Study Design. Retrospective database review. Objective. Compare 1-year episode of care costs between single-level decompression and decompression plus fusion for lumbar stenosis. Summary of Background Data. Lumbar stenosis is the most common indication for surgery in patients over 65. Medicare direct hospital costs for lumbar surgery reached $1.65 billion in 2007. Despite stenosis being a common indication for surgery, there is debate as to the preferred surgical treatment. Cost-minimization analysis is a framework that identifies potential cost savings between treatment options that have similar outcomes. We performed a cost-minimization analysis of decompression versus decompression with fusion for lumbar stenosis from the payer perspective. Methods. An administrative claims database of privately insured patients (Humana) identified patients who underwent decompression (n = 5349) or decompression with fusion (n = 8540) for lumbar stenosis with and without spondylolisthesis and compared overall costs. All patients were identified and costs identified for a 1-year period. Complication rates and costs were described using summary statistics. Results. Mean treatment costs at 1 year after surgery were higher for patients who underwent decompression and fusion compared to patients who underwent decompression alone ($20,892 for fusion vs. $6329 for decompression; P < 0.001). Facility costs (P < 0.001), surgeon costs (P < 0.001), and physical therapy costs (P < 0.001) were higher in the fusion group. Cost differences related to infection or durotomy reached significance (P < 0.04). No difference in cost was identified for supplies. Conclusion. Decompression had significantly lower costs for the treatment of lumbar stenosis, including treatment for postoperative complications. If cost minimization is the primary goal, decompression is favored for surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis. Other factors including shared decision-making directed toward patient's values, patient-reported outcomes, and preferences should also be recognized as drivers of healthcare decisions. Level of Evidence: 3

Introduction: Increased out-of-pocket costs have led to patients bearing more of the financial burden for their care. Previous work has shown that financial burden and distress can affect outcomes, symptoms, satisfaction, and adherence to treatment. We asked the following questions: (1) Does patients' financial distress correlate with disability in patients with nonacute orthopaedic conditions? (2) Do patient demographic factors affect this correlation? Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of new patients presenting to a multispecialty orthopaedic clinic with a nonacute orthopaedic complication. Patients completed a demographics questionnaire, the InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index. Statistical analysis was done using Pearson's correlation. Results: The mean score for financial distress was 4.10 (SD, 2.09; scale 1 [low distress] to 10 [high distress]; range, 1.13 to 10.0), and the mean disability score was 0.54 (SD, 0.65; scale 0 to 3; range, 0 to 2.75). A moderate positive correlation exists between financial distress and disability (r = 0.43; P < 0.01). Financial distress and disability were highest for poor, uneducated, Medicare patients. Conclusions: A moderate correlation exists between financial distress and disability in patients with nonacute orthopaedic conditions, particularly in patients with low socioeconomic status. Orthopaedic surgeons may benefit from identifying patients in financial distress and discussing the cost of treatment because of its association with disability and potentially inferior outcomes. Further investigation is needed to test whether decreasing financial distress decreases disability. Level of Evidence: Level III prospective cohort

Concordance, the concept of patients having shared demographic/socioeconomic characteristics with their physicians, has been associated with improved patient satisfaction and outcomes in primary care but has not been studied in subspecialty care. The objective of this study was to investigate whether patients value concordance with their specialty physicians. The authors assessed the importance of concordance in subspecialist care in 2 cohorts of participants. The first cohort consisted of patients seeking care at a multispecialty orthopedic clinic. The second cohort consisted of volunteer participants recruited from an online platform. Each participant completed a survey scored on an ordinal scale which characteristics of their physicians they find important for their primary care physician (PCP) and a specialist. The characteristics included age, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, primary language spoken, and religion. The difference in concordance scores for PCPs and specialists were compared with paired t tests with a Bonferroni correction. A total of 118 patients were recruited in clinic, and a total of 982 volunteers were recruited online. In the clinic cohort, the level of importance for patient–physician concordance of age, ethnicity, language, and religion was not significantly different between PCPs and specialists. In the volunteer cohort, the level of importance for concordance of age, sex, national origin, language, and religion was not significantly different between PCPs and specialists. The volunteers recruited online had significantly higher concordance scores than the patients recruited in clinic for most variables. Patients find patient–physician concordance as important in specialty care as they do in primary care. This may have similar effects on patient outcomes in specialty care. [ Orthopedics . 2020;43(5):315–319.]

Background:Painful vertebral osteoporotic compression fractures (OCFs) are often treated with cement augmentation, although controversies exist as to whether or not this increases the secondary fracture risk. Prevention of secondary fracture includes treatment of underlying osteoporosis. The purposes of this study were to determine (1) whether cement augmentation increases the rate of secondary fracture compared with nonoperative management, (2) whether anti-osteoporotic medications reduce the rate of secondary fracture, and (3) the rate of osteoporosis treatment with medications following vertebral OCF.Methods:The PearlDiver database was queried for all patients with a diagnosis of OCF from 2015 to 2019. Patients were excluded if they were <50 years old, had a diagnosis of spinal neoplasm or infection, or underwent lumbar fusion in the perioperative period. Secondary fracture risk was assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, with kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, anti-osteoporotic medications, age, gender, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index as variables.Results:A total of 36,145 patients were diagnosed with an OCF during the study period. Of those, 25,904 (71.7%) underwent nonoperative management and 10,241 (28.3%) underwent cement augmentation, including 1,556 who underwent vertebroplasty and 8,833 who underwent kyphoplasty. Patients who underwent nonoperative management had a secondary fracture rate of 21.8% following the initial OCF, compared with 14.5% in the vertebroplasty cohort and 18.5% in the kyphoplasty cohort, which was not a significant difference on multivariate analysis. In the entire cohort, 2,833 (7.8%) received anti-osteoporotic medications and 33,312 (92.2%) did not. The rate of secondary fracture was 10.1% in patients who received medications and 21.9% in those who did not, which was a significant difference on multivariate analysis (odds ratio = 1.23, p < 0.001).Conclusions:Cement augmentation did not alter the rate of secondary fracture, whereas anti-osteoporotic medications significantly decreased the risk of subsequent OCF by 19%. Only 7.8% of patients received a prescription for an anti-osteoporotic medication following the initial OCF.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Study Design/Setting Retrospective cohort analysis Objectives To characterize the impact of COVID-19 on utilization of the ten most common spine procedures and percentages of outpatient procedures. Methods The PearlDiver national database was queried from January 2010 to April 2021 for short (<6 segments) and long segment posterior instrumented fusion (≥6 segments), posterior cervical fusion, anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), cervical laminectomy, laminoplasty, and disc arthroplasty, lumbar laminectomy, microdiscectomy, and interbody fusion. Annual procedure utilization between January 2010 through April 2021 was recorded and compared. Monthly trends were compared to January 2020. Outpatient trends were compared between 2010-2019 and 2019-2021 using segmented linear regression. Results Overall, all ten procedures decreased 4.3% in 2020 compared to 2019 and increased 6.3% in 2021 compared to 2019. March and April of 2020 had the largest decreases, with March 2020 decreasing 18.2% and April 2020 decreasing 51.6% compared to January 2020. Despite increasing COVID cases in January 2021, overall procedure utilization decreased only 1.8% compared to January 2020, and increased later in 2021 with April 2021 case volumes increasing by 138% compared to January 2020. Outpatient utilization of short segment posterior lumbar fusion and lumbar interbody fusion significantly increased during this time ( P < .001). Conclusion The greatest impact on spine surgery volume from the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in March and April 2020. Spine procedure utilization was otherwise similar or increased compared to January 2020. Additionally, the volume of outpatient short segment posterior fusion and lumbar interbody fusions increased during this time period.

Knee fibrosis is characterized by the presence of excessive connective tissue due to dysregulated fibroblast activation following local or systemic tissue damage. Knee fibrosis constitutes a major clinical problem in orthopaedics due to the severe limitation in the knee range of motion that leads to compromised function and patient disability. Knee osteoarthritis is an extremely common orthopedic condition that is associated with patient disability and major costs to the health-care systems worldwide. Although knee fibrosis and osteoarthritis (OA) have traditionally been perceived as two separate pathologic entities, recent research has shown common ground between the pathophysiologic processes that lead to the development of these two conditions. The purpose of this review was to identify the pathophysiologic pathways as well as key molecules that are implicated in the development of both knee OA and knee fibrosis in order to understand the relationship between the two diagnoses and potentially identify novel therapeutic targets.

Level II, therapeutic study.

No abstract