Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery最新文献

Background: Low socioeconomic status has been shown to contribute to poor outcomes in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. However, there is a paucity of studies investigating shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of socioeconomic status on baseline and postoperative outcome scores and implant survivorship after anatomic and reverse primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected single-institution database was performed to identify patients who underwent primary TSA. Zip codes were collected and converted to Area Deprivation Index (ADI) scores. We performed a correlation analysis between national ADI scores and preoperative, postoperative, and preoperative to postoperative improvement in range of motion (ROM), shoulder strength, and functional outcome scores in patients with minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were additionally grouped into groups according to their national ADI. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and revision-free survivorship were compared between groups.

Results: A total of 1148 procedures including 415 anatomic and 733 reverse total shoulder arthroplasties with a mean age of 64 ± 8.2 and 69.9 ± 8.0 years, respectively, were included. The mean follow-up was 6.3 ± 3.6 years for anatomic and 4.9 ± 2.7 years for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. We identified a weak negative correlation between national ADI and most functional outcome scores and ROM preoperatively (R range 0.07-0.16), postoperatively (R range 0.09-0.14), and preoperative to postoperative improvement (R range 0.01-0.17). Thus, greater area deprivation was weakly associated with poorer function preoperatively, poorer final outcomes, and poorer improvement in outcomes. There was no difference in the proportion of each ADI group achieving MCID, SCB, and PASS in the anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty cohort. However, in the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty cohort, the proportion of patients achieving MCID, SCB, and PASS decreased with greater deprivation. There was no difference in survivorship between ADI groups.

Conclusions: We found a negative effect of low socioeconomic status on baseline and postoperative patient outcomes and ROM; however, the correlations were relatively weak. Patients that reside in socioeconomically deprived areas have poorer functional outcomes before and after TSA and achieve less improvement from surgery. We should strive to identify modifiable factors to improve the success of TSA in socioeconomically deprived areas.

Background: It has previously been demonstrated that utilization of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) results in cost savings and improved outcomes. Despite these benefits, Medicare reimbursement for professional fees at ASCs are decreasing over time. In this study, we sought to analyze the discrepancy between facility fee and professional fee reimbursements for ASCs by Medicare for common shoulder procedures over time. We hypothesized that professional fees for shoulder procedures would decrease over the study period while facility fees kept pace with inflation.

Methods: Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify shoulder specific procedures approved for ASCs by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Procedures were grouped into arthroscopic and open categories. Publicly available data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was accessed via the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Lookup Tool and used to determine professional fee payments from 2018 to 2024. Additionally, Medicare ASC Payment Rates files were accessed to determine facility fee reimbursements to ASCs from 2018 to 2024. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and percent change over time. Compound annual growth rates were calculated and discrepancies in inflation were corrected for using the Consumer Price Index. The Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to correct P values in the setting of multiple comparisons.

Results: A total of 33 common shoulder procedures were included for analysis (10 arthroscopic codes and 23 open codes). Reimbursements for facility fees have remained significantly higher than corresponding professional fees for both open and arthroscopic procedures (P < .01). On average, facility fee reimbursements for common shoulder surgeries have risen on an annual basis in a manner consistent with inflation (P = .838). However, professional fees for these procedures have experienced a nearly uniform decline over the study period both nominally and in inflation-adjusted dollars (P = .064 and P = .005, respectively).

Conclusion: Facility fee payments for outpatient approved shoulder surgeries have matched or outpaced inflation. Over the same time period, professional fee reimbursements for surgeons are consistently decreasing, both in absolute and inflation-adjusted dollars. Reform to the physician fee schedule is necessary to ensure that Medicare patients retain access to high-quality physician care.

Prosthetic arthroplasty has emerged as a major contributor to the management of shoulder disorders. This paper outlines the situation in Australia regarding the process by which shoulder replacement devices are made available. Although entry of joint replacement devices to the Australian market is relatively unrestricted, they must be first approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration-based on safety and efficacy-to be legally used. In addition, to obtain a private insurance rebate (Prescribed List) and thus be commercially viable, the Federal Department of Health and Aged Care requires a more stringent benchmark of comparative clinical effectiveness and value for money. The AOANJRR (Australian Orthopaedic Associate National Joint Replacement Registry) records the implantation and possible revision of virtually all (>98%) major joint arthroplasties in Australia and plays an important role in informing surgeons about their implant selection, but also in identifying and highlighting devices with a higher than anticipated rate of revision. Although the increased cost of health care is placing pressure on health care systems around the world, in Australia, access to shoulder arthroplasty remains relatively unrestricted-but carefully controlled and monitored.