A lack of racial and ethnic representation in clinical trials may limit the generalizability of the orthopaedic evidence base as it applies to patients in underrepresented minority populations and ...perpetuate existing disparities in use, complications, or functional outcomes. Although some commentators have implied the need for mandatory race or ethnicity reporting across all orthopaedic trials, the usefulness of race or ethnic reporting likely depends on the specific topic, prior evidence of disparities, and individualized study hypotheses.
In a systematic review, we asked: (1) What proportion of orthopaedic clinical trials report race or ethnicity data, and of studies that do, how many report data regarding social covariates or genomic testing? (2) What trends and associations exist for racial and ethnic reporting among these trials between 2000 and 2020? (3) What is the racial or ethnic representation of United States trial participants compared with that reported in the United States Census?
We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with human participants published in three leading general-interest orthopaedic journals that focus on clinical research: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume; Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; and Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases using the following inclusion criteria: English-language studies, human studies, randomized controlled trials, publication date from 2000 to 2020, and published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume; or Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. Primary outcome measures included whether studies reported participant race or ethnicity, other social covariates (insurance status, housing or homelessness, education and literacy, transportation, income and employment, and food security and nutrition), and genomic testing. The secondary outcome measure was the racial and ethnic categorical distribution of the trial participants included in the studies reporting race or ethnicity. From our search, 1043 randomized controlled trials with 184,643 enrolled patients met the inclusion criteria. Among these studies, 21% (223 of 1043) had a small (< 50) sample size, 56% (581 of 1043) had a medium (50 to 200) sample size, and 23% (239 of 1043) had a large (> 200) sample size. Fourteen percent (141 of 1043) were based in the Northeast United States, 9.2% (96 of 1043) were in the Midwest, 4.7% (49 of 1043) were in the West, 7.2% (75 of 1043) were in the South, and 65% (682 of 1043) were outside the United States. We calculated the overall proportion of studies meeting the inclusion criteria that reported race or ethnicity. Then among the subset of studies reporting race or ethnicity, we determined the overall rate and distribution of social covariates and genomic testing reporting. We calculated the proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity that also reported a difference in outcome by race or ethnicity. We calculated the proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity by each year in the study period. We also calculated the proportions and 95% CIs of individual patients in each racial or ethnic category of the studies meeting the inclusion criteria.
During the study period (2000 to 2020), 8.5% (89 of 1043) of studies reported race or ethnicity. Of the trials reporting this factor, 4.5% (four of 89) reported insurance status, 15% (13 of 89) reported income, 4.5% (four of 89) reported housing or homelessness, 18% (16 of 89) reported education and literacy, 0% (0 of 89) reported transportation, and 2.2% (two of 89) reported food security or nutrition of trial participants. Seventy-eight percent (69 of 89) of trials reported no social covariates, while 22% (20 of 89) reported at least one. However, 0% (0 of 89) of trials reported genomic testing. Additionally, 5.6% (five of 89) of these trials reported a difference in outcomes by race or ethnicity. The proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity increased, on average, by 0.6% annually (95% CI 0.2% to 1.0%; p = 0.02). After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as funding source, we found that studies with an increased sample size were more likely to report data by race or ethnicity; location in North America overall, Europe, Asia, and Australia or New Zealand (compared with the Northeast United States) were less likely to; and specialty-topic studies (compared with general orthopaedics research) were less likely to. Our sample of United States trials contained 18.9% more white participants than that reported in the United States Census (95% CI 18.4% to 19.4%; p < 0.001), 5.0% fewer Black participants (95% CI 4.6% to 5.3%; p < 0.001), 17.0% fewer Hispanic participants (95% CI 16.8% to 17.1%; p < 0.001), 5.3% fewer Asian participants (95% CI 5.2% to 5.4%; p < 0.001), and 7.5% more participants from other groups (95% CI 7.2% to 7.9%; p < 0.001).
Reporting of race or ethnicity data in orthopaedic clinical trials is low compared with other medical fields, although the proportion of diseases warranting this reporting might be lower in orthopaedics.
Investigators should initiate discussions about race and ethnicity reporting in the early stages of clinical trial development by surveying available published evidence for relevant health disparities, social determinants, and, when warranted, genomic risk factors. The decision to include or exclude race and ethnicity data in study protocols should be based on specific hypotheses, necessary statistical power, and an appreciation for unmeasured confounding. Future studies should evaluate cost-efficient mechanisms for obtaining baseline social covariate data and investigate researcher perspectives on current administrative workflows and decision-making algorithms for race and ethnicity reporting.
BACKGROUND:Although elective surgical procedures in the United States have been suspended because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, orthopaedic surgeons are being recruited to ...serve patients with COVID-19 in addition to providing orthopaedic acute care. Older individuals are deemed to be at higher risk for poor outcomes with COVID-19. Although previous studies have shown a high proportion of older providers nationwide across medical specialties, we are not aware of any previous study that has analyzed the age distribution among the orthopaedic workforce. Therefore, the purposes of the present study were (1) to determine the geographic distribution of U.S. orthopaedic surgeons by age, (2) to compare the distribution with other surgical specialties, and (3) to compare this distribution with the spread of COVID-19.
METHODS:Demographic statistics from the most recent State Physician Workforce Data Reports published by the Association of American Medical Colleges were extracted to identify the 2018 statewide proportion of practicing orthopaedic surgeons ≥60 years of age as well as age-related demographic data for all surgical specialties. Geospatial data on the distribution of COVID-19 cases were obtained from the Environmental Systems Research Institute. State boundary files were taken from the U.S. Census Bureau. Orthopaedic workforce age data were utilized to group states into quintiles.
RESULTS:States with the highest quintile of orthopaedic surgeons ≥60 years of age included states most severely affected by COVID-19New York, New Jersey, California, and Florida. For all states, the median number of providers ≥60 years of age was 105.5 (interquartile range IQR, 45.5 to 182.5). The median proportion of orthopaedic surgeons ≥60 years of age was higher than that of all other surgical subspecialties, apart from thoracic surgery.
CONCLUSIONS:To our knowledge, the present report provides the first age-focused view of the orthopaedic workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic. States in the highest quintile of orthopaedic surgeons ≥60 years old are also among the most overwhelmed by COVID-19. As important orthopaedic acute care continues in addition to COVID-19 frontline service, special considerations may be needed for at-risk staff. Appropriate health system measures and workforce-management strategies should protect the subset of those who are most potentially vulnerable.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Patients who undergo endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) often require reintervention after the index repair. The long-term rate of reintervention and how this has changed with newer device ...technology are poorly understood. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to determine long-term freedom from reintervention after EVAR and the change in reintervention rates over time.
We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that documented the rate of reintervention after EVAR. We performed a meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier freedom from reintervention at each year after EVAR. We used linear regression to evaluate change in reintervention rate over time with newer device technology.
We included a total of 30 studies (randomized trials, n = 3; observational studies, n = 27) comprising 32,126 patients in this review and meta-analysis. Studies ranged in the implantation date of the EVAR device from 1996 to 2014. The probability of freedom from reintervention was 81% (95% confidence interval CI, 77%-85%) at 5 years, 70% (95% CI, 65%-76%) at 10 years, and 64% (95% CI, 46%-79%) at 14 years. Linear regression demonstrated an improvement in freedom from reintervention when results were stratified by the year of device implantation. At 1 year, estimated freedom from reintervention improved from 90% in 1998 to 94% in 2008 (n = 26 studies; R2 = 0.11; P = .10). At three years, estimated freedom from reintervention improved from 77% in 1998 to 90% in 2008 (n = 26 studies; R2 = 0.27; P = .006). At 5 years, estimated freedom from reintervention improved from 68% in 1998 to 81% in 2008 (n = 22 studies; R2 =0.12; P = .12). At 7 years, estimated freedom from reintervention improved from 51% in 1998 to 86% in 2011 (n = 22 studies; R2 = 0.40; P = .015).
EVAR patients remain at risk for reintervention indefinitely, and therefore lifelong surveillance is imperative. Encouragingly, reintervention rates have improved over time, with newer devices exhibiting lower rates. Reintervention rate remains an important metric for new devices and registries.
Although previous studies have evaluated how the proportion of women in orthopaedic surgery has changed over time, these analyses have been limited by small sample sizes, have primarily used data on ...residents, and have not included information on growth across subspecialties and geographic regions.
We used the National Provider Identifier registry to ask: How have the (1) overall, (2) regional, and (3) subspecialty percentages of women among all currently practicing orthopaedic providers changed over time in the United States?
The National Provider Identifier Registry of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was queried for all active providers with taxonomy codes pertaining to orthopaedic subspecialties as of April 2020. Women orthopaedic surgeons were identified among all physicians with subspecialty taxonomy codes. As all providers are required to provide a gender when applying for an NPI, all providers with queried taxonomy codes additionally had gender classification. Our final cohort consisted of 31,296 practicing orthopaedic surgeons, of whom 8% (2363 of 31,296) were women. A total of 11,714 (37%) surgeons possessed taxonomy codes corresponding with a specific orthopaedic subspecialty. A univariate linear regression analysis was used to analyze trends in the annual proportions of women who are active orthopaedic surgeons based on NPI enumeration dates. Specifically, annual proportions were defined using cross-sections of the NPI registry on December 31 of each year. Linear regression was similarly used to evaluate changes in the annual proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across United States Census regions and divisions, as well as orthopaedic subspecialties. The national growth rate was then projected forward to determine the year at which the representation of women orthopaedic surgeons would achieve parity with the proportion of all women physicians (36.3% or 340,018 of 936,254, as determined by the 2019 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile) and the proportion of all women in the United States (50.8% or 166,650,550 of 328,239,523 as determined by 2019 American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau). Gender parity projections along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Holt-Winters forecasting algorithm. The proportions of women physicians and women in the United States were assumed to remain fixed at 2019 values of 36.3% and 50.8%, respectively.
There was a national increase in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons between 2010 and 2019 (r2 = 0.98; p < 0.001) at a compound annual growth rate of 2%. Specifically, the national proportion of orthopaedic surgeons who were women increased from 6% (1670 of 26,186) to 8% (2350 of 30,647). Assuming constant growth at this rate following 2019, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession (that is, to achieve 36.3% women in orthopaedic surgery) is projected to be 217 years, or by the year 2236. Likewise, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall US population (which is 50.8% women) is projected to be 326 years, or by the year 2354. During our study period, there were increases in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across US Census regions. The lowest growth was in the West (17%) and the South (19%). Similar growth was demonstrated across census divisions. In each orthopaedic subspecialty, we found increases in the proportion of women surgeons throughout the study period. Adult reconstruction (0%) and spine surgery (1%) had the lowest growth.
We calculate that at the current rate of change, it will take more than 200 years for orthopaedic surgery to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession. Although some regions and subspecialties have grown at comparably higher rates, collectively, there has been minimal growth across all domains.
Given this meager growth, we believe that substantive changes must be made across all levels of orthopaedic education and leadership to steepen the current curve. These include mandating that all medical school curricula include dedicated exposure to orthopaedic surgery to increase the number of women coming through the orthopaedic pipeline. Additionally, we believe the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and individual programs should require specific benchmarks for the proportion of orthopaedic faculty and fellowship program directors, as well as for the proportion of incoming trainees, who are women. Furthermore, we believe there should be a national effort led by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and orthopaedic subspecialty societies to foster the academic development of women in orthopaedic surgery while recruiting more women into leadership positions. Future analyses should evaluate the efficacy of diversity efforts among other surgical specialties that have achieved or made greater strides toward gender parity, as well as how these programs can be implemented into orthopaedic surgery.
To understand prevalence and factors associated with concurrent mental illness and financial barriers to mental health care after orthopaedic trauma.
This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study.
...Interview-based survey was conducted across representative sample of 30,000 US households.
The study included 2,309 survey respondents reporting a fracture over the past 3 months, between 2004 and 2017.
Screening for financial barriers to mental health care.
Prevalence and factors associated with concurrent mental illness and financial barriers to mental health care based on sociodemographic and injury characteristics were the main outcome measurements.
Of the 2309 orthopaedic trauma survivors included in our analysis, 203 patients 7.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.4%-9.2% were determined to experience severe mental illness, of whom 54 (25.3%, 95% CI: 18.0%-32.6%) and 86 (40.9%, 95% CI: 31.5%-50.2%) reported financial barriers to counseling and pharmacotherapy, respectively. Factors associated with concurrent severe mental illness and cost barriers to care were 45 to 64 years of age adjusted odds ratios (AOR) 5.1, 95% CI: 1.7-15, P = 0.004, income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Threshold (AOR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2-5.3, P = 0.012), and unemployment at the time of injury (AOR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.4-11, P = 0.009).
Approximately one half of orthopaedic trauma survivors with severe mental illness face financial barriers to some form of mental health services. Younger, minority, and low socioeconomic status patients are most affected. These data suggest the presence of postdiagnosis disparities in mental health access that may be improved through direct provision and subsidization of integrated mental health support services for high-risk populations.
Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND:As orthopaedic physician fees continue to come under scrutiny by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), there is a continued need to evaluate trends in reimbursement ...rates across contemporary time intervals. Although substantially lower work relative value units (RVUs) have been previously demonstrated for septic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared with aseptic revisions, to our knowledge, there has been no corresponding analysis comparing total physician fees. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to analyze temporal trends in Medicare physician fees for septic and aseptic revision TKAs.
METHODS:Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes related to septic 1-stage and 2-stage revision TKAs and aseptic revision TKAs were categorized. From 2002 to 2019, the facility rates of physician fees associated with each CPT code were obtained from the CMS Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool. Monetary data from Medicare Administrative Contractors at 85 locations were used to calculate nationally representative means. All total physician fee values were adjusted for inflation and were translated to 2019 U.S. dollars using Consumer Price Index data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cumulative annual percentage changes and compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) were computed utilizing adjusted physician fee data.
RESULTS:After adjusting for inflation, the total mean Medicare reimbursement (and standard deviation) for aseptic revision TKA decreased 24.83% ± 3.65% for 2-component revision and 24.21% ± 3.68% for 1-component revision. The mean septic revision TKA total Medicare reimbursement declined 23.29% ± 3.73% for explantation and 33.47% ± 3.24% for reimplantation. Both the dollar amount (p < 0.0001) and the percentage (p < 0.0001) of the total Medicare reimbursement decline for septic revision TKA were significantly greater than the decline for aseptic revision TKA.
CONCLUSIONS:Septic revision TKAs have been devalued at a rate greater than their aseptic counterparts over the past 2 decades. Coupled with our findings, the increased resource utilization of septic revision TKAs may result in financial barriers for physicians and subsequently may reduce access to care for patients with periprosthetic joint infections.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE:The devaluation of revision TKAs may result in reduced patient access to infection management at facilities unable to bear the financial burden of these procedures.
Investigations into reimbursement trends for primary and revision arthroplasty procedures have demonstrated a steady decline over the past several years. Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) due to ...infection (rTHA-I) has been associated with higher resource utilization and complexity, but long-term inflation-adjusted data have yet to be compared between rTHA-I and rTHA due to aseptic complications (rTHA-A). The present study was performed to analyze temporal reimbursement trends regarding rTHA-I procedures compared with those for rTHA-A procedures.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract Medicare reimbursements associated with 1-stage and 2-stage rTHA-I as well as 1-stage rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for rTHA were grouped according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons coding reference guide. Monetary values were adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; reported as 2019 U.S. dollars) and used to calculate the cumulative and average annual percent changes in reimbursement.
Following inflation adjustment, the physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-A decreased by a mean and standard deviation of 27.26% ± 3.57% (from $2,209.11 in 2002 to $1,603.20 in 2019) for femoral component revision, 27.41% ± 3.57% (from $2,130.55 to $1,542.91) for acetabular component revision, and 27.50% ± 2.56% (from $2,775.53 to $2,007.61) for both-component revision. Similarly, for a 2-stage rTHA-I, the mean reimbursement declined by 18.74% ± 3.87% (from $2,063.36 in 2002 to $1,673.36 in 2019) and 24.45% ± 3.69% (from $2,328.79 to $1,755.45) for the explantation and reimplantation stages, respectively. The total decline in physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-I ($1,020.64 ± $233.72) was significantly greater than that for rTHA-A ($580.72 ± $107.22; p < 0.00001).
Our study demonstrated a consistent devaluation of both rTHA-I and rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019, with a larger deficit seen for rTHA-I. A continuation of this trend could create substantial disincentives for physicians to perform such procedures and limit access to care at the population level.
Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
The Veterans Health Administration has been criticized for long wait times; however, studies indicate that Veterans Health Administration wait times are shorter than those for the Veterans Health ...Administration's Community Care Program. Previous studies have analyzed primary care wait times, but few have compared surgical specialties.
Using a publicly available data set of veteran appointments compiled from the Veterans Health Administration's Corporate Data Warehouse, a nationally representative database containing 623,868 surgical consults from January 1 to June 30, 2021, mean differences in wait times between the Veterans Health Administration and the Community Care Program were calculated across surgical specialties.
In total, 49.6% of the surgical consults placed during the study period were for the Community Care Program. Across all surgical specialties, wait times were shorter in the Veterans Health Administration. Cardiothoracic surgery had the shortest mean wait times (23.1 days Veterans Health Administration; 30.0 days Community Care Program). The greatest difference in wait times was observed in plastic surgery, with Community Care Program appointments occurring 15.8 days later than Veterans Health Administration appointments on average.
Across all surgical specialties, the Veterans Health Administration had shorter wait times than the Community Care Program during the study period.
PDF
