Faculty Bibliography

Overprescribing of opioids after surgical procedures can increase the risk of addiction in patients, and under prescribing can lead to poor quality of care. In this study, we propose a machine learning-based predictive framework to identify the varying effects of factors that are related to the opioid prescription amount after orthopaedic surgery. To predict the prescription classes, we train multiple classifiers combined with random and SMOTE over-sampling and weight-balancing techniques to cope with the imbalance state of the dataset. Our results show that the gradient boosting machines (XGB) with SMOTE achieve the highest classification accuracy. Our proposed analytical framework can be employed to assist and therefore, enable the surgeons to determine the timely changing effects of these variables.

BACKGROUND:The opioid epidemic in the United States is a public health crisis. As a result, regulatory agencies, including state governments, have enacted initiatives to decrease the use of opioids in the perioperative setting. The purpose of this study was to compare opioid utilization in orthopaedic surgery patients at discrete points after implementation of State regulatory and institution/physician-led initiatives to decrease opioid utilization in the perioperative period. METHODS:We reviewed the electronic medication orders for all patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery procedures between September 2015 and June 2018 at our urban academic medical center. The outcome measures were the number of patients who were prescribed opioid medications, duration of prescription (days), and average milligram morphine equivalents prescribed. Patients were divided into three time cohorts to assess the effect of the NY State (NYS) policy and institutional initiatives to decrease opioid utilization. RESULTS:A total of 20,483 patients met the inclusion criteria over all three time cohorts. After the initiation of the NYS 7-day supply legislation, there was a decrease in the average supply of opioids prescribed from 10.1 to 7.6 days and the average daily milligram morphine equivalent decreased from 67.9 to 56.7 mg (P < 0.0001). However, with the combination of physician education and surgeon-led institutional initiatives, the percentage of patients who were prescribed opioids decreased by over 10% (96% to 84%), with continued decrease in duration of prescription by 1.0 to 6.4 days (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:The addition of institution-led initiatives and education programs to previously established government-led prescription limits produced a substantial reduction in the amount of opioids prescribed to orthopaedic surgery patients in the perioperative period. Although mandatory limits set by the state government resulted in a decreased amount of opioid medications being prescribed per patient, it was only after the introduction of educational programs and institution- and physician-led programs that perioperative patient exposure to opioids decreased. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

BACKGROUND:Until recently, telehealth represented a small fraction of orthopedic surgery patient interactions. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a swift adoption of telehealth to avoid patient and provider exposure. This study analyzed patient and surgeon satisfaction with telehealth within the department of orthopedic surgery during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:All orthopedic surgery patients who partici-pated in telehealth from March 30 to April 30, 2020, were sent a 14-question survey via e-mail. Orthopedic surgeons who used telehealth were sent a separate 14-question survey at the end of the study period. Factors influencing patient satisfaction were determined using univariate proportional odds and multivariate partial proportional odds models. RESULTS:Three hundred and eighty-two patients and 33 surgeons completed the surveys. On average, patients were "satisfied" with telehealth (4.25/5.00 ± 0.96), and 37.0% preferred future visits to be conducted using telehealth. Multivariate partial proportional odds modeling determined that patients who found it easiest to arrange the telehealth visit had greater satisfaction (5.00/5.00 vs. 1.00-3.00/5.00: OR = 3.058; 95% CI = 1.621 to 5.768, p < 0.001), as did patients who believed they were able to communicate most effectively (5.00/5.00 vs. 1.00-4.00/5.00: OR = 20.268; 95% CI = 5.033 to 81.631, p < 0.001). Surgeons were similarly "satisfied" with telehealth (3.94/5.00 ± 0.86), and while their physical examinations were only "moderately effec-tive" (2.64/5.00 ± 0.99), they were "fairly confident" in their diagnoses (4.03/5.00 ± 0.64). Lastly, 36.7% ± 24.7% of surgeons believed that their telehealth patients required an in-person visit, and 93.9% of surgeons will continue using telehealth in the future. CONCLUSIONS:Telehealth emerged as a valuable tool for the delivery of health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. While both patients and surgeons were satisfied with its use, this study identifies areas that can improve the patient and surgeon experience. The effectiveness and satisfaction with telehealth should inform regulatory and reimbursement policy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had unprecedented impact on the United States health care system. One of the consider-ations was the decision to halt elective orthopedic surgery to preserve consumption of scarce resources. However, as the number of COVID-19 cases decrease, there will be discus-sions regarding the modality of resuming elective orthopedic surgery. Ethical considerations will come to the forefront in terms of determining the best course of action, patient selection, resource rationing, and financial implications. These factors will be examined through the lens of the four tenets of bioethics, beneficence, maleficence, autonomy, and justice, to elucidate the best approach in ethically manag-ing elective orthopedic surgery during a global pandemic.

BACKGROUND:As the opioid crisis has gained national attention, there have been increasing efforts to decrease opioid usage. Simultaneously, patient satisfaction has been a crucial metric in the American health care system and has been closely linked to effective pain management in surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to examine rates of pain medication prescription and concurrent patient satisfaction in spine surgery patients. METHODS:test of independence was used to compare percentages, and 1-way analysis of variance was used to compare means across quarters. RESULTS:value range, .359-.988). CONCLUSIONS:Over the studied time period, opioid use decreased and nonopioid prescriptions increased during hospitalization, whereas satisfaction scores remained unchanged. These findings indicate an increasing effort in reducing opioid use among providers and suggest the ability to do so without affecting overall satisfaction rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:The opioid epidemic has highlighted the need to reduce opioid usage in orthopedic spine surgery. This study reviews the trends for inpatient management of post-op pain in orthopedic spine surgery patients in relation to patient satisfaction. There was a significant increase in non-opioid analgesic pain medications, and a reduction in opioids during the study period. During this time, patient satisfaction as measured by Press-Ganey surveys did not show a decrease. This demonstrates that treatment of post-operative pain in orthopedic spine surgery patients can be managed with less opioids, more multimodal analgesia, and patient satisfaction will not be affected.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of outcomes in single-level spine and primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients. OBJECTIVE:Compare baseline and post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery procedures with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to further define outcomes in orthopedic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Computer-adaptive Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) allows for standardized assessment of the Health Related Quality of Life across different disease states. METHODS:Patients who underwent spine surgery (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement, lumbar laminectomy, microscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or adult reconstruction surgery (THA, TKA) were grouped. Mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Baseline (BL) and 6-month (6 M) PROMIS scores of Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity were determined. Paired t-tests compared differences in CCI, BL, 6 M, and change in PROMIS scores for spine and adult reconstruction procedures. RESULTS:304 spine surgery patients (Age=58.1 ± 15.6; 42.9% Female) and 347 adult reconstruction patients (Age=62.9 ± 11.8; 54.1% Female) were compared. Spine surgery groups had more disability and pain at baseline than adult reconstruction patients according to Physical Function [(21.0, 22.2, 9.07, 12.6, 10.4) vs (35.8, 35.0), respectively, p < .01], Pain Interference [(80.1, 74.1, 89.6, 92.5, 90.6) vs (64.0, 63.9), respectively, p < .01] and Pain Intensity [(53.0, 53.1, 58.3, 58.5, 56.1) vs (53.4, 53.8), respectively, p < .01]. At 6 M, spine surgery patients remained more disabled and had more pain compared to adult reconstruction patients. Over the 6-month timespan, spine patients experienced greater improvements than adult reconstruction patients in terms of Physical Function [(+8.7, +22.2, +9.7, +12.9, +12.1) vs (+5.3, +3.9), respectively, p < .01] and Pain Interference scores [(-15.4, -28.1, -14.7, -13.1, -12.3) vs (-8.3, -6.0), respectively, p < .01]. CONCLUSIONS:Spinal surgery patients had lower BL and 6 M PROMIS scores, but greater relative improvement in PROMIS scores compared to adult reconstruction patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3.

OBJECTIVES:(1) To demonstrate how a risk assessment tool modified to account for the COVID-19 virus during the current global pandemic is able to provide risk assessment for low-energy geriatric hip fracture patients. (2) To provide a treatment algorithm for care of COVID-19 positive/suspected hip fractures patients that accounts for their increased risk of morbidity and mortality. SETTING:One academic medical center including 4 Level 1 trauma centers, 1 university-based tertiary care referral hospital, and 1 orthopaedic specialty hospital. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS:One thousand two hundred seventy-eight patients treated for hip fractures between October 2014 and April 2020, including 136 patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic between February 1, 2020 and April 15, 2020. INTERVENTION:The Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged ORIGINAL (STTGMAORIGINAL) score was modified by adding COVID-19 virus as a risk factor for mortality to create the STTGMACOVID score. Patients were stratified into quartiles to demonstrate differences in risk distribution between the scores. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:Inpatient and 30-day mortality, major, and minor complications. RESULTS:Both STTGMA score and COVID-19 positive/suspected status are independent predictors of inpatient mortality, confirming their use in risk assessment models for geriatric hip fracture patients. Compared with STTGMAORIGINAL, where COVID-19 patients are haphazardly distributed among the risk groups and COVID-19 inpatient and 30 days mortalities comprise 50% deaths in the minimal-risk and low-risk cohorts, the STTGMACOVID tool is able to triage 100% of COVID-19 patients and 100% of COVID-19 inpatient and 30 days mortalities into the highest risk quartile, where it was demonstrated that these patients have a 55% rate of pneumonia, a 35% rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome, a 22% rate of inpatient mortality, and a 35% rate of 30 days mortality. COVID-19 patients who are symptomatic on presentation to the emergency department and undergo surgical fixation have a 30% inpatient mortality rate compared with 12.5% for patients who are initially asymptomatic but later develop symptoms. CONCLUSION:The STTGMA tool can be modified for specific disease processes, in this case to account for the COVID-19 virus and provide a robust risk stratification tool that accounts for a heretofore unknown risk factor. COVID-19 positive/suspected status portends a poor outcome in this susceptible trauma population and should be included in risk assessment models. These patients should be considered a high risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. Patients with COVID-19 symptoms on presentation should have surgery deferred until symptoms improve or resolve and should be reassessed for surgical treatment versus definitive nonoperative treatment with palliative care and/or hospice care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of Levels of Evidence.

BACKGROUND:Alternative payment models were set up to increase the value of care for total joint arthroplasty. Currently, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are reimbursed within the same bundle. We sought to determine whether it was appropriate for these cases to be included within the same bundle. METHODS:The data were collected from consecutive patients in a bundled payment program at a single large academic institution. All payments for 90 days postoperatively were included in the episode of care. Readmission rates, demographics, and length of stay were collected for each episode of care. RESULTS:There was a significant difference in cost of episode of care between TKA and THA, with the average TKA episode-of-care cost being higher than the average THA episode-of-care cost ($25803 vs $23805, P < .0001). There was a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups between gender, race, medical complexity, disposition outcome, and length of stay. The TKA group trended toward a lower readmission rate (5.3%) compared to the THA group (6.6%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The cost of an episode of care for patients within the bundled payment model is significantly higher for patients undergoing TKA compared with those undergoing a THA. This should be taken into consideration when determining payment plans for patients in alternative payment plans, along with other aspects of risk that need to be considered in order to allow for hospitals to be successful under the bundled payment model.

BACKGROUND:Currently, there is no established universal standard of care for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in orthopedic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The aim of this study is to determine whether a protocol of 81-mg aspirin (ASA) bis in die (BID) is safe and/or effective in preventing VTE in patients undergoing rTHAs vs 325-mg ASA BID. METHODS:In 2017, a large academic medical center adopted a new protocol for VTE prophylaxis in arthroplasty patients at standard risk. Initially, patients received 325-mg ASA BID but switched to 81-mg ASA BID. A retrospective review (2011-2019) was performed to identify 1361 consecutive rTHA patients and their associated 90-day postoperative complications such as VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), as the primary outcome; and gastrointestinal and wound bleeding, acute periprosthetic joint infection, and mortality as the secondary outcome. RESULTS:From 2011 to 2017, 973 rTHAs were performed and 13 total VTE cases were diagnosed (1.34%). From 2017 to 2019, 388 rTHAs were performed with 3 total VTE cases identified (0.77%). Chi-squared analyses and logistic regression models showed no differences in rates or odds in postoperative PE (P = .09), DVT (P = .79), PE and DVT (P = .85), and total VTE (P = .38) using either dose. There were also no differences between bleeding complications (P = .14), infection rate (P = .46), and mortality (P = .53). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Using a protocol of 81-mg of ASA BID is noninferior to 325-mg ASA BID and may be safe and effective in maintaining low rates of VTE in patients undergoing rTHA.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To examine one health system's response to the essential care of its hip fracture population during the COVID-19 pandemic and report on its effect on patient outcomes. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective cohort study SETTING:: Seven musculoskeletal care centers with New York City and Long Island. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:138 recent and 115 historical hip fracture patients. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Patients with hip fractures occurring between February 1, 2020 and April 15, 2020 or between February 1, 2019 and April 15, 2019 were prospectively enrolled in an orthopedic trauma registry and chart reviewed for demographic and hospital quality measures. Patients with recent hip fractures were identified as COVID positive (C+), COVID suspected (Cs) or COVID negative (C-). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Hospital quality measures, inpatient complications and mortality rates. RESULTS:Seventeen (12.2%) patients were confirmed C+ by testing and another 14 (10.1%) were suspected (Cs) of having had the virus but were never tested. The C+ cohort, when compared to Cs and C- cohorts, had: an increased mortality rate (35.3% vs 7.1% vs 0.9%), increased length of hospital stay, a greater major complication rate and a greater incidence of ventilator need postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS:COVID-19 had a devastating effect on the care of hip fracture patients during the pandemic. Although practice patterns generally remained unchanged, treating physicians need to understand the increased morbidity and mortality in hip fracture patients complicated by COVID-19. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of Levels of Evidence.