums to general practice. Further investigations should analyse possible avenues in which gender and racial disparity could be improved within orthopaedic surgery research., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Ozdag et al.)