As more commercial insurance companies adopt a bundled reimbursement model, similar to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) algorithm for Medicare beneficiaries, accurate risk adjustment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critical to ensure success. With this movement toward bundled reimbursement, it is unknown if a formula adjusting for similar risks in the Medicare population could be applied to PROs in commercially insured and Medicare Advantage populations undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study was performed to compare PROs after TKA in these insurance groups after adjusting for proposed risks. Demographics and clinical data were abstracted from medical records of 302 patients who underwent TKA performed by a single surgeon at a university-based orthopaedic practice during 2013 to 2017. Differences in PROs between commercially insured, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare patients during the 6 months following surgery were evaluated while controlling for demographics, clinical data, and baseline PRO scores. Medicare and Medicare Advantage patients were older (p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities (p = 0.001) than commercial patients. During the first 3 months following TKA, patients in all three groups experienced similar rates of recovery. At 6 months after surgery, outcomes began to diverge by insurance group. Medicare patients reported significantly less ability to perform activities of daily living (78.6 vs. 63.2; p = 0.001), worse physical function (39.6 vs. 44.9; p = 0.003), and more pain interference (57.9 vs. 52.4; p = 0.018) at day 180 than commercially insured patients. There were no statistically significant differences between Medicare Advantage patients and either commercially insured or Medicare patients. Therefore, commercial insurance companies that intend to apply a risk-adjusted equation similar to the CJR algorithm to commercial populations should be cautioned since the postoperative outcomes in this investigation differed after adjusting for the same risk factors that have been proposed for inclusion in the CJR algorithm. Nonetheless, further studies should be performed to ensure that companies participating in bundled reimbursement models have a positive influence on comprehensive health care for patients and providers. This is a level III, retrospective prognostic study
Retrospective studies using large databases serve a major purpose in providing evidence in the current literature. However, the quality of medical coding is highly variable. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the documentation regarding the diagnosis of heterotopic ossification (HO) and the implications it may have for conducting retrospective research using electronic medical records (EMRs). A retrospective chart review using the EMR was performed to identify all patients with a diagnosis of HO within 7 university-affiliated hospital facilities. A limited data set request was conducted for all patients with HO-specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes and additional nonspecific musculoskeletal codes to capture patients with HO who were improperly coded. A total of 522 patients were identified-26 patients with specific HO codes and 496 patients with nonspecific codes. Imaging and clinical notes were inspected for evidence and location of HO, and histories were reviewed for traumatic injury mechanism. Two-thirds of the patients with HO were discovered by reviewing miscellaneous musculoskeletal ICD-9 codes. Thirty-eight percent of the patients with an HO-specific ICD-9 code had no evidence of HO in their EMR. Thirty-three patients had a clinical history of a traumatic injury preceding HO formation, but only 16 of the 33 had documented ICD-9 codes for the injury. The utility of databases in retrospective research is dependent on the integrity of the coding. This study questions the use of retrospective reviews for patients with uncommon diagnoses and shows how painstaking verification may be necessary to ensure that research conclusions are based on accurate data. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):237-241.].
Although it is common practice to assess alignment prior to total knee arthroplasty, preoperative knee alignment and its effect on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) postoperatively has not been well studied. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine if there are differences in PROs between patients with valgus deformities and patients with varus deformities. Further, this study assessed the baseline differences between these 2 groups preoperatively. Patients were placed into either the valgus or the varus group. Data collected included age, sex, race, height, weight, body mass index, knee alignment, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, and 2 PRO measures. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 5 scheduled follow-up visits during the first year postoperatively. The authors found that a higher percentage of female patients had a valgus deformity (84.9%). The varus group tended to have a higher body mass index. Radiographs revealed differences in tibia and femur deformities. The overall deformity was less in patients with a valgus deformity than in patients with a varus deformity (mean, 6.6° [SD, 4.4°] vs 8.6° [SD, 4.8°], P=.010). Preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score symptoms were significantly worse in the valgus group (P=.033). After adjusting for the significant baseline differences, all patients reported improved PROs during the postoperative period (P<.0001). Preoperatively, patients with valgus deformities and patients with varus deformities do not appear to be mere opposites of one another. The groups differed by sex, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score symptoms, and tibia, fibula, and overall deformity. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in PROs during and up to 1 year. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(6):e783-e788.].
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.