Citations

ABSTRACTBackground and ObjectivesMedicaid reimbursement to physicians has been demonstrated to be lower than reimbursement from Medicare and private insurance. Studies on Medicaid reimbursement for orthopedic oncology procedures, however, are limited. This study compares Medicaid reimbursement rates to Medicare for 38 common musculoskeletal oncology procedures and assesses variability among states.MethodsWe collected 38 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for commonly performed orthopedic oncology procedures. Medicare rates were obtained from the 2023 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid physician (CMS) fee schedule. Medicaid rates were collected from electronic state website fee schedules. Reimbursement for the two insurance types were compared with state and national averages. Dollar differences were adjusted for work relative value units (RVU) to ascertain procedural variability. The Medicare Wage Index, representing differences in wages across states, was used to adjust medicaid rates to compare more accurately to medicare. Coefficient of variation values, calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean, were calculated to assess variation among procedures.ResultsMedicaid reimbursed orthopedic oncologists 22.1% less than medicare on average, increasing to 33.0% when adjusting for wage differences. State Medicaid reimbursement ranged from 37% to 131% of Medicare, with 38 states reimbursing less than Medicare on average. The coefficient of variation for Medicaid procedures ranged from 0.24 to 0.46, indicating wide variability among states and procedures, while for Medicare, the coefficient of variation was low at 0.06 to 0.07.ConclusionsMedicaid reimbursement for common orthopedic oncology procedures is substantially lower and more variable than Medicare, despite the often urgent nature of these surgeries. Disparities in reimbursement may impact access to care for this population, highlighting the need for policy reform.

Background: Although it is well established that the type of organism can be a risk factor for failure in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), no study to date has examined the impact of the number of positive cultures on treatment outcomes in patients undergoing 2-stage exchange. The purpose of this multicenter study was to determine the prognostic utility of multiple positive cultures at resection as a predictor of failure following reimplantation. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study identified 437 patients with chronic knee PJI who had undergone 2-stage exchange arthroplasty with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up following reimplantation. PJI was defined with use of the 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Patients with culture-negative PJI were excluded (n = 138). Treatment failure was defined as either any reoperation for infection or PJI-related mortality. Multivariable regression controlling for risk factors for failure after a 2-stage arthroplasty was performed to determine whether ≥2 positive intraoperative cultures at resection can predict outcomes following reimplantation when compared with a single positive culture. Results: Two hundred and ninety-nine patients were included. At a mean follow-up of 6.2 ± 2.6 years, 48 patients (16.1%) experienced failure. Patients who had a failure were more likely to have had a longer interstage interval (p = 0.038) and were also more likely to have had ≥2 positive cultures at the time of resection arthroplasty (95.8% versus 75.3%; p = 0.001). On regression analysis, ≥2 positive cultures at resection was the only variable that was identified as a risk factor for failure following reimplantation in both the univariate (odds ratio [OR], 7.55 [95% CI, 2.24 to 47.0]; p = 0.006) and multivariable models (OR, 8.12 [95% CI, 2.31 to 51.9]; p = 0.005). Conclusions: This is the first study to examine the impact of the number of positive cultures on outcomes in patients with PJI. We found that the presence of ≥2 positive cultures at resection was an indicator of a poor prognosis and resulted in a greater than eightfold increase in the risk of treatment failure in patients undergoing a 2-stage exchange. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Purpose To compare the surgical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring autograft (HA) plus lateral extra‐articular tenodesis (LET), isolated all‐soft tissue quadriceps autograft (QA), and isolated HA. Methods A retrospective review was performed comparing high‐risk patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with isolated HA, isolated QA, or HA + LET from August 2013 to January 2023. High‐risk patients, as determined by high‐grade pivot shift or generalized ligament laxity, with at least a 2‐year follow‐up, were included. Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were compared at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Retear rate, postoperative pivot‐shift grade, return to sport, and complications were recorded. Results In total, 159 patients (56 HA, 47 HA + LET, and 56 QA) were included. At 6 months postoperatively, the HA International Knee Documentation Committee score was significantly lower than that of the HA + LET and QA groups ( P < .0001). Similarly, the Lysholm score was significantly lower in the HA cohort at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively ( P < .0001‐.02). There was no difference in the rate of achieving the minimally important clinical difference between the cohorts for either of these outcome scores. The retear rate was significantly higher in the HA group (17.9%) compared to the HA + LET (4.3%) and QA (1.8%) cohorts ( P = .01). The rate of postoperative pivot shift of grade 2 or more was also higher in the isolated HA group ( P = .04). Conclusions The use of an all‐soft tissue QA or HA + LET for ACL reconstruction resulted in a lower retear rate and postoperative pivot‐shift grade compared to an isolated HA graft in high‐risk patients at 2 years postoperatively. There was no difference in the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference between the cohorts. The QA and HA + LET reconstruction options may improve stability and decrease the failure rate compared with HA reconstruction alone. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

In the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA), pseudoaneurysms are extremely rare and can be difficult to diagnose, as clinical symptoms can mimic symptoms of other more common complications, such as periprosthetic joint infection, hematoma, and nerve damage. We present a case of a 69-year-old male with a history of slipped capital femoral epiphysis 56 years prior and subsequent right THA. The right hip primary arthroplasty was subsequently complicated by multiple dislocations and recurrent prosthetic joint infections. The most recent infection was treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) in 2017. The patient later presented in 2019 with right thigh pain. Upon further analysis, he was diagnosed with Streptococcus bovis positive periprosthetic joint infection. The patient underwent a two-stage revision of the hip using an antibiotic spacer. Two weeks following the second stage, he presented with a sudden onset of uncontrolled atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response and a low hemoglobin. The computed tomography scan revealed a large hematoma involving both the anterior and posterior thigh compartments with lab markers that were questionable for infection. An operation to remove the hematoma revealed no purulence, and a large pulsatile pseudoaneurysm on the posterolateral aspect at the mid femur was found. A sharp bone fragment was noted next to the pseudoaneurysm. The pseudoaneurysm was repaired by a vascular surgeon, and the bone fragment was removed. Following this procedure, the patient developed a subsequent periprosthetic joint infection requiring a double DAIR procedure six weeks following the pseudoaneurysm repair and is now on chronic antibiotic suppression. Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of the potential for pseudoaneurysm in the setting of total joint arthroplasty when treating a postsurgical hematoma of sudden onset.