Resident Involvement in Arthroscopic Knee Surgery Is Not Associated With Increased Short-term Risk to Patients

Impact of Resident Involvement on 30-Day Postoperative Outcomes in Orthopedic Shoulder Surgery

The literature concerning resident involvement in shoulder surgery is limited. The purpose of this study was to examine whether resident involvement across all orthopedic shoulder surgeries is associated with adverse 30-day outcomes. Utilizing the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, patients who underwent shoulder surgery with or without a resident present were analyzed. Independent t-test and chi-square or Fischer's exact test were used appropriately. A logistic regression model was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios. This study examined 5,648 patients: 3,455 patients in the "Attending alone" group and 2,193 in the "Attending and resident in the operating room" group. Resident presence in the operating room was not associated with increased complications, except for bleeding transfusions (OR 1.71, CI 1.32-2.21, P ≤ 0.001). This study demonstrates that resident involvement in orthopedic shoulder surgery does not present an increased risk for 30-day complications when compared to surgeries performed with the attending surgeon alone.

Total elbow arthroplasty cases involving orthopaedic residents do not affect short-term postoperative complications

Background

Impact of resident participation on short-term postoperative outcomes after total elbow arthroplasty has not been studied. The aim was to investigate whether resident participation affects postoperative complication rates, operative time, and length of stay.

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry was queried from 2006 to 2012 for patients undergoing total elbow arthroplasty. A 1:1 propensity score match was performed to match resident cases to attending-only cases. Comorbidities, surgical time, and short-term (30-day) postoperative complications were compared between groups. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to compare the rates of postoperative adverse events between groups.

Results

After propensity score match, 124 cases (50% with resident participation) were included. Adverse event rate after surgery was 18.5%. On multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences between attending-only cases and resident involved cases, with regards to short-term major complications, minor complications, or any complications (all p > 0.071). Total operative time was similar between cohorts (149.16 vs. 165.66 min; p = 0.157). No difference was observed in the length of hospital stay (2.95 vs. 2.6 days), p = 0.399.

Discussion

Resident participation during total elbow arthroplasty is not associated with increased risk for short-term medical or surgical postoperative complications or operative efficiency.

Resident and Fellow Participation Does Not Affect Short-Term Postoperative Complications After Distal Radius Fracture Fixation

Background  Complications after open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for distal radius fractures (DRF) are well documented, but the impact of trainee involvement on postoperative outcomes has not been studied. Questions  Does trainee involvement affect postoperative complication rates and length of hospital stay? Methods  The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried from 2006 to 2012 for patients undergoing DRF ORIF. A 1:1 propensity score matched resident/fellow involved cases to attending-only cases. Demographics, length of stay, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Logistic regression was used to evaluate independent predictors of adverse events and to evaluate cases with and without trainee involvement. Results  Overall, 3,003 patients underwent DRF ORIF from 2006 to 2012. After matching, 1,150 cases (50% with resident/fellow involvement) were included. The overall rate of adverse events was 4.4% (46/1,050). There were no significant differences in the short-term complication rate in trainee-involved (2.3%) versus attending-only cases (3.9%) ( p  = 0.461). For ORIF of DRF, there were no significant differences, between attending-only cases and resident/fellow-involved cases, with regard to short-term major complications ( p  = 0.720) or minor complications ( p  = 0.374). Length of hospital stay was similar between cohorts (1.22 vs. 0.98 days) ( p  = 0.723). On multivariate analysis, trainee involvement was not an independent predictor of minor, major, or any complication after DRF fixation after controlling for multiple independent factors (all p  > 0.364). Discussion  Trainee participation in DRF ORIF is not associated with increased risk of short-term (30 days) medical or surgical postoperative complications. Level of Evidence  This is a Level IV case-control study.

Duration of Care and Operative Time Are the Primary Drivers of Total Charges After Ambulatory Hip Arthroscopy: A Machine Learning Analysis

PURPOSE

To develop a machine learning algorithm to predict total charges after ambulatory hip arthroscopy and create a risk-adjusted payment model based on patient comorbidities.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the New York State Ambulatory Surgery and Services database was performed to identify patients who underwent elective hip arthroscopy between 2015 and 2016. Features included in initial models consisted of patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, and procedure-specific variables. Models were generated to predict total charges using 5 algorithms. Model performance was assessed by the root-mean-square error, root-mean-square logarithmic error, and coefficient of determination. Global variable importance and partial dependence curves were constructed to show the impact of each input feature on total charges. For performance benchmarking, the best candidate model was compared with a multivariate linear regression using the same input features.

RESULTS

A total of 5,121 patients were included. The median cost after hip arthroscopy was $19,720 (interquartile range, $12,399-$26,439). The gradient-boosted ensemble model showed the best performance (root-mean-square error, $3,800 [95% confidence interval, $3,700-$3,900]; logarithmic root-mean-square error, 0.249 [95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.26]; R² = 0.73). Major cost drivers included total hours in facility less than 12 or more than 15, longer procedure time, performance of a labral repair, age younger than 30 years, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) of 1 or greater, African American race, residence in extreme urban and rural areas, and higher household and neighborhood income.

CONCLUSIONS

The gradient-boosted ensemble model effectively predicted total charges after hip arthroscopy. Few modifiable variables were identified other than anesthesia type; nonmodifiable drivers of total charges included duration of care less than 12 hours or more than 15 hours, operating room time more than 100 minutes, age younger than 30 years, performance of a labral repair, and ECI greater than 0. Stratification of patients based on the ECI highlighted the increased financial risk borne by physicians via flat reimbursement schedules given variable degrees of comorbidities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Imrecoxib versus celecoxib as postoperative analgesia for patients receiving arthroscopic knee surgery: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study

OBJECTIVE

Imrecoxib is a novel cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor independently developed in China, which exhibits a good efficacy and tolerance in orthopedic disorders. The current study aimed to further compare its efficacy and safety with celecoxib as postoperative analgesia in arthroscopic knee surgery (AKS).

METHODS

Patients receiving AKS were enrolled and randomly assigned to imrecoxib (n = 64) and celecoxib (n = 62) group to receive analgesia for 72 h after surgery. Pain at rest and movement, pethidine consumption, patient's satisfaction, Lysholm score, and adverse events were assessed after AKS. Meanwhile the upper limit of 95% CI of pain-score mean difference (MD) between imrecoxib and celecoxib was calculated, then, the non-inferiority was defined if the all-time-point upper limits of 95% CI less than 1.

RESULTS

Imrecoxib was non-inferior to celecoxib for alleviating pain at rest (upper limit of 95% CI of MD ranging from 0.443 to 0.782, all time-point values less than 1); as well as for attenuating pain at movement (upper limit of 95% CI of MD ranging from 0.398 to 0.582, all time-point values less than 1). Moreover, rescue analgesia rate (P = 0.583), pethidine consumption (P = 0.454), patient's satisfaction at 72 h (P = 0.408), and Lysholm score at M3 (P = 0.776) were of no difference between imrecoxib group and celecoxib group. Additionally, the main adverse events in two groups were nausea (P = 0.425), constipation (P = 1.000), vomiting (P = 0.715), headache (P = 1.000), and dizziness (P = 0.667), which were mild and manageable.

CONCLUSION

Imrecoxib is non-inferior to celecoxib in postoperative analgesia and exhibits an acceptable tolerance in patients undergoing AKS.