Background: Telemedicine platforms have been developed to support the convenient delivery of health care services to their patients while maintaining appropriate quality of care. However, it is unclear whether they can be utilized effectively in patients with pediatric spinal deformity (PSD). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and patient satisfaction associated with virtual visit (VV) utilization in PSD patients in comparison to general pediatric orthopaedic indications. Methods: Of the 482 VVs offered to pediatric orthopaedic patients at a large academic health care system between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018, a total of 189 VVs conducted by board-certified orthopaedic surgeons were included in the final analysis. Patient satisfaction scores were collected at the end of each VV by patient and parent rankings of the surgeon and the telemedicine service. Data on patients, visits, and connectivity sessions characteristics were collected and statistically compared between PSD visits (n=33) versus those conducted for general pediatric orthopaedic indications (n=156). Results: Although PSD patients were older (15±3.7 vs. 12±4.7 y; P<0.01), mostly female (76% vs. 47%, P=0.003), and had longer VVs (8±4.6 vs. 5±3.6 min; P=0.003) versus their general pediatric orthopaedic counterparts, they demonstrated similarly high satisfaction scores for surgeon performance (5±0 vs. 4.8±0.1 points; P=0.08) and overall satisfaction (3±2.4 vs. 3.5±2.1; P=0.23). Approximately 80% of all VVs were conducted over mobile devices. Wait time was substantially less for PSD VVs relative to subsequent office visits (13±10 vs. 41±30 min; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our analysis found that telemedicine VVs provided a convenient alternative to traditional in-office visits for PSD patients. Specifically, we found that PSD patients received faster care with comparable satisfaction. The findings of our present analysis should encourage health care systems to continually evaluate and implement telehealth platforms to improve both the accessibility and appropriate quality of care. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

No abstract

Background: Outpatient joint arthroplasty is a potential modality for increased case throughput and is rising in demand. However, we are aware of no study that has compared outcomes between risk-matched outpatient and inpatient procedures within the last 7 years. The aims of this study were to compare matched patient cohorts who underwent outpatient or inpatient joint arthroplasty in terms of 30-day adverse events and readmission rates. Methods: From the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we identified patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) from 2009 to 2018. Using 10 perioperative variables, patients who underwent an outpatient procedure were 1:4 propensity score-matched with patients who underwent an inpatient procedure. The rates of 30-day adverse events and readmission were compared using the McNemar test. The risk factors for adverse events and readmissions were identified using multivariate regression. Results: Of 574,375 patients identified, 21,506 (3.74%) underwent an outpatient procedure. After propensity score matching, an outpatient joint arthroplasty was associated with a lower rate of adverse events (3.18% compared with 7.45%; p < 0.001). When assessed individually, outpatient TKA (3.15% compared with 8.11%; p < 0.001), THA (4.94% compared with 10.05%; p < 0.001), and UKA (1.78% compared with 3.39%; p < 0.001) were all associated with fewer adverse events overall and there was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmission, when compared with inpatient analogs. Outpatient joint arthroplasty was an independent factor for lower adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 0.407 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.369 to 0.449]; p < 0.001), with no increase in the risk of readmission (OR, 1.004 [95% CI, 0.878 to 1.148]; p = 0.951). Conclusions: Contemporary outpatient joint arthroplasty demonstrated lower rates of adverse events with no increased rate of 30-day readmission when compared with risk-matched inpatient counterparts. Although multiple factors should guide the decision for the site of care, outpatient arthroplasty may be a safe alternative to inpatient arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Revision total knee arthroplasty for infection is challenging. Septic revisions, whether 1-stage or 2-stage, may require more time and effort than comparable aseptic revisions. However, the burden of infection may not be reflected by the relative value units (RVUs) assigned to septic revision compared with aseptic revision. The purposes of this study were to compare the RVUs of aseptic and septic revision total knee arthroplasties and to calculate the RVU per minute for work effort. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database was analyzed for the years 2006 to 2017. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 27487 and the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code 996.XX, excluding 996.6X, were used to identify all aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties (n = 12,907). The CPT code 27487 and the ICD-9 code 996.6X were used to determine all 1-stage septic revision total knee arthroplasties (n = 891). The CPT codes 27488 and 11981 were used to identify the first stage of a 2-stage revision (n = 293). The CPT codes 27447 and 11982 were used to identify the second stage of a 2-stage revision (n = 279). After 4:1 propensity score matching, 274 cases were identified per septic cohort (aseptic single-stage: n = 1,096). The RVU-to-dollar conversion factor was provided by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and RVU dollar valuations were calculated. Results: The septic second-stage revision was used as the control group for comparisons. The RVU per minute for the aseptic 2-component revision was 0.215, from a mean operative time of 148.95 minutes. The RVU per minute for the septic, 2-component, 1-stage revision was 0.199, from a mean operative time of 160.6 minutes. For septic, 2-stage revisions, the first-stage RVU per minute was 0.157, from a mean operative time of 138.1 minutes. The second-stage RVU per minute was 0.144, from a mean operative time of 170.0 minutes. Two-component aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty was valued the highest. Conclusions: Despite the increased complexity and worse postoperative outcomes associated with revision total knee arthroplasties for infection, the current physician reimbursement does not account for these challenges. This inadequate compensation may discourage providers from performing these operations and, in turn, make it more difficult for patients with periprosthetic joint infection to receive the necessary treatment. Therefore, the CPT code revaluation may be warranted for these procedures.

Background Given the morbidity, mortality, and financial burden associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) after TKA, orthopaedic providers continually seek to identify risk factors associated with this devastating complication. The association between perioperative transfusion status and VTE risk has not been thoroughly explored, with previous studies evaluating this relationship being limited in both generalizability and power. Questions/purposes Therefore, we sought to determine whether perioperative transfusions were associated with an increased risk of (1) pulmonary embolism (PE) or (2) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after primary TKA in a large, multi-institutional sample. Methods The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database was implemented for our analysis. The definitions of complications, such as DVT and PE, and risk adjustment validation is monitored by the central ACS NSQIP office to ensure participating hospitals are adhering to the same guidelines to log patients. Additionally, both preoperative and intraoperative/72 hour postoperative transfusion status is included for all patients. Therefore, ACS NSQIP was determined to be the most appropriate database for our analysis. All patients who underwent primary TKA between 2011 and 2018 were identified using Current Procedural Terminology code 27447. Primary TKAs designated as “non-elective” were excluded, thereby providing a cohort composed solely of patients undergoing unilateral primary elective TKA for further analysis. The final analysis included 333,463 patients undergoing TKA (mean age 67 ± 9 years, 62% female). Preoperative transfusions were received by < 0.01% (48 of 333,463) of the patients, while 4% (14,590 of 333,463) received a transfusion within the interim between the start of surgery up to 72 hours postoperatively. All missing values were imputed through multiple imputation by chained equation to avoid variable availability-based selection and the subsequent listwise deletion-associated bias in the estimate of parameters. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted using variables identified in a univariate model to calculate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for risk factors associated with symptomatic DVT and/or PE. For variables that maintained significance in the multivariable model, an additional model without confounders was used to generate fully adjusted ORs and 95% CIs. A propensity score matched comparison between recipients versus nonrecipients (1:1) of transfusion (preoperative and intraoperative/72 hours postoperative) was then conducted to evaluate the independent association between DVT/PE development and patients’ transfusion status. Significance was determined at a p value < 0.05. Results Adjusted multivariable regression analysis accounting for patient age, sex, race, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and baseline comorbidities demonstrated the absence of an association between preoperative (OR 1.75 [95% CI 0.24 to 12.7]; p = 0.58) or intraoperative/72 hours postoperative (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.93 to 1.35]; p = 0.23) transfusions and higher odds of developing PE. Similar findings were demonstrated after propensity score matching. Although multivariable regression demonstrated the absence of an association between preoperative transfusion and the odds of developing DVT within the 30-day postoperative period (OR 1.85 [95% CI 0.43 to 8.05]; p = 0.41), intraoperative/postoperative transfusion was associated with higher odds of DVT development (OR 3.68 [95% CI 1.14 to 1.53]; p < 0.001) relative to transfusion naïve patients. However, this significance was lost after propensity score matching. Conclusion After controlling for various potential confounding variables such as ASA Class, age, anesthesia type, and BMI, the receipt of an intra- or postoperative transfusion was found to be associated with an increased risk of DVT. Our findings should encourage orthopaedic providers to strictly adhere to blood management protocols, further tighten transfusion eligibility, and adjust surgical approach and implant type to reduce the incidence of transfusion among patients with other DVT risk factors. Additionally, our findings should encourage a multidisciplinary approach to VTE prophylaxis and prevention, as well as to blood transfusion guideline adherence, among all providers of the care team. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.