Search

Markups on charges for medical services have the potential to result in "surprise billing," especially for out-of-network and uninsured patients. Although previously analyzed in other surgical subspecialties, the distribution and level of cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs) for orthopaedic services have yet to be studied. Therefore, our analysis sought to evaluate the CCRs for orthopaedic surgery services provided to Medicare beneficiaries throughout the United States.Orthopaedic services provided to Medicare Part B beneficiaries between 2014 and 2019 were identified in the PhysicianOther Practitioners database of the Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services (CMS). CCRs, representing the ratio between the actual payment provided by CMS and the charge submitted by the provider, were calculated for each service. Descriptive statistics were calculated for CCRs at the national, state, and service-code levels. The coefficient of variation (CoV) was utilized to evaluate variability in CCRs across services and states. Additionally, Mann-Kendall tests were performed to evaluate trends in CCRs for included services over the time frame.Our analysis included an annual mean of 47,247,928 services provided by a mean of 23,185 orthopaedic surgeons over the study period. In the non-facility setting, there was a decrease in median CCRs for orthopaedic surgery services (0.29 to 0.27; p = 0.024). No changes were demonstrated for facility-based services. Service codes related to trigger finger procedures (0.18 to 0.17; p = 0.004), physical therapy (0.40 to 0.36; p = 0.035), and new patient visits (0.52 to 0.46; p = 0.035) demonstrated significant decreases in median CCRs. Only shoulder arthroscopy demonstrated a significant increase in median CCR (0.09 to 0.10; p = 0.003). High dispersion in CCRs was demonstrated for 16 (80%) of the 20 evaluated services. Wide variations in CCRs were demonstrated across individual states (median, 0.57; interquartile range width, 0.53).Our analysis demonstrated low and variable CCRs for commonly performed orthopaedic services in the U.S. These findings serve to inform and help improve related price transparency policies. Additionally, our analysis encourages increased efforts at preventing these low CCRs from limiting care in vulnerable populations.

To capture various social determinants of health, recent analyses have used comprehensive measures of socioeconomic disadvantage such as deprivation and vulnerability indices. Given that studies evaluating the effects of social deprivation on total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have yielded mixed results, a systematic review of this relationship might help answer questions about usage, complications, and results after surgery among patients in different socioeconomic groups and help guide targeted approaches to ensure health equity.We asked: How is social deprivation associated with TJA (1) usage, (2) adverse events including discharge deposition and length of stay, and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)?A comprehensive review of the PubMed, EBSCO host, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases was conducted to identify all studies that evaluated social deprivation and TJA between January 1, 2000, and March 1, 2022. Studies were included if they evaluated comprehensive measures of socioeconomic deprivation rather than individual social determinants of health. Nineteen articles were included in our final analysis with a total of 757,522 patients. In addition to characteristics of included studies (such as patient population, procedure evaluated, and utilized social deprivation metric), we recorded TJA usage, adverse events, and PROM values as reported by each article. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. The mean ± SD MINORS score was 13 ± 1 of 16, with higher scores representing better study quality. All the articles included are noncomparative studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a meta-analysis was not performed and results were instead presented descriptively.Although there were inconsistencies among the included articles, higher levels of social deprivation were associated with lower TJA usage even after controlling for various confounding variables. Similarly, there was agreement among studies regarding higher proportion of nonhome discharge for patients with more social deprivation. Although there was limited agreement across studies regarding whether patients with more social deprivation had differences in their baseline and postoperative PROMs scores, patients with more social deprivation had lower improvements from baseline for most of the included articles.These findings encourage continued efforts focusing on appropriate patient education regarding expectations related to functional improvement and the postoperative recovery process, as well as resources available for further information and social support. We suggest linking patient data to deprivation measures such as the Area Deprivation Index to help encourage shared decision-making strategies that focus on health literacy and common barriers related to access. Given the potential influence social deprivation may have on the outcome and utilization of TJA, hospitals should identify methods to determine patients who are more socially deprived and provide targeted interventions to help patients overcome any social deprivation they are facing. We encourage physicians to maintain close communication with patients whose circumstances include more severe levels of social deprivation to ensure they have access to the appropriate resources. Additionally, as multiple social deprivation metrics are being used in research, future studies should identify a consistent metric to ensure all patients that are socially deprived are reliably identified to receive appropriate treatment.Level III, therapeutic study.

As no prior study has examined the citations profile of key articles related to periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), our analysis utilized the Web of Science database to (1) identify the most-cited clinical studies relating to PAO in the management of acetabular dysplasia and (2) assess any trends over time with respect to the quality of literature. The top 100 highest-cited studies related to PAO had a mean of 49 citations (range, 6-666 per study). With respect to the level of evidence, most studies had level IV evidence (58%); 1% level I, 16% level II, 28% level III and 2% level V. Most studies were retrospective ( n = 86); there were 14 prospective studies (including one randomized study). The most common study designs were case series ( n = 58) and cohort ( n = 16), followed by matched-cohort ( n = 13) and case-control ( n = 6). The mean ± SD Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was 6.48 ± 1.31. A total of 59 and 41 of the included articles were classified as high risk and high quality, respectively. No studies were classified as very high risk. As a whole, our analysis demonstrated that currently available PAO literature is still of low quality and of low level of evidence. While PAO has been well-documented as a durable procedure for addressing acetabular dysplasia, future research must focus on higher quality, randomized and prospective data to answer key clinical or technique-related topics.

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is the most common orthopedic disorder in newborns. Early recognition and diagnosis are critical to prevent long-term complications. While several risk factors have been established, the association between prematurity and DDH remains unclear. Our analysis sought to analyze the literature exploring the relationship between prematurity and DDH. Articles evaluating the relationship between prematurity and DDH published between 1 January 2000 and 1 February 2022 were queried, with 11 studies included for analysis. Overall, a total of 8720 patients were included. The gestational age ranged from 23 to 36 weeks for preterm and ≥37 weeks for term births. Seven studies agreed that gestational age did not have a significant impact on DDH. Pooled analysis of available data demonstrated no significant difference in DDH among preterm and term infants (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82-1.51; P = 0.49). Sub-group analysis of two studies reporting data on very preterm (≤32 weeks) and term infants revealed no significant difference in the occurrence of DDH (OR, 4.58; 95% CI, 0.09-244.78; P = 0.45). Four studies found early gestational age is associated with a significantly higher incidence of mature hips compared to late preterm or term babies. Similarly, pooled analysis demonstrated significantly lower Graf classification among preterm infants (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.61; P = 0.009). Based on the current literature, our analysis found that prematurity is not strongly associated with DDH. Furthermore, early gestational age was associated with a significantly higher incidence of mature hips measured by Graf classification.