Payne, Cynthia S.

» Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion increased orthopaedic surgery access and utilization among Medicaid patients, including for racial and ethnic minorities. » Despite improved coverage, Medicaid patients continue to face significant real-world barriers to orthopaedic care, including lower appointment success and longer wait times compared with privately insured patients. » Evidence on cost and quality impacts remains limited, with early signals of increased reimbursements, higher charges, and some quality improvements postexpansion.

Abstract Robots have been used effectively in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) for reconstruction. The utilization of robotics in all surgical specialties is expanding with the goal of offering the most appropriate patient-centered care possible, especially in complex multidisciplinary cases. Despite the safety, efficiency, and reproducibility of robotics in PRS, there is a paucity of required and formalized training in PRS residency programs. The ACGME and industry published guidelines were investigated. Robotic surgery case logs of Mayo Clinic Arizona General Surgery residents were analyzed with attention to equivalency certification (EQ). Over the past 5 years, the equivalency certification from Intuitive (Sunnyvale, CA) was obtained by 30% of all general surgery residents at our institution (range, 0–100). The case numbers to obtain the equivalence certification are industry recommendations, and proficiency is determined by the program director. The ACGME does not mandate robotics training in general surgery residency. According to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), trainees must complete 20 console cases and 10 bedside cases to become industry certified. With respect to training and advancing the field, PRS residents could successfully obtain certification in their residency programs. The minimum case requirement recommended by SAGES is not burdensome and can ensure robotic privileges in PRS practice immediately following graduation. By improving the training for minimally invasive robotic surgery in plastic surgery, patients and healthcare systems benefit from improved quality of life outcomes and decreased postoperative length of stay, which results in less strain on our entire medical system.

Purpose To characterize the relationship between testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Methods A retrospective cohort study using a large insurance database was conducted. Patients who were prescribed TRT for at least 3 months were matched with controls who were not prescribed TRT. Rates of ACL tears were compared between the cohorts. Multiple subgroups were created based on age (<25, 25‐35, 36‐45, 46‐55, 56‐65, and 65+ years). Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine the association of TRT with ACL tears while accounting for demographic variables and comorbidities. Results After matching, there were 160,839 patients in both the TRT cohort and the control cohort. The incidence of ACL injuries was 17.8 per 10,000 person‐years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.4‐19.2) for patients who were prescribed TRT and 4.9 per 10,000 person‐years (95% CI: 4.1‐5.7) for controls ( P < .001). Within 2 years of filling a testosterone prescription for at least 3 months, 572 (0.35%) patients experienced an ACL injury compared to only 157 (0.10%) controls during the same follow‐up period (odds ratio: 2.77; 95% CI: 2.26‐3.42, P < .001). When stratified by age, all groups except the <25 years of age group demonstrated a significantly higher rate of ACL tears (odds ratio 3.91‐12.3, P < .001‐.009). When separated by sex, males on TRT were 3.13 (95% CI: 2.50‐3.93, P < .001) times more likely while females on TRT were 1.94 (95% CI: 1.13‐3.41, P = .018) times more likely to experience an ACL injury compared to controls. Conclusions This study found that patients prescribed at least 3 months of TRT had a significantly higher incidence of ACL injuries compared to controls within a 2‐year follow‐up period. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.