A reflection of outcomes research and its impact on the practice of hand surgery

Patterns of Upper Extremity Reconstruction for Patients With Tetraplegia Across the United States: A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The rates of upper extremity reconstruction for patients with tetraplegia remain low. We performed a retrospective study to assess recent reconstruction rates and delineate factors associated with the occurrence of reconstruction.

METHODS

We examined the National Inpatient Sample database (2012-2017) for the rate of reconstruction for patients with tetraplegia. The details of provider distribution characteristics and neighborhood attributes were obtained from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile and based on the area deprivation index, respectively. We calculated the mean reconstruction rate per year and generated multivariable logistic regression models to examine the influence of patient factors, hospital characteristics, and provider distribution on the odds of undergoing functional reconstruction for tetraplegia patients.

RESULTS

Among 404,660 encounters with patients with tetraplegia, only 1,430 (0.4%) patients underwent upper extremity reconstruction from 2012 to 2017, with a mean rate of 238 procedures per year. We identified 5,450 hand surgeons, 12,751 physiatrists, and 444 spinal cord injury specialists, with variation in their national distribution. A greater number of surgeons near SCIS was associated with increased probability of reconstruction (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.12). The odds of surgery were greater for patients receiving care at urban teaching (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.35-7.47) or urban nonteaching (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11-2.63) hospitals, whereas those at private nonprofit (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.78) or investor-owned (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.82) hospitals had lower odds. Although most patients had insurance coverage, patients with a higher income or those who received subsidized care had greater odds of undergoing reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction rates remain low and are correlated with the environment of care, financial factors, and provider availability. Policies that focus on reducing these factors in addition to increasing interspecialty collaboration could improve access to surgery for patients with tetraplegia.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic I.

The BREAST-Q in surgical research: A review of the literature 2009-2015

BACKGROUND

Health outcomes research has gained considerable traction over the past decade as the medical community attempts to move beyond traditional outcome measures such as morbidity and mortality. Since its inception in 2009, the BREAST-Q has provided meaningful and reliable information regarding health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient satisfaction for use in both clinical practice and research. In this study, we review how researchers have used the BREAST-Q and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of plastic and reconstructive breast surgery.

METHODS

An electronic literature review was performed to identify publications that used the BREAST-Q to assess patient outcomes. Studies developing and/or validating the BREAST-Q or an alternate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), review papers, conference abstracts, discussions, comments and/or responses to previously published papers, studies that modified a version of BREAST-Q, and studies not published in English were excluded.

RESULTS

Our literature review yielded 214 unique articles, 49 of which met our inclusion criteria. Important trends and highlights were further examined.

DISCUSSION

The BREAST-Q has provided important insights into breast surgery highlighted by literature concerning autologous reconstruction, implant type, fat grafting, and patient education. The BREAST-Q has increased the use of PROMs in breast surgery and provided numerous important insights in its brief existence. The increased interest in PROMs as well as the underutilized potential of the BREAST-Q should permit its continued use and ability to foster innovations and improve quality of care.