Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate change in patient-reported outcomes following image-guided intra-articular therapeutic steroid hip injections for pain and assess correlations of outcomes with patient- and injection-specific factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients treated for hip pain who completed outcomes assessments from October 2011 to September 2017 at an outpatient orthopedic surgery clinic. Only patients with radiographic hip osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade ≥ 1) who underwent steroid hip injections were included. Outcomes assessments included EuroQol-5 domain (EQ5D), EQ5D-visual analog scale (VAS), and hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS), obtained before and within 1-6 months post-injection. Among 113 patients who completed surveys, the mean age was 59 years (±13.7 years), including 77 women (68%) and 36 men (32%). Time to repeat injection or arthroplasty was recorded. Exact Wilcoxon signed rank test assessed score differences and Spearman correlation, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests assessed correlations. RESULTS:Of 113 patients, 34 had outcomes measured at <8 weeks and 79 at ≥8 weeks. There was no significant change among any of the patients, short- or long-term follow-up subgroups in EQ5D (p = 0.450, 0.770, 0.493 respectively), EQ5D-VAS (p = 0.581, 0.915, 0.455), average-HOOS (p = 0.478, 0.696, 0.443) or total-HOOS (p = 0.380, 0.517, 0.423) scores. Forty-nine patients underwent hip arthroplasty within 1 year. Positive correlation was found between days from injection to surgery and change in EQ5D (r = 0.29, p = 0.025), average-HOOS (r = 0.33, p = 0.019), and total-HOOS (r = 0.37, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We demonstrated no significant change in patient-reported outcomes measured at short- and long-term intervals up to 6 months after therapeutic steroid hip injections.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Prostate cancer imaging rates appear to vary by health care setting. With the recent extension of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act, the government has provided funds for veterans to seek care outside the Veterans Health Administration (VA). It is important to understand the difference in imaging rates and subsequent differences in patterns of care in the VA vs a traditional fee-for-service setting such as Medicare. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To assess the association between prostate cancer imaging rates and a VA vs fee-for-service health care setting. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study included data for men who received a diagnosis of prostate cancer from January 1, 2004, through March 31, 2008, that were collected from the VA Central Cancer Registry, linked to administrate claims and Medicare utilization records, and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database. Three distinct nationally representative cohorts were constructed (use of VA only, use of Medicare only, and dual use of VA and Medicare). Men older than 85 years at diagnosis and men without high-risk features but missing any tumor risk characteristic (prostate-specific antigen, Gleason grade, or clinical stage) were excluded. Analysis of the data was completed from March 2016 to February 2018. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:Patient utilization of different health care delivery systems. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Rates of prostate cancer imaging were analyzed by health care setting (Medicare only, VA and Medicare, and VA only) among patients with low-risk prostate cancer and patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 98 867 men with prostate cancer (77.4% white; mean [SD] age, 70.26 [7.48] years) in the study cohort, 57.3% were in the Medicare-only group, 14.5% in the VA and Medicare group, and 28.1% in the VA-only group. Among men with low-risk prostate cancer, the Medicare-only group had the highest rate of guideline-discordant imaging (52.5%), followed by the VA and Medicare group (50.9%) and the VA-only group (45.9%) (P < .001). Imaging rates for men with high-risk prostate cancer were not significantly different among the 3 groups. Multivariable analysis showed that individuals in the VA and Medicare group (risk ratio [RR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98) and VA-only group (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92) were less likely to receive guideline-discordant imaging than those in the Medicare-only group. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:The results of this study suggest that patients with prostate cancer who use Medicare rather than the VA for health care could experience more utilization of health care services without an improvement in the quality of care.

We integrated and optimized patient-reported outcome measures into the electronic health record to provide quantitative, objective data regarding patients' health status, which is important for patient care, payer contracts, and research. With a multidisciplinary team from information technology, clinical informatics, population health, and physician champions, we used formal human-computer interaction techniques and user-centered design to integrate several technology platforms and computerized adaptive testing for the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. The patient-reported outcome measure system leverages software frequently used by health systems and provides data for research and clinical care via a mobile-responsive web application using Symfony, with REDCap for configuring assessments and de-identified data storage. The system incorporates Oracle databases and Epic flowsheets. Patients complete patient-reported outcome measures, with data viewable in MyChart and Epic Synopsis Reports. Researchers can access data portals. The highly usable, successful patient-reported outcome measures platform is acceptable to patients and clinicians and achieved 73 percent overall completion rates.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management, primary SLAP repair, and primary biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic isolated type II SLAP tear. METHODS:A microsimulation Markov model was constructed to compare 3 strategies for middle-aged patients with symptomatic type II SLAP tears: SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, or nonoperative management. A failed 6-month trial of nonoperative treatment was assumed. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2017 U.S. dollars using a societal perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Model results were compared with estimates from the published literature and were subjected to sensitivity analyses to evaluate robustness. RESULTS:Primary biceps tenodesis compared with SLAP repair conferred an increased effectiveness of 0.06 QALY with cost savings of $1,766. Compared with nonoperative treatment, both biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair were cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values of $3,344/QALY gained and $4,289/QALY gained, respectively). Sensitivity analysis showed that biceps tenodesis was the preferred strategy in most simulations (52%); however, for SLAP repair to become cost-effective over biceps tenodesis, its probability of failure would have to be lower than 2.7% or the cost of biceps tenodesis would have to be higher than $14,644. CONCLUSIONS:When compared with primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment, primary biceps tenodesis is the most cost-effective treatment strategy for type II SLAP tears in middle-aged patients. Primary biceps tenodesis offers increased effectiveness when compared with both primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment and lower costs than primary SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, economic decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of landmark-based and image-guided intraarticular steroid injections for the initial treatment of a population with adhesive capsulitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A decision analytic model from the health care system perspective over a 6-month time frame for 50-year-old patients with clinical findings consistent with adhesive capsulitis was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of three techniques for administering intraarticular steroid to the glenohumeral joint: landmark based (also called blind), ultrasound guided, and fluoroscopy guided. Input data on cost, probability, and utility estimates were obtained through a comprehensive literature search and from expert opinion. The primary effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Costs were estimated in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS:Ultrasound-guided injections were the dominant strategy for the base case, because it was the least expensive ($1280) and most effective (0.4096 QALY) strategy of the three options overall. The model was sensitive to the probabilities of getting the steroid into the joint by means of blind, ultrasound-guided, and fluoroscopy-guided techniques and to the costs of the ultrasound-guided and blind techniques. Two-way sensitivity analyses showed that ultrasound-guided injections were favored over blind and fluoroscopy-guided injections over a range of reasonable probabilities and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ultrasound-guided injections were cost-effective in 44% of simulations, compared with 34% for blind injections and 22% for fluoroscopy-guided injections and over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Ultrasound-guided injections are the most cost-effective option for the initial steroid-based treatment of patients with adhesive capsulitis. Blind and fluoroscopy-guided injections can also be cost-effective when performed by a clinician likely to accurately administer the medication into the correct location.

BACKGROUND:As the number of total hip and knee arthroplasty cases increases, it is important to understand the burden of factors that impact patient outcomes of these procedures. This article examined the time trends in key demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidity burden (Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), and presence of depression in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty using population-based, all-payer inpatient database, California Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, from 2007 to 2010. METHODS:Chi-square tests and analysis of variance were used. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were also performed to compare the prevalence of depression in 2007 to later years. RESULTS:In the primary total hip arthroplasty cohort, the prevalence of depression significantly increased by 20%, mean age decreased by 0.4 years, mean length of stay (LOS) decreased by 0.5 days, and having a CCI score of ≥3 increased by 30% (P value < .001 for all) over the study period. Similarly, in the primary total knee arthroplasty cohort, the prevalence of depression increased by 23%, the mean age decreased by 0.4 years, mean LOS decreased by 0.4 days, and the prevalence of CCI score of ≥3 increased by 35% (P value < .001 for all). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite the younger age of the joint arthroplasty population over time, we found increased prevalence of depression and comorbidity scores but shorter LOS. Further study is needed to determine the impact of the changing demographics of the total joint population and the best strategies to optimize their outcome with these procedures.