Pub Date : 2024-06-01DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00077
Philip P. Ratnasamy, Katelyn E. Rudisill, Peter Y Joo, Lisa L. Lattanza, Jonathan N. Grauer
Background: This study compared trends in use, predictive factors, and reimbursement of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) withthose of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) from 2010 to 2021 using a national administrative database. Methods: ECTR and OCTR patients were identified in the PearlDiver M151Ortho data set. Numeric and proportional utilization of these procedures was characterized for each year of study. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify predictive factors for having ECTR performed. The average 90-day reimbursement of ECTR and OCTR was determined. Results: From 2010 through 2021, 441,023 ECTR and 1,767,820 OCTR procedures were identified. The proportional use of ECTR compared with OCTR rose from 2010 (15.7% of procedures) to 2021 (26.1%). Independent predictors of having ECTR performed rather than OCTR included geographic variation (compared with having surgery in the Midwest, Northeast odds ratio [OR], 1.53; West OR, 1.62; and South OR, 1.66), having Medicare or commercial insurance (compared with commercial, Medicare OR, 0.94, and Medicaid OR, 0.69), female sex, and fewer comorbidities. The average 90-day reimbursement for ECTR was $3,114.82, compared with $3,087.62 for OCTR. Discussion: As of 2021, over one-fourth of carpal tunnel releases are done endoscopically. Several factors independently predict whether patients receive ECTR or OCTR.
{"title":"Trends in Open Versus Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release From 2010 to 2021","authors":"Philip P. Ratnasamy, Katelyn E. Rudisill, Peter Y Joo, Lisa L. Lattanza, Jonathan N. Grauer","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00077","url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study compared trends in use, predictive factors, and reimbursement of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) withthose of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) from 2010 to 2021 using a national administrative database. Methods: ECTR and OCTR patients were identified in the PearlDiver M151Ortho data set. Numeric and proportional utilization of these procedures was characterized for each year of study. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify predictive factors for having ECTR performed. The average 90-day reimbursement of ECTR and OCTR was determined. Results: From 2010 through 2021, 441,023 ECTR and 1,767,820 OCTR procedures were identified. The proportional use of ECTR compared with OCTR rose from 2010 (15.7% of procedures) to 2021 (26.1%). Independent predictors of having ECTR performed rather than OCTR included geographic variation (compared with having surgery in the Midwest, Northeast odds ratio [OR], 1.53; West OR, 1.62; and South OR, 1.66), having Medicare or commercial insurance (compared with commercial, Medicare OR, 0.94, and Medicaid OR, 0.69), female sex, and fewer comorbidities. The average 90-day reimbursement for ECTR was $3,114.82, compared with $3,087.62 for OCTR. Discussion: As of 2021, over one-fourth of carpal tunnel releases are done endoscopically. Several factors independently predict whether patients receive ECTR or OCTR.","PeriodicalId":120051,"journal":{"name":"JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141411790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-01DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-23-00222
Marcos R. Gonzalez, Raylin F. Xu, Alisha Sodhi, Vincent Fang, Chaewon Kim, Tom M de Groot, Joseph H. Schwab, S. Lozano-Calderon
Introduction: Despite the benefits of intramedullary nailing (IMN) of impending or pathologic fractures in oncologic patients, literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is scarce in patients treated with carbon fiber (CF) nails. Our study compared postoperative PROs after IMN with CF or titanium implants. Methods: We conducted a retrospective propensity score–matched cohort study of patients treated at our institution with CF or titanium nails for impending or pathologic fractures from metastatic bone disease. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health Short Form (SF) Physical, Mental, and Physical Function 10a scores were collected. Pain was assessed using visual analog scale (VAS). Absolute and differential scores were compared between groups. Results: We included 207 patients, 51 treated with CF and 156 with titanium nails. One month postoperatively, patients had a one-point decrease in the pain VAS score while PROMIS scores did not improve. At 3 months, PROMIS SF Physical and SF 10a scores improved from preoperative values. Six months postoperatively, median PROMIS SF Physical, SF Mental, and SF 10a scores were higher than preoperative scores. Absolute and differential PROMIS and pain VAS scores were similar between groups at the 6-month and 1-year marks. Conclusion: Patient-reported outcomes were similar after intramedullary nailing with either CF or titanium implants.
简介：尽管髓内钉（IMN）可治疗肿瘤患者即将发生的骨折或病理性骨折，但使用碳纤维（CF）钉治疗患者的患者报告结果（PROs）方面的文献却很少。我们的研究比较了使用碳纤维髓内钉或钛植入物进行髓内钉治疗后的术后观察结果。方法：我们对在本院接受碳纤维钉或钛钉治疗的转移性骨病即将发生骨折或病理性骨折的患者进行了倾向得分匹配队列回顾性研究。我们收集了患者报告结果测量信息系统（PROMIS）全球健康简表（SF）的身体、精神和身体功能 10a 评分。疼痛采用视觉模拟量表（VAS）进行评估。比较各组的绝对得分和差异得分。结果我们共纳入了 207 名患者，其中 51 人接受了 CF 治疗，156 人接受了钛钉治疗。术后一个月，患者的疼痛 VAS 评分下降了一分，而 PROMIS 评分没有改善。3 个月后，PROMIS SF 物理评分和 SF 10a 评分比术前有所提高。术后 6 个月，PROMIS SF 体力评分、SF 精神评分和 SF 10a 评分的中位数均高于术前评分。在 6 个月和 1 年时，各组的 PROMIS 和疼痛 VAS 绝对评分和差异评分相似。结论使用CF或钛植入物进行髓内钉治疗后，患者报告的结果相似。
{"title":"Patient-Reported Outcomes After Intramedullary Nailing of Oncologic Impending or Pathologic Fractures With Carbon Fiber or Titanium Implant","authors":"Marcos R. Gonzalez, Raylin F. Xu, Alisha Sodhi, Vincent Fang, Chaewon Kim, Tom M de Groot, Joseph H. Schwab, S. Lozano-Calderon","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-23-00222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-23-00222","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Despite the benefits of intramedullary nailing (IMN) of impending or pathologic fractures in oncologic patients, literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is scarce in patients treated with carbon fiber (CF) nails. Our study compared postoperative PROs after IMN with CF or titanium implants. Methods: We conducted a retrospective propensity score–matched cohort study of patients treated at our institution with CF or titanium nails for impending or pathologic fractures from metastatic bone disease. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health Short Form (SF) Physical, Mental, and Physical Function 10a scores were collected. Pain was assessed using visual analog scale (VAS). Absolute and differential scores were compared between groups. Results: We included 207 patients, 51 treated with CF and 156 with titanium nails. One month postoperatively, patients had a one-point decrease in the pain VAS score while PROMIS scores did not improve. At 3 months, PROMIS SF Physical and SF 10a scores improved from preoperative values. Six months postoperatively, median PROMIS SF Physical, SF Mental, and SF 10a scores were higher than preoperative scores. Absolute and differential PROMIS and pain VAS scores were similar between groups at the 6-month and 1-year marks. Conclusion: Patient-reported outcomes were similar after intramedullary nailing with either CF or titanium implants.","PeriodicalId":120051,"journal":{"name":"JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141416182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-19-00157
{"title":"The Effect of Metallic Instrumentation on Patient and Surgical Team Scatter Radiation Exposure Utilizing Mini-C Arm in a Simulated Forearm Fracture Fixation Model: Erratum","authors":"","doi":"10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-19-00157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-19-00157","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":120051,"journal":{"name":"JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127298418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-19-00158
{"title":"Technical Obstacles in Total Knee Arthroplasty Learning—A Steps Breakdown Evaluation: Erratum","authors":"","doi":"10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-19-00158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-19-00158","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":120051,"journal":{"name":"JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128984370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：