BackgroundHospital readmission rates are being used to evaluate performance. A survey of the present rates is needed before policies can be developed to decrease incidence of readmission. We address three questions: What is the present rate of 30-day readmission in orthopedics? How do factors such as orthopedic specialty, data source, patient insurance, and time of data collection affect the 30-day readmission rate? What are the causes and risk factors for 30-day readmissions?Methods/FindingsA review was first registered with Prospero (CRD42014010293, 6/17/2014) and a meta-analysis was performed to assess the current 30-day readmission rate in orthopedics. Studies published after 2006 were retrieved, and 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. The 30-day readmission rate was extrapolated from each study along with the orthopedic subspecialty, data source, patient insurance, time of collection, patient demographics, and cause of readmission. A sensitivity analysis was completed on the stratified groups. The overall 30-day readmission rate across all orthopedics was 5.4 percent (95% confidence interval: 4.8,6.0). There was no significant difference between subspecialties. Studies that retrieved data from a multicenter registry had a lower 30-day readmission rate than those reporting data from a single hospital or a large national database. Patient populations that only included Medicare patients had a higher 30-day readmission rate than populations of all insurance. The 30-day readmission rate has decreased in the past ten years. Age, length of stay, discharge to skilled nursing facility, increased BMI, ASA score greater than 3, and Medicare/Medicaid insurance showed statistically positive correlation with increased 30-day readmissions in greater than 75 percent of studies. Surgical site complications accounted for 46 percent of 30-day readmissions.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows the present rate of 30-day readmissions in orthopedics. Demonstrable heterogeneity between studies underlines the importance of uniform collection and reporting of readmission rates for hospital evaluation and reimbursement.

OBJECT The rate of 30-day readmissions is rapidly gaining significance as a quality metric and is increasingly used to evaluate performance. An analysis of the present 30-day readmission rate in the spine literature is needed to aid the development of policies to decrease the frequency of readmissions. The authors examine 2 questions: 1) What is the 30-day readmission rate as reported in the spine literature? 2) What study factors impact the rate of 30-day readmissions? METHODS This study was registered with Prospera (CRD42014015319), and 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the current 30-day readmission rate in spine surgery. Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. The readmission rate as well as data source, time from enrollment, sample size, demographics, procedure type and spine level, risk factors for readmission, and causes of readmission were extrapolated from each study. RESULTS The pooled 30-day readmission rate was 5.5% (95% CI 4.2%–7.4%). Studies from single institutions reported the highest 30-day readmission rate at 6.6% (95% CI 3.8%–11.1%), while multicenter studies reported the lowest at 4.7% (95% CI 2.3%–9.7%). Time from enrollment had no statistically significant effect on the 30-day readmission rate. Studies including all spinal levels had a higher 30-day readmission rate (6.1%, 95% CI 4.1%–8.9%) than exclusively lumbar studies (4.6%, 95% CI 2.5%–8.2%); however, the difference between the 2 rates was not statistically significant (p = 0.43). The most frequently reported risk factors associated with an increased odds of 30-day readmission on multivariate analysis were an American Society of Anesthesiology score of 4+, operative duration, and Medicare/Medicaid insurance. The most common cause of readmission was wound complication (39.3%). CONCLUSIONS The 30-day readmission rate following spinal surgery is between 4.2% and 7.4%. The range, rather than the exact result, should be considered given the significant heterogeneity among studies, which indicates that there are factors such as demographics, procedure types, and individual institutional factors that are important and affect this outcome variable. The pooled analysis of risk factors and causes of readmission is limited by the lack of reporting in most of the spine literature.

No abstract

OBJECTIVEThe authors sought to assess whether Hounsfield units (HU) increase following teriparatide treatment and to compare HU increases with changes in bone mineral density (BMD) as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).METHODSA retrospective chart review was performed from 1997 to 2018 across all campuses at our institution. The authors identified patients who had been treated with at least 6 months of teriparatide and compared HU and BMD as measured on DEXA scans before and after treatment.RESULTSFifty-two patients were identified for analysis (46 women and 6 men, average age 67 years) who underwent an average of 20.9 ± 6.5 months of teriparatide therapy. The mean ± standard deviation HU increase throughout the lumbar spine (L1–4) was from 109.8 ± 53 to 133.9 ± 61 HU (+22%, 95% CI 1.2–46, p value = 0.039). Based on DEXA results, lumbar spine BMD increased from 0.85 to 0.93 g/cm2 (+9%, p value = 0.044). Lumbar spine T-scores improved from −2.4 ± 1.5 to −1.7 ± 1.5 (p value = 0.03). Average femoral neck T-scores improved from −2.5 ± 1.1 to −2.3 ± 1.0 (p value = 0.31).CONCLUSIONSTeriparatide treatment increased both HU and BMD on DEXA in the lumbar spine, without a change in femoral BMD. The 22% improvement in HU surpassed the 9% improvement determined with DEXA. These results support some surgeons’ subjective sense that intraoperative bone quality following teriparatide treatment is better than indicated by DEXA results. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating an increase in HU with teriparatide treatment.

Study Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. To determine which factors spine surgery fellowship program directors (PDs) consider most important when ranking applicants. Summary of Background Data. Spine surgery is a popular orthopedic subspecialty. As such, the spine fellowship match process is highly competitive. Surveys of fellowship PDs in orthopedic sports medicine and hand surgery have demonstrated differing opinions regarding factors considered most important when ranking fellowship applicants. The factors considered important to spine surgery fellowship PDs have not been evaluated. Methods. A web-based questionnaire was sent to the PDs of all spine surgery fellowships participating in the San Francisco (SF) Match Program. The questions were designed to identify criteria considered most important in ranking spine surgery fellowship applicants. A list of 12 criteria was presented and PDs were asked to rank these in order of importance. A weighted score for each criterion was calculated using the following scale: 5 points for each criterion ranked 1st, 4 points for 2nd, 3 points for 3rd, 2 points for 4th, and 1 point for 5th. Results. Of the 73 PDs queried, 52 responded (71% response rate). The interview was the most important factor when ranking fellowship applicants. The other criteria deemed most important in order of weighted scoring were letters of recommendation and personal connections to the applicant and/or familiarity with the applicant's letter writer(s). Conclusion.Spine surgery fellowship PDs consider the interview, letters of recommendation, and personal connections with the applicant/letter writers to be the most important factors when ranking candidates. These results may be valuable to orthopedic residents and mentors of those pursuing fellowship training in spine surgery.

Background The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) now include hip and knee replacements in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. The 30-day readmission rate is an important quality metric; however, the incidence has not yet been defined across the numerous orthopaedic subspecialties. Elucidating the readmission rate for each subspecialty may indicate that certain services are being disincentivized by the CMS reimbursement program.

No abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with increased cost, morbidity, and mortality in postoperative patients. Variable rates of postoperative CDI are reported among 4 surgical specialties during the 30-month study period. Risk factors for CDI include antibiotic use, increased ASA score, and increased admissions in the past year. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1254-1257.