Background: The impact of insurance and socioeconomic status on breast reconstruction modalities when access to care is controlled is unknown. Methods: Records for patients who underwent breast reconstruction at an academic medical center between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed and analyzed using chi-square analysis and logistic regression. Results: One thousand six hundred eighty-three breast reconstructions were analyzed. The commercially insured were more likely to undergo microvascular autologous breast reconstruction (44.4 percent versus 31.3 percent; p < 0.001), with an odds ratio of 2.22, whereas patients with Medicare and Medicaid were significantly more likely to receive tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction, with an odds ratio of 1.42 (41.7 percent versus 47.7 percent; p = 0.013). Comparing all patients with microvascular reconstruction, the commercially insured were more likely to receive a perforator flap (79.7 percent versus 55.3 percent versus 43.9 percent), with an odds ratio of 4.23 (p < 0.001). When stratifying patients by median household income, those in the highest income quartile were most likely to receive a perforator flap (82.1 percent) (p < 0.001), whereas those in the lowest income quartile were most likely to receive a muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (36.4 percent) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients at the same academic medical center had significantly different breast reconstruction modalities when stratified by insurance and household income. Despite similar access to care, differences in insurance types may favor higher rates of perforator flap breast reconstruction among the commercially insured. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Introduction: Cleft palate repair has rare, but potentially life-threatening risks. Understanding the risk factors for adverse events following cleft palate repair can guide surgeons in risk stratification and parental counseling. Methods: Patients under 2 years of age in National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Pediatric Database (NSQIP-P) from 2012 to 2016 who underwent primary cleft palate repair were identified. Risk factors for adverse events after cleft palate repair were identified. Results: Outcomes for 4989 patients were reviewed. Mean age was 1.0 ± 0.3 years and 53.5% were males. Adverse events occurred in 6.4% (320) of patients. The wound dehiscence rate was 3.1%, and the reoperation rate was 0.9%. On multivariate analysis, perioperative blood transfusion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 30.2), bronchopulmonary dysplasia/chronic lung disease (aOR 2.2), and prolonged length of stay (LOS) (aOR 1.1) were significantly associated with an adverse event. When subdivided by type of adverse event, reoperation was associated with perioperative blood transfusion (aOR 286.5), cerebral palsy (aOR 11.3), and prolonged LOS (aOR 1.1). Thirty-day readmission was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification class III (aOR 2.0) and IV (aOR 4.8), bronchopulmonary dysplasia/chronic lung disease (aOR 2.5), cerebral palsy (aOR 5.7), and prolonged LOS (aOR 1.1). Finally, wound dehiscence was significantly associated with perioperative blood transfusion only (aOR 8.2). Conclusions: Although adverse events following cleft palate surgery are rare, systemic disease remains the greatest predictor for readmission and reoperation. Neurologic and pulmonary diseases are the greatest systemic risk factors. Intraoperative adverse events requiring blood transfusion are the greatest surgical risk factor for post-surgical complications.

No abstract

Background: The Open Payments Database (OPD), mandated by the Sunshine Act, is a national registry of physician-industry transactions. Payments are reported as either General, Research, or Ownership payments. The current study aims to investigate trends in OPD General payments reported to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2017. Methods: General industry payments made to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons (as identified by OPD) were characterized by median payment, payment subtype, and census region. As fewer Research and Ownership payments were made, only payment totals for these categories were determined. General payment data were analyzed for trends using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. Results: For General payments, there was an increase in the number of compensated pediatric orthopaedists from 2014 to 2017 (324 vs. 429). Of those compensated, there was no significant change in median payment per compensated surgeon ($201 vs. $197; P=0.82). However, a large percentage of total General payment dollars in pediatric orthopaedics were made to the top 5% of compensated pediatric orthopaedists each year (average 71% of total General industry compensation). For this top 5% group, median General payment per compensated surgeon increased from 2014 ($14,624) to 2017 ($32,752) (P=0.006). A significant increase in median subtype aggregate payment per surgeon was observed in the education (P<0.001) and royalty/license (P=0.031) subtypes; a significant decrease was observed for travel/lodging payments (P=0.01). Midwest pediatric orthopaedists received the highest median payment across all years studied. Few payments for research and ownership were made to pediatric orthopaedists. Four-year aggregate payment totals were $18,151 and $3,223,554 for Research and Ownership payments, respectively. Conclusions: Many expected payments to surgeons to decrease when put under the public scrutiny of the OPD. Not only was this decrease not observed for General payments to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons during the 2014 to 2017 period, but also the median General payment to the top 5% increased. These findings are important to note in the current era of increased transparency. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Study Design. Cross-sectional survey. Objective. Examine patients’ and physicians’ estimates of radiation exposure related to spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Patients are commonly exposed to radiation when undergoing spine surgery. Previous studies suggest that patients and physicians have limited knowledge about radiation exposure in the outpatient setting. This has not been assessed for intraoperative imaging. Methods. A questionnaire was developed to assess awareness/knowledge of radiation exposure in outpatient and intraoperative spine care settings. Patients and surgeons estimated chest radiograph (CXR) equivalent radiation from: cervical and lumbar radiographs (anterior-posterior [AP] and lateral), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), intraoperative fluoroscopy, and intraoperative CT (O-arm). Results were compared to literature-reported radiation doses. Results. Overall, 100 patients and 26 providers completed the survey. Only 31% of patients were informed about outpatient radiation exposure, and only 23% of those who had undergone spine surgery had been informed about intraoperative radiation exposure. For lumbar radiographs, patients and surgeons underestimated CXR-equivalent radiation exposures: AP by five-fold (P < 0.0001) and seven-fold (P < 0.0001), respectively, and lateral by three-fold (P < 0.0001) and four-fold (P = 0.0002), respectively. For cervical CT imaging, patients and surgeons underestimated radiation exposure by 18-fold (P < 0.0001) and two-fold (P = 0.0339), respectively. For lumbar CT imaging, patients and surgeons underestimated radiation exposure by 31-fold (P < 0.0001) and three-fold (P = 0.0001), respectively. For intraoperative specific cervical and lumbar imaging, patients underestimated radiation exposure for O-arm by 11-fold (P < 0.0001) and 22-fold (P = 0.0002), respectively. Surgeons underestimated radiation exposure of lumbar O-arm by three-fold (P = 0.0227). Conclusion. This study evaluated patient and physician knowledge of radiation exposure related to spine procedures. Underestimation of radiation exposure in the outpatient setting was consistent with prior study findings. The significant underestimation of intraoperative cross-sectional imaging (O-arm) is notable and needs attention in the era of increased use of such technology for imaging, navigation, and robotic spine surgery. Level of Evidence: 4

No abstract

Background Since 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has tied a portion of hospitals’ annual reimbursement to patients’ responses to the Hospital Consumer Assessment and Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, which is given to a random sample of inpatients after discharge. The most general question in the HCAHPS survey asks patients to rate their overall hospital experience on a scale of 0 to 10, with a score of 9 or 10 considered high, or “top-box.” Previous work has suggested that HCAHPS responses, which are meant to be an objective measure of the quality of care delivered, may vary based on numerous patient factors. However, few studies to date have identified factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients undergoing spine surgery, and those that have are largely restricted to surgery of the lumbar spine. Consequently, patient and perioperative factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients receiving surgery across the spine have not been well elucidated. Questions/purposes Among patients undergoing spine surgery, we asked if a “top-box” rating on the overall hospital experience question on the HCAHPS survey was associated with (1) patient-related factors present before admission; (2) surgical variables related to the procedure; and/or (3) 30-day perioperative outcomes. Methods Among 5517 patients undergoing spine surgery at a single academic institution from 2013 to 2017 and who were sent an HCAHPS survey, 27% (1480) returned the survey and answered the question related to overall hospital experience. A retrospective, comparative analysis was performed comparing patients who rated their overall hospital experience as “top-box” with those who did not. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical variables associated with a top-box hospital rating. Additional multivariate logistic regression analyses controlling for these variables were performed to determine the association of any adverse event, major adverse events (such as myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism), and minor adverse events (such as urinary tract infection, pneumonia); reoperation; readmission; and prolonged hospitalization with a top-box hospital rating. Results After controlling for potential confounding variables (including patient demographics), comorbidities that differed in incidence between patients who rated the hospital top-box and those who did not, and variables related to surgery, the patient factors associated with a top-box hospital rating were older age (compared with age ≤ 40 years; odds ratio 2.2, [95% confidence interval 1.4 to 3.4]; p = 0.001 for 41 to 60 years; OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.9]; p < 0.001 for 61 to 80 years; OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.1 to 4.1]; p = 0.036 for > 80 years), and being a man (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.7]; p = 0.028). Further, a non-top-box hospital rating was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists Class II (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.024), Class III (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.020), or Class IV (OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.5]; p = 0.003). The only surgical factor positively associated with a top-box hospital rating was cervical surgery (compared with lumbar surgery; OR 1.4 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.9]; p = 0.016), while nonelective surgery (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.8]; p = 0.004) was associated with a non-top-box hospital rating. Controlling for the same set of variables, a non-top-box rating was associated with the occurrence of any adverse event (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.7]; p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.023), and prolonged hospital stay (OR, 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p = 0.004). Conclusions Identifying patient factors present before surgery that are independently associated with HCAHPS scores underscores the survey’s limited utility in accurately measuring the quality of care delivered to patients undergoing spine surgery. HCAHPS responses in the spine surgery population should be interpreted with caution and should consider the factors identified here. Given differing findings in the literature regarding the effect of adverse events on HCAHPS scores, future work should aim to further characterize this relationship. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Objective: The Veau classification represents the most commonly used system for characterizing cleft palate severity. Conflicting evidence exists as to how increasing Veau classification affects outcomes. This study compared perioperative outcomes between Veau III and IV cleft palate repairs. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric (NSQIP-P) database was used to identify cleft palate repairs between 2012 and 2016 using CPT codes. Patients with alveolar bone grafts were excluded. Veau III (unilateral) and Veau IV (bilateral) cleft palate repairs were identified using International Classification of Disease code 9 and 10 (ICD-9 and -10 codes. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and adverse events were compared between the cohorts. Results: A total of 5026 patients underwent cleft palate repair between 2012 and 2016. Of the 2114 patients with identifiable Veau classification, 1302 had Veau III cleft palates and 812 had Veau IV cleft palates. The Veau IV cleft palate patient population was older (377.8 versus 354.1 days, P < 0.001) and had significantly more comorbidities including a higher incidence of chronic lung disease (P = 0.014), airway abnormalities (P = 0.001), developmental delay (P = 0.018), structural central nervous system deformities (P < 0.001), and nutritional support (P < 0.001). Veau IV cleft palate repairs also had longer operative times (153.2 versus 140.2 minutes, P < 0.001). Despite significant differences in comorbidities and perioperative factors, there were no differences in 30-day complications, readmissions, or reoperation rates between Veau III and IV cleft palate repairs. Conclusions: Patients undergoing Veau IV cleft palate repair have a significantly greater number of comorbidities than Veau III cleft palate repairs. Despite differences in patient populations, 30-day surgical outcomes are comparable between the cohorts.