Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine the potential impact of opportunistic CT bone density screening in terms of increasing screening rates and cost avoidance. METHODS:The analytic dataset was extracted from the Medicare 5% Research Identifiable Files (2015-2022). All dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) procedures and contrast and/or noncontrast CT procedures of pertinent body regions were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Outcomes of interest included osteoporosis screening imaging and fragility fractures of the hip or spine. Potential annual cost avoidance was calculated. RESULTS:In total, 2,897,040 beneficiaries were identified for analysis, of whom 584,391 beneficiaries (20.2%) underwent DEXA and 658,703 beneficiaries (22.7%) did not undergo DEXA but did undergo at least one CT examination that included the L1 vertebral body, 446,706 (67.8%) without and 211,997 (32.2%) with contrast. In the noncontrast and contrast CT groups, there were 2,766 (0.6%) and 613 (0.3%) hip and 23,889 (5.3%) and 5,222 (2.5%) spine fragility fractures within 1 year of CT. The osteoporosis screening rate would increase by 76% using only noncontrast CT studies and by 113% using all CT studies. If only noncontrast CT was used to identify osteoporosis and treatment was successfully implemented in 100% of eligible beneficiaries, this study population would see a medical cost avoidance in excess of $17 million. If any CT was used, potential annual cost avoidance for this study's population would be nearly $100 million and $2.5 billion for all 2023 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS:Implementing opportunistic CT bone density screening could potentially have a substantial patient care and economic impact.

OBJECTIVE:To retrospectively validate the diagnostic power of attenuation values on chest and abdomen/pelvis CECTs, together and separately, compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-determined osteoporosis diagnoses, and to determine thresholds for accurate osteoporosis diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Subjects were identified using the electronic health record. Included patients received DEXA and CECT scans within 60 days of each other. Patients were excluded if taking osteoporosis medication, undergoing dialysis, receiving hormone or cancer therapy, had a history of cancer, osseous metastases, fractures, or compressions. Minimum, mean, and maximum CECT attenuation values of L1 trabecular bone axial cross-sections were measured by a non-physician in Hounsfield units (HUs) using an elliptical region of interest (ROI) tool. DEXA diagnoses were dichotomized as positive (osteoporosis) or negative (osteopenia/normal). The area under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUCs) were compared to identify ideal CECT attenuation thresholds. RESULTS:Two hundred nineteen subjects (mean age 66 ± 0.6 [range 35-92]; 196 (89%) females and 23 (11%) males) were included for analysis. Thirty-one (14%) subjects were positive and 188 (86%) were negative for osteoporosis. Minimum, mean, and maximum combined chest and abdomen/pelvis attenuation values demonstrated AUCs of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.84), 0.931 (95% CI 0.88-0.99), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.90). The optimal mean attenuation threshold for osteoporosis diagnosis was 120 HU (84% sensitive, 90% specific). There was no statistical difference in diagnostic power between mean attenuation values of chest and abdomen/pelvis CECTs. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CECT mean attenuation values of either chest or abdomen/pelvis CECTs could be used as appropriate thresholds in screening for osteoporosis.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Multiple modalities exist for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE), including electrodiagnostic testing (EDX), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with no consensus on the optimal strategy. This study's objective was to determine the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy in patients with suspected UNE. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We developed a decision analytic model from the U.S. healthcare perspective over a 1-year time horizon. Our hypothetical population comprised 56-year-old males with medial elbow pain and/or paresthesias radiating to the hand, without weakness. We compared incremental cost-effectiveness and total net monetary benefit (NMB) of single-modality strategies (EDX, US, MRI) and multimodality strategies (combinations of US/MRI, EDX/US, EDX/MRI). Input probabilities and utility values were obtained from the literature, and costs from Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services and institutional data. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Willingness-to-pay threshold was $100,000. RESULTS:The diagnostic strategy utilizing US first, followed by MRI, was favored with the highest total QALYs, .935, and total NMB, $92,667. EDX and US single-modality strategies were less favorable, with lower total QALYs, .894 and .906, respectively, and lower total NMB, $88,866 and $90,022. Other diagnostic strategies were excluded by absolute or extended dominance. One-way sensitivity analyses found model results sensitive to the utility of UNE recovery, but otherwise robust over a range of costs/probabilities. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests an initial US, then MRI is the most cost-effective strategy in the workup of patients with suspected UNE.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report osteoporosis screening utilization rates among Asian American (AsA) populations in the USA. METHODS:We retrospectively assessed the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening using the Medicare 5% Research Identifiable Files. Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes indicative of a DXA scan, we identified patients recommended for DXA screening according to the ACR-SPR-SSR Practice Parameters (females ≥ 65 years, males ≥ 70 years). Sociodemographic factors and their association with screening were evaluated using chi-square tests. RESULTS:There were 80,439 eligible AsA beneficiaries, and 12,102 (15.1%) received osteoporosis screening. DXA rate for women was approximately four times greater than the rate for men (19.8% vs. 5.0%; p < 0.001). AsA beneficiaries in zip codes with higher mean household income (MHI) were more likely to have DXA than those in lower MHI areas (17.6% vs. 14.3%, p < 0.001). AsA beneficiaries aged < 80 were more likely to receive DXA (15.5%) than those aged ≥ 80 (14.1%, p < 0.001). There were 2,979,801 eligible non-AsA beneficiaries, and 496,957 (16.7%) received osteoporosis screening during the study period. Non-Hispanic white beneficiaries had the highest overall screening rate (17.5%), followed by North American Native (13.0%), Black (11.8%), and Hispanic (11.1%) beneficiaries. Comparing AsA to non-AsA populations, there were significantly lower DXA rates among AsA beneficiaries when controlling for years of Medicare eligibility, patient age, sex, location, and mean income (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We found lower than expected DXA screening rates for AsA patients. A better understanding of the barriers and facilitators to AsA osteoporosis screening is needed to improve patient care.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to use the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey database to assess MRI utilization in patients 50 years and older with atraumatic hip or knee pain. METHODS:National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey weighted survey data (2007-2019) were obtained for ambulatory visits in patients 50 years and older with atraumatic hip or knee pain. The outcome variable was MRI ordering status, and analyzed characteristics included patient age, race/ethnicity, payer, physician specialty, metropolitan statistical area, and a coexistent radiography order. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to assess the association between MRI ordering status and the analyzed patient characteristics. All tests were two sided, and P values ≤.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS:In total, 88,978,804 knee pain and 28,675,725 hip pain patient visits (survey weighted) were analyzed, with 4,690,943 (5.3%) and 2,023,226 (7.1%) having knee or hip MRI orders, respectively. Overall, 2,454,433 knee pain visits (2.8%) and 575,155 hip pain visits (2.0%) had orders for both MRI and radiographs. Black patients (P = .03) and patients 80 years and older (P = .04) were less likely to have knee MRI ordered, whereas uninsured patients were less likely to have hip MRI ordered (P = .01). Patients with hip pain were more likely to have hip MRI ordered if seen by a surgical subspecialist (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS:A low proportion of MRI examinations were ordered for visits in patients 50 years and older with atraumatic hip or knee pain. Groups with lower health care access were less likely to have an MRI order, highlighting known disparities in health care equity.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the cost-effectiveness of different imaging modalities for initial detection of multiple myeloma (MM)-defining bone lesions. METHODS:A Markov model from the health care system perspective for patients with MGUS was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of five imaging techniques: skeletal survey (SS), low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), positron emission computed tomography (PETCT), and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) with and without diffusion (DIFF). Model inputs, including probabilities, utilities, and costs were obtained from comprehensive literature review. Costs were estimated in 2024 U.S. dollars, effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to $100,000/QALY, and timeframe of the simulation was 20 years. Model analyses included Monte Carlo microsimulation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS:The most cost-effective imaging strategy was dependent on the number of patient risk factors for progression from MGUS to myeloma. At a WTP threshold of $100,000, for patients with no risk factors for progression, LDCT amassed the greatest net monetary benefit (NMB) ($1,030,913.57) while incurring the second lowest costs ($44,870.73). For patients with 1 or 2 risk factors for progression, WBMRI + DIFF amassed the greatest NMB (1 risk factor: $802,637.30, 2 risk factors: $664,430.36). WBMRI and PETCT were absolutely dominated in all cases. PSA also found that the most cost-effective strategy was dependent on the WTP threshold. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our model suggests that LDCT and WBMRI + DIFF can be the most cost-effective imaging strategies for the initial diagnosis of MM in patients, depending on the number of risk factors for progression.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine the most cost-effective strategy for pelvic bone marrow biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A decision analytic model from the health care system perspective for patients with high clinical concern for multiple myeloma (MM) was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of three bone marrow core biopsy techniques: computed tomography (CT) guided, and fluoroscopy guided, no-imaging (landmark-based). Model input data on utilities, costs, and probabilities were obtained from comprehensive literature review and expert opinion. Costs were estimated in 2023 U.S. dollars. Primary effectiveness outcome was quality adjusted life years (QALY). Willingness to pay threshold was $100,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS:No-imaging based biopsy was the most cost-effective strategy as it had the highest net monetary benefit ($4218) and lowest overall cost ($92.17). Fluoroscopy guided was excluded secondary to extended dominance. CT guided biopsies were less preferred as it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($334,043) greater than the willingness to pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found non-imaging based biopsy to be the most cost-effective in 100% of simulations and at all willingness to pay thresholds up to $200,000. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:No-imaging based biopsy appears to be the most cost-effective strategy for bone marrow core biopsy in patients suspected of MM. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:No imaging guidance is the preferred strategy, although image-guidance may be required for challenging anatomy. CT image interpretation may be helpful for planning biopsies. Establishing a non-imaging guided biopsy service with greater patient anxiety and pain support may be warranted.

BACKGROUND:This study compares the outcomes of Latarjet-Patte procedures (LPs) performed for primary glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss (LP-BL) versus salvage surgery performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (LP-FB). METHODS:LP's performed by senior author from 2017 to 2021 were separated into cohorts by LP indication. Data abstracted from electronic medical records included demographic information, preoperative clinical scores, radiological imaging, and complications. Postoperative clinical outcome scores collected after a 2-year minimum follow-up included: patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS pain intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale pain scores. RESULTS:A total of 47 patients (LP-BL: n=29, LP-FB: n=18) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 15-58 years) were included in this study. Both cohorts achieved good upper extremity functionality without significant differences as indicated by mean PROMIS UE (LP-BL: 52.6±10.0 vs. LP-FB: 54.6±7.6, P=0.442) and ASES score (LP-BL: 89.9±15.7 vs. LP-FB: 91.5±14.4, P=0.712). However, the LP-FB cohort reported lower levels of pain (LP-FB: 0.5±1.1 vs. LP-BL: 1.9±2.7, P=0.020) at their latest follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates including re-dislocation between cohorts (LP-BL: 2/29 [6.9%] vs. LP-FB: 2/18 [11.1%], P=0.629). CONCLUSIONS:When performed after failed Bankart repair, the LP results in similar postoperative functional outcomes and similar rates of complications and re-dislocations when compared to the primary indication of recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss. Level of evidence: III.