Search

In the event of prior authorization denial, physicians may request peer-to-peer review, which may delay treatment and increase administrative burden. The purpose of this study was to quantify the approval rate of peer-to-peer review and evaluate its efficiency in the context of advanced imaging use in an orthopedic practice. Patients at a single outpatient orthopedic clinic initially receiving an insurance denial for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging requiring peer-to-peer review from March to December 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Characteristics of the request, peer-to-peer review, and the reviewer and dates in the process were collected. If the study was approved after peer-to-peer review, the date of the imaging study and brief results were recorded. A total of 62 denials were included. One denial was approved prior to peer-to-peer review. Fifty-eight (of 61, 95.1%) reviews were approved, of which 51 (of 58, 87.9%) studies were completed by patients. Reviewers were always physicians (61 of 61, 100%), but of those whose specialty was known, none were orthopedic surgeons. Forty-four of 61 (72.1%) reviewers reported reviewing clinical notes in advance. The median number of days from visit to peer-to-peer review was 9.0 (interquartile range, 7.0-13.25). The median number of days from visit to imaging center appointment was 13.5 (interquartile range, 9.0-20.75) for approved studies. Of the 51 approved studies completed by patients, the results of 38 (74.5%) confirmed the suspected diagnosis. In an orthopedic specialty practice, almost all peer-to-peer reviews were approved, with the majority of the completed studies confirming the suspected diagnosis. Thus, patient care was delayed. Reform is crucial to improve the efficiency of the review process, especially in light of additional administrative and financial burden. [ Orthopedics . 2024;47(3):141-146.].

Introduction:  The innovative iCite tool applies the relative citation ratio (RCR) to gauge the time and field-adjusted scientific influence of a publication. This study examines scholarly effects on spine surgery to distinguish the impact made by orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and several other specialists., Materials and Methods:  From 2013 to 2017, 100 of the highest RCR-rated articles were gathered for each of the following terms: cervical disc herniation (CDH), lumbar disc herniation (LDH), lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), neurogenic claudication (NC), radiculopathy (RAD), and sciatica (SC). The first, second, and last authors were queried for background and academic qualifications and placed into the following specialty categories: orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, pain management, medicine, and others. To provide an alternative degree of influence, the Scopus database was employed to classify the h-index associated with each author., Results:  Across the six search terms, there were 526 orthopedic surgeons among 1,730 authors (30.4%), with the highest representation in LSS (118/290, 40.7%), and the lowest in SC (45/286, 15.7%). Orthopedics was the most influential specialty across all six research terms by median RCR (p = 0.012). Compared to their neurosurgical counterparts, orthopedic authors had a greater influence in CDH (3.93 vs. 2.63, p = 0.0492), LDH (5.10 vs. 4.99, p = 1.0000), NC (2.16 vs. 1.40, p = 0.2370), and SC (3.35 vs. 3.04, p = 0.5285), but had a lower influence in LSS (5.13 vs. 5.32, p = 0.7736) and RAD (5.03 vs. 6.05, p = 0.3938)., Conclusion:  Orthopedic surgeons lead other specialties when determining scholarly influence through RCR across six of the pre-designated research domains within spine surgery. For orthopedics, a modest influence in LSS and RAD may suggest potential areas of future focus. The use of bibliometrics to analyze available literature enables us to identify other specialties that have contributed to our field and promote interdisciplinary collaboration., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2022, Grace et al.)

Introduction The iCite database, developed by the National Institute of Health (NIH), utilizes a bibliometric known as the relative citation ratio (RCR) to gauge scholarly impact. The goal of this study was to use the RCR to evaluate the influence of orthopedic journals in regard to knee arthritis treatment literature, as no such studies exist to date. Materials and methods The 100 highest RCR-rated articles published between 2007 and 2017 were obtained in the following categories: physical therapy (PT), viscosupplementation (VS), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroid injection (CSI), results of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and meniscectomy (MS). Journals were categorized with respect to the following specialties: general orthopedics (GO), orthopedic subspecialty (OSS), nonsurgical musculoskeletal (NSMSK), general medicine (GM), and basic science/nonclinical (BS/NC). Results Across the seven domains, GO journals held the highest median RCR, while OSS ranked fourth (RCR, 6.60 versus 3.95; p=0.0027). GO journals were considered the most influential specialty in CSI (RCR, 2.99), while OSS journals held the highest median RCR in PRP (RCR, 4.10). OSS and GO journals ranked third (RCR, 4.79) and fourth (RCR, 4.21), respectively, in NSAIDs, lagging behind NSMSK and GM journals. Conclusions Bibliometric tools, such as the RCR, can inform the orthopedic field of current and future research trends and help guide further research efforts. Currently, publications in GO journals hold a strong influence in CSI but less so in PT and NSAIDs. The use of bibliometrics allows the identification of highly influential non-orthopedic articles and journals to read while identifying influential non-orthopedic researchers to promote interdisciplinary collaboration., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2022, Megalla et al.)

Background Low back pain represents 2-3% of Emergency Department (ED) visits. In this study, we aimed to identify patient and treatment-related variables that contributed to repeat visits to the ED for low back pain within a 12-month period. Methodology We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients presenting to the ED of one hospital over a two-year period with the primary diagnosis of low back pain. The primary outcome included return to the ED within 12 months with the same complaint, and the secondary outcome included return to the ED within 30 days or six months. Results A total of 793 patients met the inclusion criteria. The rate of return to the ED with the same complaint within 30 days, six months, and 12 months of the first visit was 7%, 11%, and 14%, respectively. Patients who received opioids at discharge were more likely to return within 12 months (68% vs. 55%; p = 0.0075) and six months (68% vs. 56%; p = 0.0184) compared to those who did not receive opioids at discharge. Undergoing an X-ray decreased the odds of a 30-day return visit by 70% (p = 0.0067), and by 59% within 12 months (p = 0.0032). Receiving opioids at discharge also doubled the odds of return within 12 months (odds ratio = 2.030, p = 0.0183), while receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduced the odds by 60% (p = 0.0028). Conclusions Patients who received opioids at discharge were more likely to have a return visit for low back pain within six and 12 months. Patients who underwent X-rays at the index visit and were prescribed NSAIDs at discharge were less likely to return to the ED for low back pain., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2022, Megalla et al.)

In 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic limited musculoskeletal care to urgent or "nonelective" office visits and procedures. No guidelines exist to inform patients or physicians what meets these criteria. The purpose of this multi-institutional study was to describe the differences in perceptions of urgency for musculoskeletal complaints between patients and providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. An anonymous survey was distributed to patients who visited the authors' orthopedic clinics in January and February 2020 and practicing orthopedic surgeons. The surveys were administered in May 2020 after COVID-19 was officially labeled a pandemic and included questions regarding demographic information and perceptions of orthopedic urgency. A total of 1491 patients and 128 physicians completed the surveys. A significantly higher percentage of physicians considered the following diagnoses an appropriate indication for an urgent visit compared with patients: fracture ( P <.001), acute dislocation ( P <.001), infection ( P <.001), neurologic compromise ( P <.001), tumor ( P <.001), acute tendon injury ( P <.001), weakness ( P <.001), inability to bear weight ( P <.001), post-surgical problem ( P <.001), and painful joint effusion ( P <.001). There were no significant differences in the perception of urgency for the following conditions: bursitis/tendonitis ( P =1.00), joint/extremity deformity without pain ( P =.113), and loss of range of motion of a joint ( P =.467). Younger patients and those with higher levels of education were significantly more likely to consider their conditions urgent. Patients may require additional education to prevent delay in treatment of urgent conditions-especially time-sensitive conditions such as neurologic compromise, tumors, and infections-when access to physicians is limited. [ Orthopedics . 2021;44(4):e534-e538.].

Introduction: In response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, physician attire has evolved to incorporate personal protective equipment (PPE). Although PPE is mandated for all healthcare workers, variability exists in choice and availability. The purpose of this study was to determine patient perception of physician attire during the COVID-19 pandemic in an outpatient setting., Methods: Three hundred sixty-eight patients who presented to our outpatient orthopaedic clinics completed an anonymous survey. In addition to demographic characteristics, patient preferences for attire, PPE, and social distancing were obtained., Results: Scrubs (81%, 298/368) were found to be the most acceptable physician attire. Eye protection (34.2%, 126/368) and gloves (32.6%, 120/368), however, were deemed much less acceptable; 93.5% (344/368) of patients reported that no mask was unacceptable, with 41.0% (151/368) preferring a surgical mask. Predilection for a surgical mask and N95 rose with increasing patient education level. Interestingly, 55.2% (203/368) responded that physicians should stop wearing PPE only when the Center for Disease Control recommends., Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the patients found scrubs to be the most acceptable attire in an office-based outpatient setting. Patients also found physician mask-wearing to be important but are less accepting of providers wearing eye and hand protection., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Objective: To determine if there is correlation between intradiscal levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and early outcome measures in patients undergoing lumbar fusion for painful disc degeneration., Methods: Intervertebral disc tissue was separated into annulus fibrosus/nucleus pulposus and cultured separately in vitro in serum-free medium (Opti-MEM). Conditioned media was collected after 48 hours. The concentration of IL-6 was quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Pearson correlation coefficients quantified relationships between IL-6 levels and pre- and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as change in VAS/ODI., Results: Sixteen discs were harvested from 9 patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (mean age, 47.4 years; range, 21-70 years). Mean preoperative and 6-month postoperative VAS were 8.1 and 3.7, respectively. Mean preoperative and postoperative ODI were 56.2 and 25.6, respectively. There were significant positive correlations between IL-6 expression and postoperative VAS (ρ = 0.38, p = 0.048) and ODI (ρ = 0.44, p = 0.02). No significant correlations were found between intradiscal IL-6 expression and preoperative VAS (ρ = -0.12, p = 0.54). Trends were seen associating IL-6 expression and change in VAS/ODI (ρ = -0.35 p = 0.067; ρ = -0.34, p = 0.08, respectively). A trend associated IL-6 and preoperative ODI (ρ = 0.36, p = 0.063)., Conclusion: The direct association between IL-6 expression and VAS/ODI suggests patients with elevated intradiscal cytokine expression may have worse early outcomes than those with lower expression of IL-6 after surgery for symptomatic disc degeneration.

Study Design Survey of 100 worldwide spine surgeons. Objective To develop a spine injury score for the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Methods Each respondent was asked to numerically grade the severity of each variable of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Using the results, as well as limited input from the AOSpine Trauma Knowledge Forum, the Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score was developed. Results Beginning with 1 point for A1, groups A, B, and C were consecutively awarded an additional point (A1, 1 point; A2, 2 points; A3, 3 points); however, because of a significant increase in the severity between A3 and A4 and because the severity of A4 and B1 was similar, both A4 and B1 were awarded 5 points. An uneven stepwise increase in severity moving from N0 to N4, with a substantial increase in severity between N2 (nerve root injury with radicular symptoms) and N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury) injuries, was identified. Hence, each grade of neurologic injury was progressively given an additional point starting with 0 points for N0, and the substantial difference in severity between N2 and N3 injuries was recognized by elevating N3 to 4 points. Finally, 1 point was awarded to the M1 modifier (indeterminate posterolateral ligamentous complex injury). Conclusion The Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score is an easy-to-use, data-driven metric that will allow for the development of a surgical algorithm to accompany the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.

Background: In April 2014 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a dataset for the public which included information on services provided by physicians and healthcare providers for Medicare beneficiaries in the 2012 calendar year. The objective of this study is to determine spine surgeons' opinions on the release of the CMS data, and determine how they feel this information may affect patient care., Methods: A survey was sent to members of the Association for Collaborative Spine Research (ACSR) regarding their practice patterns and opinions on the release of the CMS data. Determinants included surgical subspecialty, practice setting, years in practice and region. The average response was collected for each question and compared across groups. Additionally, questions in which greater than 75% of respondents either agreed (agree or strongly agree) or disagreed (disagree or strongly disagree) were identified., Results: Seventy-six surgeons completed the survey, and while the overall interobserver reliability between each question was only slight (κ = 0.11), more than 75% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with five statements and, more than 75% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with six statements. While 86% of surgeons are in favor of more transparency, 83% of respondents felt that without the proper context, the data released does not accurately portray spine surgery. Additionally, 96% of spine surgeons do not believe the CMS data helps patients decide which spine surgeon is best for them., Conclusions: The small percentage of spine surgeons who responded to this survey are in favor of more transparency but do not feel the release of the CMS data either accurately represents spine surgeons or will help patients better identify the appropriate surgeon. In spite of these concerns, it is unlikely the release of the CMS data will significantly impact the accessibility of a spine surgeon to a Medicare beneficiary.

Study Design Survey of spine surgeons. Objective To determine the reliability with which international spine surgeons identify a posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) injury in a patient with a compression-type vertebral body fracture (type A). Methods A survey was sent to all AOSpine members from the six AO regions of the world. The survey consisted of 10 cases of type A fractures (2 subtype A1, 2 subtype A2, 3 subtype A3, and 3 subtype A4 fractures) with appropriate imaging (plain radiographs, computed tomography, and/or magnetic resonance imaging), and the respondent was asked to identify fractures with a PLC disruption, as well as to indicate if the integrity of the PLC would affect their treatment recommendation. Results Five hundred twenty-nine spine surgeons from all six AO regions of the world completed the survey. The overall interobserver reliability in determining the integrity of the PLC was slight (kappa = 0.11). No substantial regional or experiential difference was identified in determining PLC integrity or its absence; however, a regional difference was identified (p < 0.001) in how PLC integrity influenced the treatment of type A fractures. Conclusion The results of this survey indicate that there is only slight international reliability in determining the integrity of the PLC in type A fractures. Although the biomechanical importance of the PLC is not in doubt, the inability to reliably determine the integrity of the PLC may limit the utility of the M1 modifier in the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.

Study Design Literature review. Objective The aim of this review is to highlight challenges in the development of a comprehensive surgical algorithm to accompany the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Methods A narrative review of the relevant spine trauma literature was undertaken with input from the multidisciplinary AOSpine International Trauma Knowledge Forum. Results The transitional areas of the spine, in particular the cervicothoracic junction, pose unique challenges. The upper thoracic vertebrae have a transitional anatomy with elements similar to the subaxial cervical spine. When treating these fractures, the surgeon must be aware of the instability due to the junctional location of these fractures. Additionally, although the narrow spinal canal makes neurologic injuries common, the small pedicles and the inability to perform an anterior exposure make decompression surgery challenging. Similarly, low lumbar fractures and fractures at the lumbosacral junction cannot always be treated in the same manner as fractures in the more cephalad thoracolumbar spine. Although the unique biomechanical environment of the low lumbar spine makes a progressive kyphotic deformity less likely because of the substantial lordosis normally present in the low lumbar spine, even a fracture leading to a neutral alignment may dramatically alter the patient's sagittal balance. Conclusion Although the new AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System was designed to be a comprehensive thoracolumbar classification, fractures at the cervicothoracic junction and the lumbosacral junction have properties unique to these junctional locations. The specific characteristics of injuries in these regions may alter the most appropriate treatment, and so surgeons must use clinical judgment to determine the optimal treatment of these complex fractures.

Background: The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) evaluated the effects of surgery versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation (IDH), among other pathologies. Multiple subgroup analyses have been completed since the initial publications, which have further defined which patient factors lead to better or worse patient-reported outcomes; however, the degree to which these factors influence patient-reported outcomes has not been explored., Questions/purposes: We reviewed the subgroup analyses of the SPORT IDH studies to answer the following questions: (1) What factors predicted improvement in patient-reported outcomes after operative or nonoperative treatment of lumbar IDH? (2) What factors predicted worse patient-reported outcomes compared to baseline after operative or nonoperative treatment of lumbar IDH? And (3) what factors influenced patient-reported outcomes of surgery in patients with lumbar IDH?, Methods: We conducted a MEDLINE(®) search to identify the subgroup analyses of the SPORT IDH data that were responsive to our study questions. Eleven articles were identified that met our search criteria., Results: The patient factors associated with larger improvements in Oswestry Disability Index at 4 years with either surgical or nonoperative treatment included a higher baseline Oswestry Disability Index, BMI of less than 30, not being depressed, being insured, having no litigation pending, not having workers compensation, and having symptoms for less than 6 weeks, though there were others. Factors leading to improvement with surgical treatment were mostly related to anatomic characteristics of the disc herniation such as posterolateral and sequestered herniations. There were no patient or clinical factors identified that were associated with worse patient-reported outcomes compared to baseline after either operative or nonoperative treatment. At 2-year followup, the treatment effects were greater for those patients with upper-level herniations, patients not receiving workers compensation, and nondiabetic patients. In a 4-year multivariate analysis, being married, without joint problems, and having worse symptoms at baseline resulted in greater treatment effect with surgery., Conclusions: While most patients with IDH will likely see improvement with either surgical or nonoperative treatment, there are patient-related factors that can help predict which subgroups will demonstrate a greater improvement with surgery, such as not having joint problems, being married, having worsening symptoms at baseline, and not having diabetes. These results can help providers and patients when discussing treatment options., Level of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: As the number of cervical spine procedures performed continues to increase, the need for revision surgery is also likely to increase. Surgeons need to understand the etiology of post-surgical changes, as well as have a treatment algorithm when evaluating these complex patients., Questions/purposes: This study aims to review the rates and etiology of revision cervical spine surgery as well as describe our treatment algorithm., Methods: We used a narrative and literature review. We performed a MEDLINE (PubMed) search for "cervical" and "spine" and "revision" which returned 353 articles from 1993 through January 22, 2014. Abstracts were analyzed for relevance and 32 articles were reviewed., Results: The rates of revision surgery on the cervical spine vary by the type and extent of procedure performed. Patient evaluation should include a detailed history and review of the indication for the index procedure, as well as lab work to rule out infection. Imaging studies including flexion/extension radiographs and computed tomography are obtained to evaluate potential pseudarthrosis. Magnetic resonance imaging is helpful to evaluate the disc, neural elements, soft tissue, and to differentiate scar from infection. Sagittal alignment should be corrected if necessary., Conclusions: Recurrent or new symptoms after cervical spine reconstruction can be effectively treated with revision surgery after identifying the etiology, and completing the appropriate workup.

Background: To determine the interobserver agreement on femoral version measurements between an orthopedic attending, orthopedic senior and junior residents, and an attending radiologist., Materials and Methods: Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scanograms of 267 patients who underwent femoral intramedullary (IM) nailing with corresponding radiology attending reads for femoral version were collected and de-identified. Femoral version measurements performed by a trauma fellowship-trained attending orthopedic surgeon (ORTHO), a senior orthopedic resident (PGY4), a junior orthopedic resident (PGY1), and a musculoskeletal fellowship-trained attending radiologist (RADS) were compared via Pearson's interclass correlation coefficient to assess interobserver level of agreement., Results: Version measurements provided by the two attending physicians exhibited the highest level of agreement (r = 0.661, p < 0.01). The orthopedic attending and the senior resident had the next highest level of agreement (r = 0.543, p < 0.01). The first-year orthopedic resident had the weakest agreement across the board: with the orthopedic attending, the radiology attending, and the senior resident., Conclusion: Regardless of specialty, experience and higher levels of training produce stronger agreement when measuring femoral version. Residents in training, especially those who are junior, produce weak agreement when compared to their senior colleagues., Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.