Resilience as a psychiatric factor affecting outcomes after total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Mental and psychiatric status continue to be underscreened prior to total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Research on the role of resilience as a psychiatric factor affecting TJA outcomes remains limited. Therefore, our systematic review sought to evaluate the impact of patient resilience in TJA.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from the Pubmed, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar online databases was performed in abidance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting on outcomes following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and/or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) segregated by patient resilience were included. Case reports, reviews, meta-analyses, and conference abstracts were excluded. Primary outcomes of interest included patient-reported outcomes (PROs), surgical outcomes, and postoperative opioid consumption.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were included reporting on a total of 1,577 TJAs. There was a strong agreement that the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Physical Health and Mental Health components were strongly predicted by patient resilience. However, there was inconclusive evidence regarding the impact of resilience on UCLA Activity Scales (UCLA) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) outcomes as well as postoperative hip and knee function. Similarly, conflicting evidence was presented regarding the effect of resilience on length of stay (LOS). Greater resilience was associated with reduced opioid usage in the immediate inpatient postoperative period. However, resilience had no significant effect on opioid requirements in the postoperative outpatient follow-up time frame.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis demonstrated mixed, inconclusive evidence regarding the impact of resilience on postoperative outcomes. The paucity of research evaluating this relationship warrants further investigation, examining both short and long-term outcomes. Due to the limited literature evaluating resilience as a predictor of outcomes following TJA, we cannot definitively rule out resilience as a valuable metric and must further examine its utility as a preoperative screening tool.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Cannabis Use Following Total Joint Arthroplasty is Associated With Increased Risks? A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the increased legalization of cannabis, a new unknown emerges for orthopaedic surgeons and their patients. This systematic review aimed to (1) evaluate complications of cannabis use; (2) determine the effects of cannabis on pain and opioid consumption; and (3) evaluate healthcare utilizations associated with cannabis use among patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed. A search of the literature was performed in 5 databases. We included studies between January 2012 and July 2022 reporting cannabis use and complications, pain management, opioid consumption, length of stay, costs, or functional outcomes following TJA. A meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) and continuous variables was performed. A total of 19 articles were included in our final analysis.

RESULTS

Cannabis use was associated with higher odds for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR: 1.46, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.13 to 1.89) and revisions (OR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.41 to 1.53]) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cannabis use was associated with similar odds for DVT in total hip arthroplasty (THA) (OR: 1.30 [95% CI: 0.79 to 2.13]), pulmonary embolus in both TKA (OR: 1.29 [95% CI: 0.95 to 1.77]), THA (OR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.09 to 3.28]), and cardiovascular complications in TKA (OR: 1.97 [95% Cl: 0.93 to 4.14]). Cannabis use did not alter pain scores, opioid consumption, or cost of care in THA (estimate: $2,550.51 [95% CI: $356.58 to $5,457.62]) but was associated with higher costs in TKA (estimate: $3,552.46 [95% CI: $1,729.71 to $5,375.22]). There was no difference in lengths of stay or functional outcomes; however, there may be a potentially increased risk for prosthetic complications, pneumonia, and cerebrovascular accidents among cannabis users.

CONCLUSION

Cannabis use may be associated with an increased risk of DVTs, revisions, pneumonia, cerebrovascular accidents, and cardiac complications after TJA. Higher-level studies are needed to ascertain the impact of cannabis use for patients undergoing TJA.

When Do We Perform Elective Total Knee Arthroplasty? General and Demographic-Specific Trends of Preoperative Pain and Function among 10,327 Patients

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the sole disease-modifying intervention for end-stage osteoarthritis. However, the temporal trends and stratification of age and patient demographics of pain and function levels at which surgeons perform TKA have not been characterized. The present investigation aimed to analyze the temporal trends of preoperative pain and functional patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) over the past 5 years when stratifying patient demographics. A prospective cohort of all patients who underwent primary elective TKA between January 2016 and December 2020 at a North American integrated tertiary health care system was retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was quarterly baseline (preoperative) pain and function PROM values before primary elective TKA. Evaluated PROMs included Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain and KOOS-physical function shortform (PS) for the 5-year study period and were stratified by patient demographics (age, sex, race, and body mass index [BMI]). A total of 10,327 patients were analyzed. Preoperative pain levels remained unchanged over the study period for patients in the 45- to 64-year category (P-trend = 0.922). Conversely, there was a significant improvement in preoperative pain levels in the 65+ years group. Sex-stratified trends between males and females did not demonstrate a significant change in pre-TKA baseline pain over the study period (P-trend = 0.347 and P-trend = 0.0744). Both white and black patients demonstrated consistent KOOS-pain levels throughout the study period (P-trend = 0.0855 and P-trend = 0.626). Only white patients demonstrated improving preoperative KOOS-PS (P-trend = 0.0001), while black and "other" patients demonstrated consistent lower preoperative functional levels throughout the study period (P-trend = 0.456 and P-trend = 0.871). All BMI categories demonstrated relatively consistent preoperative KOOS-pain and KOOS-PS except for overweight and obese patients who demonstrated progressive improvement in preoperative KOOS-PS over the study period. Patients and surgeons are electing to perform primary TKA at higher levels of preoperative function. Stratification by race showed black patients did not experience a similar trend of improving function and exhibited a consistently lower functional level versus white patients. This disparity is likely to be multifactorial but may indicate underlying barriers to TKA access.

Characterization and Reach of Orthopaedic Research Posted to Preprint Servers: Are We "Undercooking" Our Science?

BACKGROUND

Although biomedical preprint servers have grown rapidly over the past several years, the harm to patient health and safety remains a major concern among several scientific communities. Despite previous studies examining the role of preprints during the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, there is limited information characterizing their impact on scientific communication in orthopaedic surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the characteristics (subspecialty, study design, geographic origin, and proportion of publications) of orthopaedic articles on three preprint servers? (2) What are the citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric score per preprinted article and per corresponding publication?

METHODS

Three of the largest preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Research Square) with a focus on biomedical topics were queried for all preprinted articles published between July 26, 2014, and September 1, 2021, using the following search terms: "orthopaedic," "orthopedic," "bone," "cartilage," "ligament," "tendon," "fracture," "dislocation," "hand," "wrist," "elbow," "shoulder," "spine," "spinal," "hip," "knee," "ankle," and "foot." Full-text articles in English related to orthopaedic surgery were included, while nonclinical studies, animal studies, duplicate studies, editorials, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries were excluded. A total of 1471 unique preprints were included and further characterized in terms of the orthopaedic subspecialty, study design, date posted, and geographic factors. Citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric scores were collected for each preprinted article and the corresponding publication of that preprint in an accepting journal. We ascertained whether a preprinted article was published by searching title keywords and the corresponding author in three peer-reviewed article databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Dimensions) and confirming that the study design and research question matched.

RESULTS

The number of orthopaedic preprints increased from four in 2017 to 838 in 2020. The most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were spine, knee, and hip. From 2017 to 2020, the cumulative counts of preprinted article citations, abstract views, and Altmetric scores increased. A corresponding publication was identified in 52% (762 of 1471) of preprints. As would be expected, because preprinting is a form of redundant publication, published articles that are also preprinted saw greater abstract views, citations, and Altmetric scores on a per-article basis.

CONCLUSION

Although preprints remain an extremely small proportion of all orthopaedic research, our findings suggest that nonpeer-reviewed, preprinted orthopaedic articles are being increasingly disseminated. These preprinted articles have a smaller academic and public footprint than their published counterparts, but they still reach a substantial audience through infrequent and superficial online interactions, which are far from equivalent to the engagement facilitated by peer review. Furthermore, the sequence of preprint posting and journal submission, acceptance, and publication is unclear based on the information available on these preprint servers. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the metrics of preprinted articles are attributable to preprinting, and studies such as the present analysis will tend to overestimate the apparent impact of preprinting. Despite the potential for preprint servers to function as a venue for thoughtful feedback on research ideas, the available metrics data for these preprinted articles do not demonstrate the meaningful engagement that is achieved by peer review in terms of the frequency or depth of audience feedback.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our findings highlight the need for safeguards to regulate research dissemination through preprint media, which has never been shown to benefit patients and should not be considered as evidence by clinicians. Clinician-scientists and researchers have the most important responsibility of protecting patients from the harm of potentially inaccurate biomedical science and therefore must prioritize patient needs first by uncovering scientific truths through the evidence-based processes of peer review, not preprinting. We recommend all journals publishing clinical research adopt the same policy as Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® , The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research , removing any papers posted to preprint servers from consideration.

Rural Communities in the United States Face Persistent Disparities in Access to Orthopaedic Surgical Care

Background

Access to orthopaedic care across the United States (U.S.) remains an important issue, however, no recent study has examined disparities in rural access to orthopaedic care. The goals of the present study were to (1) investigate trends in the proportion of rural orthopaedic surgeons from 2013 to 2018 as well as the proportion of rural U.S. counties with access to such surgeons and (2) analyze characteristics associated with choice of a rural practice setting.

Methods

The study analyzed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Compare National Downloadable File (PC-NDF) for all active orthopaedic surgeons from 2013 to 2018. Rural practice settings were defined using Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes. Linear regression analysis investigated trends in rural orthopaedic surgeon volume. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of surgeon characteristics with rural practice setting.

Results

The total number of orthopaedic surgeons increased 1.9%, from 21,045 (2013) to 21,456 (2018). Meanwhile, the proportion of rural orthopaedic surgeons decreased by roughly 0.9%, from 578 (2013) to 559 (2018). From a per capita perspective, the number of orthopaedic surgeons practicing in a rural setting per 100,000 population ranged from 4.55 orthopaedic surgeons per 100,000 in 2013 and 4.47 per 100,000 in 2018. Meanwhile, the number of orthopaedic surgeons practicing in an urban setting ranged from 6.63 per 100,000 in 2013 and 6.35 per 100,000 in 2018. The surgeon characteristics most associated with decreased odds of practicing orthopaedic surgery in a rural setting included earlier career-stage (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: [0.70-0.91]; p < 0.001) and sub-specialization status (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: [0.36-0.45]; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Existing rural-urban disparities in musculoskeletal healthcare access have persisted over the past decade and could worsen. Future research should investigate the effects of orthopaedic workforce shortages on travel times, patient cost burden, and disease specific outcomes. Level of Evidence: IV.

Are Trends in Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty Sustainable? Declining Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursement for Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND

While the burden of revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures increases within the United States, it is unclear whether health care resource allocation for these complex cases has kept pace. This study examined the trends in hospital-level reimbursements for revision TJA hospitalizations.

METHODS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) inpatient utilization and payment public use files from 2014 to 2019 were queried for diagnostic-related groups (DRGs) for revision TJA: DRG 467 (revision of hip or knee arthroplasty with complication or comorbidity [CC]) and DRG 468 (revision of hip or knee arthroplasty without CC or major CC). From 2014 to 2019, 170,808 revision TJA hospitalizations were billed to Medicare, and revision TJA procedures increased by 3,121 (10.7%). After adjusting to 2019 US dollars with the consumer price index, a multiple linear mixed-model regression analysis was performed. Analysis of covariance compared regressions from 2014 to 2019 for mean-adjusted Medicare payment and mean- adjusted charge were submitted for these DRGs.

RESULTS

Mean-adjusted average Medicare payment for DRG 467 decreased by $804.37 (-3.5%) from 2014 to 2019, whereas, that for DRG 468 decreased by $647.33 (-3.6%). The average inflation-adjusted Medicare payment for DRG 467 decreased at a greater rate during the study period, compared to that for DRG 468 (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

The decline in reimbursement for DRGs 467 and 468 reveals decreasing incentives for revision TJA hospitalizations. Further research should assess the efficacy of current Medicare payment algorithms and identify modifications which may provide for fair hospital level reimbursements.

Staged Versus Simultaneous Bilateral Knee Arthroplasty: Does Minimal Cost Difference Justify Risks?

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) is associated with a higher risk but can be perceived to afford faster improvement and mitigated costs versus staged BTKA. We aimed to explore (1) health care utilization, (2) surgical supply costs of simultaneous BTKA; and (3) 1-year improvement in patient-reported pain, function, and quality of life (QOL) versus staged BTKA.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 198 simultaneous and 625 staged BTKAs was obtained (2016-2020). Simultaneous BTKA cohort was propensity score-matched (1:2) to a similar group of staged patients (simultaneous = 198 versus staged = 396). Outcomes included length of stay, discharge disposition, 90-day readmission, 1-year reoperation, surgical episode supply cost, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain, KOOS-Physical Function Short Form, and KOOS-QOL. Rates of attaining minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State were calculated.

RESULTS

Compared to both staged BTKA surgeries combined, simultaneous BTKA demonstrated shorter median net length of stay (2.00 [2.00, 3.00] days versus 2.00 [2.00, 4.00] days; P < .001) but higher rates of nonhome discharge (n = 56 [28.3%] versus n = 32 [4.04%]; P < .001), 90-day readmission (n = 20 [10.1%] versus n = 48 [6.06%]; P = .047) and similar reoperation rates (P = .44). Simultaneous BTKA afforded slight reduction in net surgical cost compared to that of both staged BTKAs combined ($643; P = .028). There was no significant difference in 1-year improvement and minimal clinically important difference attainment rates with simultaneous versus staged BTKA for KOOS-pain (P = .137 and P = .99), KOOS-QOL (P = .095 and P = .81), or KOOS-Physical Function Short Form (P = .75 and P = .49, respectively) or Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (P = .12).

CONCLUSION

Staged BTKA is associated with similar 1-year pain, function, and QOL at a better safety profile and minimal surgical supply cost increase compared to simultaneous BTKA.