Open Reduction Internal Fixation vs Primary Arthrodesis for Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocations: A Cost Analysis

Background

Lisfranc fracture-dislocation is an uncommon but serious injury that currently lacks universal consensus on optimal operative treatment. Two common fixation methods are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary arthrodesis (PA). The objective of this study is to analyze the cost difference between ORIF and PA of Lisfranc injuries, along with the contribution of medical services to overall costs.

Methods

This was a retrospective cost analysis of the MarketScan database from 2010 to 2020. MarketScan is an insurance and commercial claims database that integrates deidentified patient information. It captures person-specific clinical utilization, expenditures, and enrollment across inpatient and outpatient services. Patients undergoing primary ORIF (CPT code 28615) vs PA (28730 and 28740) for Lisfranc fracture-dislocation were identified. The primary independent variable was ORIF vs PA of Lisfranc injury. Total costs due to operative management was the primary objective. The utilization of and costs contributed by medical services was a secondary outcome.

Results

From 2010 to 2020, a total of 7268 patients underwent operative management of Lisfranc injuries, with 5689 (78.3%) ORIF and 1579 (21.7%) PA. PA was independently associated with increased net and total payment and coinsurance, clinic visits, and imaging, and patients attended significantly more PT sessions.

Conclusion

Using this large database that does not characterize severity or extent of injury, we found that treatment of Lisfranc fracture-dislocation with ORIF was associated with substantially lower initial episode of treatment costs compared with PA. Specific excessive cost drivers for PA were clinic visits, PT sessions, and imaging.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Trends in total elbow arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy based on payer status

INTRODUCTION

Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is often used to manage advanced arthropathies of the elbow caused by inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recent literature has shown that use of TEA is decreasing in patients with RA, part of which can be attributed to early medical management involving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, there is a significant economic barrier to accessing DMARD therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of TEA between patients with and without DMARD therapy from 2010 to 2020.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using a national insurance claim database to investigate the trends of patients with RA undergoing TEA from 2010-2020. Patients who underwent TEA and had a diagnosis of RA were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes between 2010 and 2020. These patients were then stratified into 2 cohorts: those with DMARD prescription claims and those without. A linear regression, compound annual growth rate (CAGR) analysis, and χ2 analysis were conducted to compare trends and demographic variables, including insurance type, between cohorts. Additionally, a multivariable logistic regression was subsequently performed to observe odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2020, there has been no significant change in the incidence of TEA in RA patients without DMARD prescriptions, whereas there has been a statistically significantly decreasing rate of TEA observed in RA patients with DMARD prescription claims. The analysis showed that there was a CAGR of -4%. For patients with a diagnosis of RA and DMARD prescription claims, the highest incidence of undergoing TEA was seen in the age group of 60-69 years, whereas patients with a diagnosis of RA and no DMARD prescription claims had the highest incidence of undergoing TEA in the age group of 70-79 years.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of patients undergoing TEA with a diagnosis of RA and DMARD prescription claims has shown a statistically significant decrease from 2010 to 2020, whereas no significant difference was observed for patients without DMARD prescription claims. There were no statistically significant differences in the insurance plans between cohorts.

Natural History of Brachial Plexus, Peripheral Nerve, and Spinal Schwannomas

BACKGROUND

Management of sporadic schwannomas is often dictated by a patient's clinical presentation and the tumor's behavior. For patients who are managed nonsurgically, there are little data available about the expected natural history.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the natural history and growth patterns of extracranial schwannomas including tumors of the distal peripheral nerves, spine, and brachial plexus.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify patients with nonsyndromic extracranial schwannomas at a single tertiary care institution diagnosed between 2002 and 2019. Patient data and tumor characteristics including volume were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-seven patients were identified (mean age 51 years, 42% male, average of 27.8-month follow-up). Tumor location was distal peripheral nerve in 82, brachial plexus in 36, and paraspinal in 109. At the time of diagnosis, peripheral lesions were significantly larger than spinal (59 m 3 vs 13 cm 3 ) and brachial plexus lesions (15 cm 3 ). Distinct growth patterns were seen with both distal peripheral nerve and spinal lesions; 34/82 peripheral nerve lesions had fast growth (β = 0.176%/day), and 48 had slow growth (β = 0.021%/day; P < .01). Spinal schwannomas similarly had 30 fast-growing (β = 0.229%/day), 16 moderate-growing (β = 0.071%/day), and 63 slow-growing (β = 0.022%/day; P = .03) subtypes. The brachial plexus had relatively homogeneous growth patterns (β = 0.065%/day). Females had 2.9 times greater odds of having the fast-growing subtype.

CONCLUSION

Distinct growth patterns were seen in extracranial sporadic schwannomas based on tumor location and patient demographics. Fast (>80% volume change per year) vs slow (5%-10% per year) tumor growth can often be ascertained within 2 follow-up images. Awareness of these patterns might have implications for patient counseling and therapeutic decision-making.