Moore, M. Lane

Background: While anemia has been associated with poor surgical outcomes in total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty, the effects of anemia on total ankle arthroplasty remain unknown. This study examines how preoperative anemia affects postoperative outcomes in total ankle arthroplasty. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Project database from 2011 to 2018 for total ankle arthroplasty procedures. Hematocrit (HCT) levels were used to determine preoperative anemia. Results: Of the 1028 patients included in this study, 114 patients were found to be anemic. Univariate analysis demonstrated anemia was significantly associated with an increased average hospital length of stay (2.2 vs 1.8 days, P < .008), increased rate of 30-day readmission (3.5% vs 1.1%, P = .036), increased 30-day reoperation (2.6% vs 0.4%, P = .007), extended length of stay (64% vs 49.9%, P = .004), wound complication (1.75% vs 0.11%, P = .002), and surgical site infection (2.6% vs 0.6%, P = .017). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found anemia to be significantly associated with extended hospital length of stay (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45; P = .023) and increased reoperation rates (OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 1.15-26.00; P = .033). Anemia was not found to be a predictor of increased readmission rates (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 0.93-10.56; P = .066) or postoperative complications (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.35-4.56; P = .71). Conclusion: This study found increasing severity of anemia to be associated with extended hospital length of stay and increased reoperation rates. Providers and patients should be aware of the increased risks of total ankle arthroplasty with preoperative anemia. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Abstract Objective . Bioimpedance devices are commonly used to assess health parameters and track changes in body composition. However, the cross-sectional agreement between different devices has not been conclusively established. Thus, the objective of this investigation was to examine the agreement between raw bioelectrical variables (resistance, reactance, and phase angle at the 50 kHz frequency) obtained from three bioimpedance analyzers. Approach . Healthy male ( n = 76, mean ± SD; 33.8 ± 14.5 years; 83.9 ± 15.1 kg; 179.4 ± 6.9 cm) and female ( n = 103, mean ± SD; 33.4 ± 15.9 years; 65.6 ± 12.1 kg; 164.9 ± 6.4 cm) participants completed assessments using three bioimpedance devices: supine bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), supine single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (SFBIA), and standing multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA). Differences in raw bioelectrical variables between the devices were quantified via one-way analysis of variance for the total sample and for each sex. Equivalence testing was used to determine equivalence between methods. Main results . Significant differences in all bioelectrical variables were observed between the three devices when examining the total sample and males only. The devices appeared to exhibit slightly better agreement when analyzing female participants only. Equivalence testing using the total sample as well as males and females separately revealed that resistance and phase angle were equivalent between the supine devices (BIS, SFBIA), but not with the standing analyzer (MFBIA). Significance . The present study demonstrated disagreement between different bioimpedance analyzers for quantifying raw bioelectrical variables, with the poorest agreement between devices that employed different body positions during testing. These results suggest that researchers and clinicians should employ device-specific reference values to classify participants based on raw bioelectrical variables, such as phase angle. If reference values are needed but are unavailable for a particular bioimpedance analyzer, the set of reference values produced using the most similar analyzer and reference population should be selected.

Purpose To determine the 50 most frequently cited studies in the orthopaedic shoulder arthroscopy literature and to conduct a bibliometric analysis of these studies. Methods The Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database was used to gather data and metrics using Boolean queries to capture all possible iterations of shoulder arthroscopy research. The search list was sorted so that articles were organized in descending order based on the number of citations and included or excluded based on relevance to shoulder arthroscopy. The information extracted for each article included author name, publication year, country of origin, journal name, article type, and the level of evidence. Results For these 50 studies, the total number of citations was calculated to be 13,910, with an average of 278.2 citations per paper. The most‐cited article was cited 1134 times, whereas the second‐ and third‐most cited articles were cited 920 and 745 times, respectively. All 50 articles were published in English and came from 7 different orthopaedic journals. The United States was responsible for most of the included articles (31), followed by France (9) and Japan (3). Conclusions The majority of the most‐cited articles in shoulder arthroscopy are case series and descriptive studies originating from the United States. In addition, more than one half of the top 50 most‐cited studies were published after 2004, which suggests that article age may be less important in the accumulation of citations for a rapidly growing field like shoulder arthroscopy. Clinical Relevance The top 50 most‐cited studies list will provide researchers, medical students, residents, and fellows with a foundational list of the most important and influential academic contributions to shoulder arthroscopy.

Purpose To analyze and objectively measure the trends in inflation‐adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates for the 20 most commonly performed orthopaedic arthroscopic surgical procedures from 2000 to 2019. Methods The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website was used to find the top 20 most commonly performed arthroscopic procedures using the Public Use File data file for calendar year 2017. By use of the Physician Fee Schedule Look‐Up Tool, national reimbursement averages were calculated from 2000‐2019 and data were analyzed. Averages were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Current Procedural Terminology codes that did not exist in 2000 were unable to be analyzed in this study. Results When adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for the 20 most commonly performed arthroscopic procedures from 2000‐2019 has decreased substantially (–29.81%). The mean Medicare reimbursement to physicians was $906 in 2000 and $632 in 2019. During this same period, the annual change in the adjusted mean reimbursement rate for all included arthroscopic procedures was –1.8% whereas the average compound annual growth rate was –1.9%. Conclusions This study shows that when adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement to physicians has decreased by nearly 30% during the past 20 years for the most common arthroscopic procedures. Clinical Relevance This analysis will give orthopaedic surgeons and hospital administrators a better understanding of the financial trends surrounding one of the fastest‐growing techniques in surgery. Additionally, these financial‐trend data will be increasingly important as the population in the United States continues to age and new payment models are introduced.

Objectives: In the field of orthopaedics, it has been evident that Medicare reimbursement rates have been relatively stagnant. Although, objective measures of how these financial trends have changed over the past couple of decades has been limited. If orthopaedic practitioners and hospital administrators wish to make progress and advance the degree of satisfactory reimbursement they can expect, a more thorough understanding of these trends is warranted. In this study, the field of orthopaedic shoulder, elbow, and upper arm surgery is being analyzed specifically. The objective of this analysis was to assess the monetary trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for the 10 most commonly utilized shoulder surgical procedures and the 10 most commonly utilized elbow and upper arm surgical procedures from 2000 to 2019. Methods: For this analysis, the current procedural terminology (CPT) code ranges that corresponded to “Surgical Procedures of the Shoulder” and “Surgical Procedures of the Humerus (Upper Arm) and Elbow” were determined. The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Suppliers PUF CY 2017 document was then utilized to objectively determine the 10 most common CPT codes fororthopaedic shoulder surgical procedures and orthopaedic elbow and upper arm surgical procedures. The reimbursement data for each of these procedures was then compiled from The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. All monetary data points were adjusted for inflation to 2019 US dollars utilizing changes to the United States consumer price index. The average annual and the total percentage change in reimbursement were based on the adjusted trends for the 10 included shoulder procedures and the 10 included elbow and upper arm procedures. Results: After adjustment for inflation, the average reimbursement for the top 10 orthopaedic shoulder surgery procedures decreased by 25.8% from 2000 to 2019. The greatest mean decrease was observed in the “Repair of ruptured musculotendinous cuff (e.g. rotator cuff) open; chronic (23412)” CPT code (-40.1%). No adjusted reimbursement rates were noted to be positive throughout the study period for surgical shoulder procedures. The procedure with the smallest mean decrease was the “Closed treatment of proximal humeral (surgical or anatomical neck) fracture; without manipulation (23600)” CPT code (-5.4%). From 2000 to 2019, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all included shoulder procedures decreased by an average of 1.6% per year. For the top 10 orthopaedic elbow and upper arm surgical procedures, the average reimbursement decreased by 19.5% from 2000 to 2019. The greatest mean decrease was observed in the “Osteoplasty,humerus (e.g., shortening or lengthening) (24420)” CPT code (-32.1%). The procedure with the only positive mean difference was “Closed treatment of humeral shaft fracture; without manipulation (24500)” CPT code (0.34%). From 2000 to 2019, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all included elbow and upper arm procedures decreased by an average of 1.2% per year. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the orthopaedic shoulder and elbow subspecialtyand its trends in Medicare reimbursement rates. When monetary data is corrected for inflation, Medicare reimbursement rates have shown a steady decline from 2000 to 2019. The 10 most common procedures of or relating to the shoulder have decreased by an average of 25.8% while the 10 most common procedures of or relating to the elbow or upper arm have decreased by an average of 19.5%. Additionally, only one procedure showed a positive increase in reimbursement rate (Closed treatment of humeral shaft fracture; without manipulation (24500)). If access to high quality and sustainable surgicalorthopaedic care is to persist in the United States, increased awareness of these trends is important for stakeholders to take note of.