Take-Home Points

• Surface landmarks are routinely used for physical examination and surgical technique.
• Common surface landmarks used in establishing arthroscopic portals may be more difficult to accurately identify than previously thought.
• The greater trochanter was the surface landmark most precisely identified by expert examiners.
• Ultrasound examination identified landmarks varied from landmarks identified by palpation alone.

Anatomical surface landmarks about the hip and lower abdomen are often referenced when placing arthroscopic portals and office-based injections.^1-3 However, the degree to which these landmarks can be reproducibly identified using only visual inspection and palpation is unknown.

Safe access to the hip joint and surrounding structures during hip arthroscopy has been a focus in the orthopedic literature. Authors have described anatomical relationships of recommended portals to neurovascular and other anatomical structures.^4-6 This information has been reported in millimeters to centimeters of safety based on cadaver dissection studies.^4-7We conducted a study to assess expert hip arthroscopists’ ability to identify, using only physical examination techniques, the anatomical structures used for reference when creating safe starting points for arthroscopic access. We hypothesized that variance in examiner-identified points would exceed safe distances from neurovascular structures for the most commonly used hip arthroscopic portals. The volunteer in this study provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this article.

Methods

In this study, we prospectively assessed 30 expert hip arthroscopic surgeons’ ability to identify commonly referenced surface landmarks on the adult male hip, using only inspection and manual palpation. Surgeons were defined as experts on the basis of their status as hip arthroscopy instructors at the Orthopaedic Learning Center (Rosemont, IL) for the Arthroscopy Association of North America and industry-sponsored hip arthroscopy education faculty (Arthrex). Five surface landmarks were selected for their relevance to publications on safe portal placement^2-5: anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), tip of greater trochanter (GT), rectus origin (RO), superficial inguinal ring (SIR), and psoas tendon (PT).

A healthy adult male volunteer was placed supine on an examination table and exposed distally from the mid abdomen, with the perineum and the genital area covered bikini-style. An expert musculoskeletal ultrasonographer used a handheld musculoskeletal ultrasound transducer (Sonosite) to identify the 5 landmarks. Short- and long-axis images of each structure were obtained. The examiner applied a round (1 cm in diameter), uniquely colored adhesive label to the skin over each location. A professional photographer using a Canon digital camera and fixed mounts made precise overhead and lateral images. The positional integrity and scale of these images were confirmed with referral to constant anatomical skin features. Images were archived for analysis (Figure 1A).

After the ultrasonographer’s labels were removed, each of the 30 expert hip arthroscopic surgeons identified the structures by static physical examination (inspection and palpation only) and applied the same colored labels to the skin.

Results

Average absolute distance from examiner labels to ultrasonographer labels was 31 mm for ASIS, 24 mm for GT, 26 mm for RO, 19 mm for SIR, and 35 mm for PT (Figure 2).

Of the 30 surgeons, 1 (3%) came within 10 mm of the ultrasound for ASIS, 1 (3%) for GT, 4 (13%) for RO, 5 (17%) for SIR, and 1 (3%) for PT (Table 1).

Discussion

Others have investigated examiners’ use of palpation, compared with ultrasound, to identify common shoulder and knee structures.^8-10 In a 2011 systematic review, Gilliland and colleagues¹¹ confirmed that accuracy was improved with use of ultrasound (vs palpation) for injections in the shoulder, hip, knee, wrist, and ankle. Given the scarcity of data in this setting, we conducted the present study to assess the precision and accuracy of expert arthroscopists in identifying common surface landmarks. We hypothesized that physical examination and ultrasound examination would differ significantly in precisely and accurately identifying these landmarks.

Working with a standard awake volunteer, our test group of examiners was consistently inaccurate when they accepted ultrasonographer-placed labels as the ideal. Precision within the group, however, trended toward close agreement; examiners consistently placed labels in the same direction and approximate magnitude away from ultrasonographer labels. This suggests that a discrepancy between the ultrasonographic surface structure definitions taught to ultrasonographers and the manually identified definitions taught to surgeons for arthroscopy (training bias) can generate differences in landmark identification.

Given reported low rates of complications in the creation of standard surface anatomy portals, more data is needed to correlate whether safe distance guidelines best apply to the points identified by hip experts or the points identified by ultrasonographers. In a 2013 systematic review, Harris and colleagues⁸ found a 7.5% overall complication rate, with temporary neuropraxia 1 of the 2 most common complications. Whether adding ultrasound to physical examination for the creation of some or all portals will reduce the incidence of these problems is unknown. Regardless of the anatomical area referenced by experts for portal creation, the tight grouping of examiner marks in our study supports a consensus regarding the location of the landmarks studied.

In our study of the use of surface anatomical landmarks for the creation of portals, we analyzed 4 previously described locations: ALP, AP, PLP, and MAP. ALP, AP, and PLP directly reference at least 1 surface anatomical structure; AP references 2 anatomical structures (ASIS, GT); and MAP indirectly references ASIS and GT and directly references ALP and AP. In cadaveric and radiographic studies, 7 neurovascular structures have been described in proximity to ALP, AP, MAP, and PLP: superior gluteal nerve, sciatic nerve, femoral nerve, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, lateral circumflex femoral artery, and medial circumflex femoral artery.^5,6 Our results showed that use of surface anatomy in AP and MAP creation most likely places structures at risk, given the overlap of examiner CIs and the previously published cadaveric^5,6 and radiographic⁷ data.

Hua and colleagues¹² confirmed the feasibility of using ultrasound for the creation of hip arthroscopy portals. More data is needed to assess how the standard palpation-and-fluoroscopy method described by Byrd³ compares with an ultrasound-guided technique in safety and cost. However, data from our study should not be used to justify a demand for ultrasound during arthroscopy portal establishment, as limitations do not permit such a recommendation.

With diagnostic injection remaining a mainstay of differential diagnosis and treatment about the hip,¹ the data presented here suggest a potential for ultrasound in enhancing outcomes. There is evidence supporting the role of image guidance in improving palpation accuracy in the area of the biceps tendon in the forearm.¹⁰ Potentially, identification and treatment of specific extra-articular structures surrounding the hip could be made safer with more routine use of ultrasound.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. The surgeons were limited to palpation and static examination of a body in its natural state. Hip arthroscopic portals typically are created under traction and after a standard perineal post is placed for hip arthroscopy. In addition, in an awake injection setting, the clinician may receive patient feedback in the form of limb movement or speech. To what degree palpation or ultrasound will be affected in these scenarios is unknown.

Another limitation is the lack of serial examination by each examiner—intrarater variability could not be gauged. In addition, with only 1 ultrasonographic examination performed, there is the potential that adding ultrasonographic examinations, or having an examiner perform serial physical examinations, could better define the precision of each component. Given the practical limitations of our volunteer’s time and the schedules of 30 expert arthroscopists, we kept the chosen study design for its single setting.

Conclusion

Visual inspection and manual palpation are standard means of identifying common surface anatomical landmarks for the creation of arthroscopy portals and the placement of injections. Our study results showed variance in landmark identification between expert examiners and an ultrasonographer. The degree of variance exceeded established neurovascular safe zones, particularly for AP and MAP. This new evidence calls for further investigation into the best, safest means of performing hip arthroscopic techniques and injection-based interventions.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E65-E70. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Surface landmarks are routinely used for physical examination and surgical technique.
• Common surface landmarks used in establishing arthroscopic portals may be more difficult to accurately identify than previously thought.
• The greater trochanter was the surface landmark most precisely identified by expert examiners.
• Ultrasound examination identified landmarks varied from landmarks identified by palpation alone.

Anatomical surface landmarks about the hip and lower abdomen are often referenced when placing arthroscopic portals and office-based injections.^1-3 However, the degree to which these landmarks can be reproducibly identified using only visual inspection and palpation is unknown.

Safe access to the hip joint and surrounding structures during hip arthroscopy has been a focus in the orthopedic literature. Authors have described anatomical relationships of recommended portals to neurovascular and other anatomical structures.^4-6 This information has been reported in millimeters to centimeters of safety based on cadaver dissection studies.^4-7We conducted a study to assess expert hip arthroscopists’ ability to identify, using only physical examination techniques, the anatomical structures used for reference when creating safe starting points for arthroscopic access. We hypothesized that variance in examiner-identified points would exceed safe distances from neurovascular structures for the most commonly used hip arthroscopic portals. The volunteer in this study provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this article.

Methods

In this study, we prospectively assessed 30 expert hip arthroscopic surgeons’ ability to identify commonly referenced surface landmarks on the adult male hip, using only inspection and manual palpation. Surgeons were defined as experts on the basis of their status as hip arthroscopy instructors at the Orthopaedic Learning Center (Rosemont, IL) for the Arthroscopy Association of North America and industry-sponsored hip arthroscopy education faculty (Arthrex). Five surface landmarks were selected for their relevance to publications on safe portal placement^2-5: anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), tip of greater trochanter (GT), rectus origin (RO), superficial inguinal ring (SIR), and psoas tendon (PT).

A healthy adult male volunteer was placed supine on an examination table and exposed distally from the mid abdomen, with the perineum and the genital area covered bikini-style. An expert musculoskeletal ultrasonographer used a handheld musculoskeletal ultrasound transducer (Sonosite) to identify the 5 landmarks. Short- and long-axis images of each structure were obtained. The examiner applied a round (1 cm in diameter), uniquely colored adhesive label to the skin over each location. A professional photographer using a Canon digital camera and fixed mounts made precise overhead and lateral images. The positional integrity and scale of these images were confirmed with referral to constant anatomical skin features. Images were archived for analysis (Figure 1A).

After the ultrasonographer’s labels were removed, each of the 30 expert hip arthroscopic surgeons identified the structures by static physical examination (inspection and palpation only) and applied the same colored labels to the skin.

Results

Average absolute distance from examiner labels to ultrasonographer labels was 31 mm for ASIS, 24 mm for GT, 26 mm for RO, 19 mm for SIR, and 35 mm for PT (Figure 2).

Of the 30 surgeons, 1 (3%) came within 10 mm of the ultrasound for ASIS, 1 (3%) for GT, 4 (13%) for RO, 5 (17%) for SIR, and 1 (3%) for PT (Table 1).

Discussion

Others have investigated examiners’ use of palpation, compared with ultrasound, to identify common shoulder and knee structures.^8-10 In a 2011 systematic review, Gilliland and colleagues¹¹ confirmed that accuracy was improved with use of ultrasound (vs palpation) for injections in the shoulder, hip, knee, wrist, and ankle. Given the scarcity of data in this setting, we conducted the present study to assess the precision and accuracy of expert arthroscopists in identifying common surface landmarks. We hypothesized that physical examination and ultrasound examination would differ significantly in precisely and accurately identifying these landmarks.

Working with a standard awake volunteer, our test group of examiners was consistently inaccurate when they accepted ultrasonographer-placed labels as the ideal. Precision within the group, however, trended toward close agreement; examiners consistently placed labels in the same direction and approximate magnitude away from ultrasonographer labels. This suggests that a discrepancy between the ultrasonographic surface structure definitions taught to ultrasonographers and the manually identified definitions taught to surgeons for arthroscopy (training bias) can generate differences in landmark identification.

Given reported low rates of complications in the creation of standard surface anatomy portals, more data is needed to correlate whether safe distance guidelines best apply to the points identified by hip experts or the points identified by ultrasonographers. In a 2013 systematic review, Harris and colleagues⁸ found a 7.5% overall complication rate, with temporary neuropraxia 1 of the 2 most common complications. Whether adding ultrasound to physical examination for the creation of some or all portals will reduce the incidence of these problems is unknown. Regardless of the anatomical area referenced by experts for portal creation, the tight grouping of examiner marks in our study supports a consensus regarding the location of the landmarks studied.

In our study of the use of surface anatomical landmarks for the creation of portals, we analyzed 4 previously described locations: ALP, AP, PLP, and MAP. ALP, AP, and PLP directly reference at least 1 surface anatomical structure; AP references 2 anatomical structures (ASIS, GT); and MAP indirectly references ASIS and GT and directly references ALP and AP. In cadaveric and radiographic studies, 7 neurovascular structures have been described in proximity to ALP, AP, MAP, and PLP: superior gluteal nerve, sciatic nerve, femoral nerve, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, lateral circumflex femoral artery, and medial circumflex femoral artery.^5,6 Our results showed that use of surface anatomy in AP and MAP creation most likely places structures at risk, given the overlap of examiner CIs and the previously published cadaveric^5,6 and radiographic⁷ data.

Hua and colleagues¹² confirmed the feasibility of using ultrasound for the creation of hip arthroscopy portals. More data is needed to assess how the standard palpation-and-fluoroscopy method described by Byrd³ compares with an ultrasound-guided technique in safety and cost. However, data from our study should not be used to justify a demand for ultrasound during arthroscopy portal establishment, as limitations do not permit such a recommendation.

With diagnostic injection remaining a mainstay of differential diagnosis and treatment about the hip,¹ the data presented here suggest a potential for ultrasound in enhancing outcomes. There is evidence supporting the role of image guidance in improving palpation accuracy in the area of the biceps tendon in the forearm.¹⁰ Potentially, identification and treatment of specific extra-articular structures surrounding the hip could be made safer with more routine use of ultrasound.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. The surgeons were limited to palpation and static examination of a body in its natural state. Hip arthroscopic portals typically are created under traction and after a standard perineal post is placed for hip arthroscopy. In addition, in an awake injection setting, the clinician may receive patient feedback in the form of limb movement or speech. To what degree palpation or ultrasound will be affected in these scenarios is unknown.

Another limitation is the lack of serial examination by each examiner—intrarater variability could not be gauged. In addition, with only 1 ultrasonographic examination performed, there is the potential that adding ultrasonographic examinations, or having an examiner perform serial physical examinations, could better define the precision of each component. Given the practical limitations of our volunteer’s time and the schedules of 30 expert arthroscopists, we kept the chosen study design for its single setting.

Conclusion

Visual inspection and manual palpation are standard means of identifying common surface anatomical landmarks for the creation of arthroscopy portals and the placement of injections. Our study results showed variance in landmark identification between expert examiners and an ultrasonographer. The degree of variance exceeded established neurovascular safe zones, particularly for AP and MAP. This new evidence calls for further investigation into the best, safest means of performing hip arthroscopic techniques and injection-based interventions.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E65-E70. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Surface landmarks are routinely used for physical examination and surgical technique.
• Common surface landmarks used in establishing arthroscopic portals may be more difficult to accurately identify than previously thought.
• The greater trochanter was the surface landmark most precisely identified by expert examiners.
• Ultrasound examination identified landmarks varied from landmarks identified by palpation alone.

Anatomical surface landmarks about the hip and lower abdomen are often referenced when placing arthroscopic portals and office-based injections.^1-3 However, the degree to which these landmarks can be reproducibly identified using only visual inspection and palpation is unknown.

Safe access to the hip joint and surrounding structures during hip arthroscopy has been a focus in the orthopedic literature. Authors have described anatomical relationships of recommended portals to neurovascular and other anatomical structures.^4-6 This information has been reported in millimeters to centimeters of safety based on cadaver dissection studies.^4-7We conducted a study to assess expert hip arthroscopists’ ability to identify, using only physical examination techniques, the anatomical structures used for reference when creating safe starting points for arthroscopic access. We hypothesized that variance in examiner-identified points would exceed safe distances from neurovascular structures for the most commonly used hip arthroscopic portals. The volunteer in this study provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this article.

Methods

In this study, we prospectively assessed 30 expert hip arthroscopic surgeons’ ability to identify commonly referenced surface landmarks on the adult male hip, using only inspection and manual palpation. Surgeons were defined as experts on the basis of their status as hip arthroscopy instructors at the Orthopaedic Learning Center (Rosemont, IL) for the Arthroscopy Association of North America and industry-sponsored hip arthroscopy education faculty (Arthrex). Five surface landmarks were selected for their relevance to publications on safe portal placement^2-5: anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), tip of greater trochanter (GT), rectus origin (RO), superficial inguinal ring (SIR), and psoas tendon (PT).

A healthy adult male volunteer was placed supine on an examination table and exposed distally from the mid abdomen, with the perineum and the genital area covered bikini-style. An expert musculoskeletal ultrasonographer used a handheld musculoskeletal ultrasound transducer (Sonosite) to identify the 5 landmarks. Short- and long-axis images of each structure were obtained. The examiner applied a round (1 cm in diameter), uniquely colored adhesive label to the skin over each location. A professional photographer using a Canon digital camera and fixed mounts made precise overhead and lateral images. The positional integrity and scale of these images were confirmed with referral to constant anatomical skin features. Images were archived for analysis (Figure 1A).

After the ultrasonographer’s labels were removed, each of the 30 expert hip arthroscopic surgeons identified the structures by static physical examination (inspection and palpation only) and applied the same colored labels to the skin.

Results

Average absolute distance from examiner labels to ultrasonographer labels was 31 mm for ASIS, 24 mm for GT, 26 mm for RO, 19 mm for SIR, and 35 mm for PT (Figure 2).

Of the 30 surgeons, 1 (3%) came within 10 mm of the ultrasound for ASIS, 1 (3%) for GT, 4 (13%) for RO, 5 (17%) for SIR, and 1 (3%) for PT (Table 1).

Discussion

Others have investigated examiners’ use of palpation, compared with ultrasound, to identify common shoulder and knee structures.^8-10 In a 2011 systematic review, Gilliland and colleagues¹¹ confirmed that accuracy was improved with use of ultrasound (vs palpation) for injections in the shoulder, hip, knee, wrist, and ankle. Given the scarcity of data in this setting, we conducted the present study to assess the precision and accuracy of expert arthroscopists in identifying common surface landmarks. We hypothesized that physical examination and ultrasound examination would differ significantly in precisely and accurately identifying these landmarks.

Working with a standard awake volunteer, our test group of examiners was consistently inaccurate when they accepted ultrasonographer-placed labels as the ideal. Precision within the group, however, trended toward close agreement; examiners consistently placed labels in the same direction and approximate magnitude away from ultrasonographer labels. This suggests that a discrepancy between the ultrasonographic surface structure definitions taught to ultrasonographers and the manually identified definitions taught to surgeons for arthroscopy (training bias) can generate differences in landmark identification.

Given reported low rates of complications in the creation of standard surface anatomy portals, more data is needed to correlate whether safe distance guidelines best apply to the points identified by hip experts or the points identified by ultrasonographers. In a 2013 systematic review, Harris and colleagues⁸ found a 7.5% overall complication rate, with temporary neuropraxia 1 of the 2 most common complications. Whether adding ultrasound to physical examination for the creation of some or all portals will reduce the incidence of these problems is unknown. Regardless of the anatomical area referenced by experts for portal creation, the tight grouping of examiner marks in our study supports a consensus regarding the location of the landmarks studied.

In our study of the use of surface anatomical landmarks for the creation of portals, we analyzed 4 previously described locations: ALP, AP, PLP, and MAP. ALP, AP, and PLP directly reference at least 1 surface anatomical structure; AP references 2 anatomical structures (ASIS, GT); and MAP indirectly references ASIS and GT and directly references ALP and AP. In cadaveric and radiographic studies, 7 neurovascular structures have been described in proximity to ALP, AP, MAP, and PLP: superior gluteal nerve, sciatic nerve, femoral nerve, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, lateral circumflex femoral artery, and medial circumflex femoral artery.^5,6 Our results showed that use of surface anatomy in AP and MAP creation most likely places structures at risk, given the overlap of examiner CIs and the previously published cadaveric^5,6 and radiographic⁷ data.

Hua and colleagues¹² confirmed the feasibility of using ultrasound for the creation of hip arthroscopy portals. More data is needed to assess how the standard palpation-and-fluoroscopy method described by Byrd³ compares with an ultrasound-guided technique in safety and cost. However, data from our study should not be used to justify a demand for ultrasound during arthroscopy portal establishment, as limitations do not permit such a recommendation.

With diagnostic injection remaining a mainstay of differential diagnosis and treatment about the hip,¹ the data presented here suggest a potential for ultrasound in enhancing outcomes. There is evidence supporting the role of image guidance in improving palpation accuracy in the area of the biceps tendon in the forearm.¹⁰ Potentially, identification and treatment of specific extra-articular structures surrounding the hip could be made safer with more routine use of ultrasound.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. The surgeons were limited to palpation and static examination of a body in its natural state. Hip arthroscopic portals typically are created under traction and after a standard perineal post is placed for hip arthroscopy. In addition, in an awake injection setting, the clinician may receive patient feedback in the form of limb movement or speech. To what degree palpation or ultrasound will be affected in these scenarios is unknown.

Another limitation is the lack of serial examination by each examiner—intrarater variability could not be gauged. In addition, with only 1 ultrasonographic examination performed, there is the potential that adding ultrasonographic examinations, or having an examiner perform serial physical examinations, could better define the precision of each component. Given the practical limitations of our volunteer’s time and the schedules of 30 expert arthroscopists, we kept the chosen study design for its single setting.

Conclusion

Visual inspection and manual palpation are standard means of identifying common surface anatomical landmarks for the creation of arthroscopy portals and the placement of injections. Our study results showed variance in landmark identification between expert examiners and an ultrasonographer. The degree of variance exceeded established neurovascular safe zones, particularly for AP and MAP. This new evidence calls for further investigation into the best, safest means of performing hip arthroscopic techniques and injection-based interventions.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E65-E70. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Individuals who adopt a gluten-free diet are putting themselves at risk for uncommonly high levels of arsenic and mercury, according to the findings of a recent study published in Epidemiology.

“Despite [less than] 1% of Americans having diagnosed celiac disease, an estimated 25% of American consumers reported consuming gluten-free food in 2015, a 67% increase from 2013,” wrote the authors of the study, led by Maria Argos, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Despite such a dramatic shift in the diet of many Americans, little is known about how gluten-free diets might affect exposure to toxic metals found in certain foods,” they noted.

Dr. Argos and her colleagues analyzed data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which included self-reported questionnaires in which subjects indicated what type of diet they were on, if any. Data on those who indicated that they followed a gluten-free diet were analyzed to determine if their urinary and blood biomarkers indicated any exposure to toxic metals. A total of 7,471 subjects from the NHANES were included in the analysis.

“We accounted for the complex sampling design of NHANES [by] using Taylor series linearization and sampling weights, per the NHANES analytic guidelines, to ensure unbiased and nationally representative estimates,” the authors explained.

Dima_sidelnikov/Thinkstock

Individuals who adopt a gluten-free diet are putting themselves at risk for uncommonly high levels of arsenic and mercury, according to the findings of a recent study published in Epidemiology.

“Despite [less than] 1% of Americans having diagnosed celiac disease, an estimated 25% of American consumers reported consuming gluten-free food in 2015, a 67% increase from 2013,” wrote the authors of the study, led by Maria Argos, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Despite such a dramatic shift in the diet of many Americans, little is known about how gluten-free diets might affect exposure to toxic metals found in certain foods,” they noted.

Dr. Argos and her colleagues analyzed data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which included self-reported questionnaires in which subjects indicated what type of diet they were on, if any. Data on those who indicated that they followed a gluten-free diet were analyzed to determine if their urinary and blood biomarkers indicated any exposure to toxic metals. A total of 7,471 subjects from the NHANES were included in the analysis.

“We accounted for the complex sampling design of NHANES [by] using Taylor series linearization and sampling weights, per the NHANES analytic guidelines, to ensure unbiased and nationally representative estimates,” the authors explained.

Dima_sidelnikov/Thinkstock

Individuals who adopt a gluten-free diet are putting themselves at risk for uncommonly high levels of arsenic and mercury, according to the findings of a recent study published in Epidemiology.

“Despite [less than] 1% of Americans having diagnosed celiac disease, an estimated 25% of American consumers reported consuming gluten-free food in 2015, a 67% increase from 2013,” wrote the authors of the study, led by Maria Argos, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Despite such a dramatic shift in the diet of many Americans, little is known about how gluten-free diets might affect exposure to toxic metals found in certain foods,” they noted.

Dr. Argos and her colleagues analyzed data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which included self-reported questionnaires in which subjects indicated what type of diet they were on, if any. Data on those who indicated that they followed a gluten-free diet were analyzed to determine if their urinary and blood biomarkers indicated any exposure to toxic metals. A total of 7,471 subjects from the NHANES were included in the analysis.

“We accounted for the complex sampling design of NHANES [by] using Taylor series linearization and sampling weights, per the NHANES analytic guidelines, to ensure unbiased and nationally representative estimates,” the authors explained.

Dima_sidelnikov/Thinkstock

Each profession has its own core set of knowledge, skills, and values. For physicians, the core set of knowledge is anatomy, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. Skills include taking a history, the physical exam, and surgical procedures. The core values traditionally have been compassion and altruism. For modern medical practice, I urge adding cooperation as a core value. Medical school and the apprenticeship of residency are designed to teach, role model, foster, develop, and groom these core competencies.

Getting into medical school is highly competitive. Medical training uses methods that are very different than those used to train elite Olympic and professional athletes. Some competitiveness persists in medical school, but in general the faculty emphasizes cooperation rather than competition. The metric is not whether one student or resident is better than another. Gold and silver medals are not awarded. It is about whether each physician-to-be has passed the milestones needed to practice medicine.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Each profession has its own core set of knowledge, skills, and values. For physicians, the core set of knowledge is anatomy, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. Skills include taking a history, the physical exam, and surgical procedures. The core values traditionally have been compassion and altruism. For modern medical practice, I urge adding cooperation as a core value. Medical school and the apprenticeship of residency are designed to teach, role model, foster, develop, and groom these core competencies.

Getting into medical school is highly competitive. Medical training uses methods that are very different than those used to train elite Olympic and professional athletes. Some competitiveness persists in medical school, but in general the faculty emphasizes cooperation rather than competition. The metric is not whether one student or resident is better than another. Gold and silver medals are not awarded. It is about whether each physician-to-be has passed the milestones needed to practice medicine.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Each profession has its own core set of knowledge, skills, and values. For physicians, the core set of knowledge is anatomy, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. Skills include taking a history, the physical exam, and surgical procedures. The core values traditionally have been compassion and altruism. For modern medical practice, I urge adding cooperation as a core value. Medical school and the apprenticeship of residency are designed to teach, role model, foster, develop, and groom these core competencies.

Getting into medical school is highly competitive. Medical training uses methods that are very different than those used to train elite Olympic and professional athletes. Some competitiveness persists in medical school, but in general the faculty emphasizes cooperation rather than competition. The metric is not whether one student or resident is better than another. Gold and silver medals are not awarded. It is about whether each physician-to-be has passed the milestones needed to practice medicine.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

After years of preparation, a new electronic health record (EHR) system is now live at Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington. According to DoD officials, the system remains on schedule for the next step in the rollout later this year and the eventual completion in 2022. “This is just the first step in implementing what will be the largest integrated inpatient and outpatient electronic health record in the United States,” said VADM Raquel Bono, director of the Defense Health Agency.

Home to the 92nd Medical Group, Fairchild has a number of outpatient clinics and a pharmacy. According to Col Margaret Carey, the 92nd Medical Group commander, Genesis is being used by all the medical personnel at Fairchild.

For many years, the VA and DoD discussed possibly developing a single EHR across both systems before rejecting the idea for being too costly and complicated. Instead the 2 agencies looked to make their systems interoperable and to improve data sharing across the systems. The 2 agencies developed the Joint Legacy Viewer system to improve data sharing. The Joint Legacy Viewer is a clinical application that provides an integrated, read-only display of health data from DoD, VA, private sector partners, and the current military medical record system in a common data viewer.

The DoD originally awarded the $4.3 billion contract to Leidos in 2014 to develop Genesis, but the system was delayed to address cyber-security concerns. The concerns also caused DoD to reduce a larger rollout to focus initially on Fairchild.

“I can report firsthand from the command center that everything is going as expected,” reported Stacy Cummings, program executive officer for Defense Healthcare Management Systems. “Initial feedback from [health care] providers is positive.”

According to Dr. Paul Cordts, director, functional champion for the MHS at the Defense Health Agency, the biggest change that Genesis will bring is offering open medical notes to patients to “empower our patients to know what medical data are in the medical records and to use that data to improve their health and their health care over time.” Patients will be able to access data through a patient portal.

“This EHR is built to enable a team approach to providing health services to patients,” said U.S. Air Force Surgeon General Lt Gen Mark Ediger, MD. “In medicine today we really leverage a number of different skill sets on a health care team… That’s why in the Air Force we are piloting the addition of a health coaching capability here at Fairchild to leverage capabilities that are in MHS, so that health coaches can interact with patients between visits to work on things like tobacco cessation and weight loss, exercise plans and things of that nature.”

After years of preparation, a new electronic health record (EHR) system is now live at Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington. According to DoD officials, the system remains on schedule for the next step in the rollout later this year and the eventual completion in 2022. “This is just the first step in implementing what will be the largest integrated inpatient and outpatient electronic health record in the United States,” said VADM Raquel Bono, director of the Defense Health Agency.

Home to the 92nd Medical Group, Fairchild has a number of outpatient clinics and a pharmacy. According to Col Margaret Carey, the 92nd Medical Group commander, Genesis is being used by all the medical personnel at Fairchild.

For many years, the VA and DoD discussed possibly developing a single EHR across both systems before rejecting the idea for being too costly and complicated. Instead the 2 agencies looked to make their systems interoperable and to improve data sharing across the systems. The 2 agencies developed the Joint Legacy Viewer system to improve data sharing. The Joint Legacy Viewer is a clinical application that provides an integrated, read-only display of health data from DoD, VA, private sector partners, and the current military medical record system in a common data viewer.

The DoD originally awarded the $4.3 billion contract to Leidos in 2014 to develop Genesis, but the system was delayed to address cyber-security concerns. The concerns also caused DoD to reduce a larger rollout to focus initially on Fairchild.

“I can report firsthand from the command center that everything is going as expected,” reported Stacy Cummings, program executive officer for Defense Healthcare Management Systems. “Initial feedback from [health care] providers is positive.”

According to Dr. Paul Cordts, director, functional champion for the MHS at the Defense Health Agency, the biggest change that Genesis will bring is offering open medical notes to patients to “empower our patients to know what medical data are in the medical records and to use that data to improve their health and their health care over time.” Patients will be able to access data through a patient portal.

“This EHR is built to enable a team approach to providing health services to patients,” said U.S. Air Force Surgeon General Lt Gen Mark Ediger, MD. “In medicine today we really leverage a number of different skill sets on a health care team… That’s why in the Air Force we are piloting the addition of a health coaching capability here at Fairchild to leverage capabilities that are in MHS, so that health coaches can interact with patients between visits to work on things like tobacco cessation and weight loss, exercise plans and things of that nature.”

After years of preparation, a new electronic health record (EHR) system is now live at Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington. According to DoD officials, the system remains on schedule for the next step in the rollout later this year and the eventual completion in 2022. “This is just the first step in implementing what will be the largest integrated inpatient and outpatient electronic health record in the United States,” said VADM Raquel Bono, director of the Defense Health Agency.

Home to the 92nd Medical Group, Fairchild has a number of outpatient clinics and a pharmacy. According to Col Margaret Carey, the 92nd Medical Group commander, Genesis is being used by all the medical personnel at Fairchild.

For many years, the VA and DoD discussed possibly developing a single EHR across both systems before rejecting the idea for being too costly and complicated. Instead the 2 agencies looked to make their systems interoperable and to improve data sharing across the systems. The 2 agencies developed the Joint Legacy Viewer system to improve data sharing. The Joint Legacy Viewer is a clinical application that provides an integrated, read-only display of health data from DoD, VA, private sector partners, and the current military medical record system in a common data viewer.

The DoD originally awarded the $4.3 billion contract to Leidos in 2014 to develop Genesis, but the system was delayed to address cyber-security concerns. The concerns also caused DoD to reduce a larger rollout to focus initially on Fairchild.

“I can report firsthand from the command center that everything is going as expected,” reported Stacy Cummings, program executive officer for Defense Healthcare Management Systems. “Initial feedback from [health care] providers is positive.”

According to Dr. Paul Cordts, director, functional champion for the MHS at the Defense Health Agency, the biggest change that Genesis will bring is offering open medical notes to patients to “empower our patients to know what medical data are in the medical records and to use that data to improve their health and their health care over time.” Patients will be able to access data through a patient portal.

“This EHR is built to enable a team approach to providing health services to patients,” said U.S. Air Force Surgeon General Lt Gen Mark Ediger, MD. “In medicine today we really leverage a number of different skill sets on a health care team… That’s why in the Air Force we are piloting the addition of a health coaching capability here at Fairchild to leverage capabilities that are in MHS, so that health coaches can interact with patients between visits to work on things like tobacco cessation and weight loss, exercise plans and things of that nature.”

Stress levels, access to sick leave (or lack thereof), hazardous conditions, and interactions with coworkers have a ripple effect on the lives of workers, their families, and their communities. A safe workplace that supports the well-being of workers can have far-reaching benefits. That’s the premise and promise of Fundamentals of Total Worker Health Approaches: Essential Elements for Advancing Worker Safety, Health, and Well-Being, created by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The workbook provides a “user-friendly entry point” into total worker health with examples and tips, such as, “design programs with a long-term outlook to ensure sustainability. Short-term approaches have short-term value.” It also includes a self-assessment tool and resources to develop an action plan and measure progress specific to the organization. A new conceptual model—a “hierarchy of controls”—lists ways to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards in the workplace, from least effective (eg, providing personal protective equipment) to most effective (eg, physically removing the hazard).

Each workplace is unique, NIOSH says, and because the experiences of people who manage and work in them differ, the workbook is not intended as a one-size-fits-all tool. But it can be used to provide a “snapshot” of where the organization is on the path to total worker health.

Stress levels, access to sick leave (or lack thereof), hazardous conditions, and interactions with coworkers have a ripple effect on the lives of workers, their families, and their communities. A safe workplace that supports the well-being of workers can have far-reaching benefits. That’s the premise and promise of Fundamentals of Total Worker Health Approaches: Essential Elements for Advancing Worker Safety, Health, and Well-Being, created by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The workbook provides a “user-friendly entry point” into total worker health with examples and tips, such as, “design programs with a long-term outlook to ensure sustainability. Short-term approaches have short-term value.” It also includes a self-assessment tool and resources to develop an action plan and measure progress specific to the organization. A new conceptual model—a “hierarchy of controls”—lists ways to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards in the workplace, from least effective (eg, providing personal protective equipment) to most effective (eg, physically removing the hazard).

Each workplace is unique, NIOSH says, and because the experiences of people who manage and work in them differ, the workbook is not intended as a one-size-fits-all tool. But it can be used to provide a “snapshot” of where the organization is on the path to total worker health.

Stress levels, access to sick leave (or lack thereof), hazardous conditions, and interactions with coworkers have a ripple effect on the lives of workers, their families, and their communities. A safe workplace that supports the well-being of workers can have far-reaching benefits. That’s the premise and promise of Fundamentals of Total Worker Health Approaches: Essential Elements for Advancing Worker Safety, Health, and Well-Being, created by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The workbook provides a “user-friendly entry point” into total worker health with examples and tips, such as, “design programs with a long-term outlook to ensure sustainability. Short-term approaches have short-term value.” It also includes a self-assessment tool and resources to develop an action plan and measure progress specific to the organization. A new conceptual model—a “hierarchy of controls”—lists ways to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards in the workplace, from least effective (eg, providing personal protective equipment) to most effective (eg, physically removing the hazard).

Each workplace is unique, NIOSH says, and because the experiences of people who manage and work in them differ, the workbook is not intended as a one-size-fits-all tool. But it can be used to provide a “snapshot” of where the organization is on the path to total worker health.

An appeals court has struck down a Florida law that banned physicians from asking patients about firearms, ruling that the so-called gun gag law violates doctors’ First Amendment rights.

The decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals enables Florida physicians to once again query patients and families about gun ownership and record firearm information in their records. The court, however, left intact a provision that allows patients to refuse answering such questions and upheld another rule that physicians cannot discriminate against patients based on firearm status.

Courtesy Marion P. Hammer

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

An appeals court has struck down a Florida law that banned physicians from asking patients about firearms, ruling that the so-called gun gag law violates doctors’ First Amendment rights.

The decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals enables Florida physicians to once again query patients and families about gun ownership and record firearm information in their records. The court, however, left intact a provision that allows patients to refuse answering such questions and upheld another rule that physicians cannot discriminate against patients based on firearm status.

Courtesy Marion P. Hammer

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

An appeals court has struck down a Florida law that banned physicians from asking patients about firearms, ruling that the so-called gun gag law violates doctors’ First Amendment rights.

The decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals enables Florida physicians to once again query patients and families about gun ownership and record firearm information in their records. The court, however, left intact a provision that allows patients to refuse answering such questions and upheld another rule that physicians cannot discriminate against patients based on firearm status.

Courtesy Marion P. Hammer

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

Photo by Juan D. Alfonso

A study published in NEJM provides evidence that Zika virus RNA remain longer in blood and semen than in other body fluids, which suggests these may be superior diagnostic specimens.

This is the first study in which researchers examined multiple body fluids for the presence of Zika virus over a length of time.

The team sought to determine the frequency and duration of detectable Zika virus RNA in serum, saliva, urine, semen, and vaginal secretions.

They collected such specimens from 150 men and women in Puerto Rico who initially tested positive for Zika virus in urine or blood. The specimens were collected weekly for the first month and then at 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months.

The researchers tested all specimens using the Trioplex RT-PCR assay, a test that can be used to detect dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus RNA. There have been allegations that this assay is less effective than a test used to detect Zika virus alone.

The researchers also performed validation analyses for the use of the Trioplex RT-PCR assay in semen. And they tested serum using the Zika IgM Antibody Capture Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (Zika MAC-ELISA).

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed both Zika MAC-ELISA and the Trioplex RT-PCR assay. This research was supported by the CDC.

After sample testing was complete, the researchers used parametric Weibull regression models to estimate the time to the loss of Zika virus RNA, which they reported in medians and 95th percentiles.

Results

The researchers said 88% of subjects (132/150) had detectable Zika virus RNA in at least 1 serum specimen. The median time to the loss of RNA detection in serum was 14 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 11 to 17), and the 95th percentile of time was 54 days (95% CI, 43 to 64).

The team also found that 61.7% of eligible subjects (92/149) had detectable Zika virus RNA in at least 1 urine specimen. The median time to the loss of RNA detection in urine was 8 days (95% CI, 6 to 10), and the 95th percentile of time was 39 days (95% CI, 31 to 47).

Fifteen subjects (10.1%) had detectable Zika virus RNA in urine but not serum, and 55 (36.7%) had RNA in serum but not urine.

Fifty-six percent of eligible male subjects (31/55) had Zika virus RNA in at least 1 semen specimen. The median time to loss of RNA detection in semen was 34 days (95% CI, 28 to 41), and the 95th percentile of time was 81 days (95% CI, 64 to 98).

The researchers noted that 11 of the 55 subjects had Zika virus RNA in their semen at their last visit and were still being followed at the time the NEJM article was written. The maximum duration of RNA detection was 125 days after the onset of symptoms.

Zika virus RNA levels were detectable in few saliva samples, with 10.2% of eligible subjects (15/147) having detectable levels in at least 1 saliva specimen.

Only 1 of 50 women (2%) had detectable Zika virus RNA in vaginal secretions.

“The findings of this study are important for both diagnostic and prevention purposes,” said study author Eli Rosenberg, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

“The results fully support current CDC sexual transmission recommendations but also provide critical information to help in understanding how often and how long evidence of Zika virus can be found in different body fluids. This knowledge is key to improving accuracy and effectiveness of testing methods while providing important baseline information for future research.”

Photo by Juan D. Alfonso

A study published in NEJM provides evidence that Zika virus RNA remain longer in blood and semen than in other body fluids, which suggests these may be superior diagnostic specimens.

This is the first study in which researchers examined multiple body fluids for the presence of Zika virus over a length of time.

The team sought to determine the frequency and duration of detectable Zika virus RNA in serum, saliva, urine, semen, and vaginal secretions.

They collected such specimens from 150 men and women in Puerto Rico who initially tested positive for Zika virus in urine or blood. The specimens were collected weekly for the first month and then at 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months.

The researchers tested all specimens using the Trioplex RT-PCR assay, a test that can be used to detect dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus RNA. There have been allegations that this assay is less effective than a test used to detect Zika virus alone.

The researchers also performed validation analyses for the use of the Trioplex RT-PCR assay in semen. And they tested serum using the Zika IgM Antibody Capture Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (Zika MAC-ELISA).

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed both Zika MAC-ELISA and the Trioplex RT-PCR assay. This research was supported by the CDC.

After sample testing was complete, the researchers used parametric Weibull regression models to estimate the time to the loss of Zika virus RNA, which they reported in medians and 95th percentiles.

Results

The researchers said 88% of subjects (132/150) had detectable Zika virus RNA in at least 1 serum specimen. The median time to the loss of RNA detection in serum was 14 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 11 to 17), and the 95th percentile of time was 54 days (95% CI, 43 to 64).

The team also found that 61.7% of eligible subjects (92/149) had detectable Zika virus RNA in at least 1 urine specimen. The median time to the loss of RNA detection in urine was 8 days (95% CI, 6 to 10), and the 95th percentile of time was 39 days (95% CI, 31 to 47).

Fifteen subjects (10.1%) had detectable Zika virus RNA in urine but not serum, and 55 (36.7%) had RNA in serum but not urine.

Fifty-six percent of eligible male subjects (31/55) had Zika virus RNA in at least 1 semen specimen. The median time to loss of RNA detection in semen was 34 days (95% CI, 28 to 41), and the 95th percentile of time was 81 days (95% CI, 64 to 98).

The researchers noted that 11 of the 55 subjects had Zika virus RNA in their semen at their last visit and were still being followed at the time the NEJM article was written. The maximum duration of RNA detection was 125 days after the onset of symptoms.

Zika virus RNA levels were detectable in few saliva samples, with 10.2% of eligible subjects (15/147) having detectable levels in at least 1 saliva specimen.

Only 1 of 50 women (2%) had detectable Zika virus RNA in vaginal secretions.

“The findings of this study are important for both diagnostic and prevention purposes,” said study author Eli Rosenberg, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

“The results fully support current CDC sexual transmission recommendations but also provide critical information to help in understanding how often and how long evidence of Zika virus can be found in different body fluids. This knowledge is key to improving accuracy and effectiveness of testing methods while providing important baseline information for future research.”

Photo by Juan D. Alfonso

A study published in NEJM provides evidence that Zika virus RNA remain longer in blood and semen than in other body fluids, which suggests these may be superior diagnostic specimens.

This is the first study in which researchers examined multiple body fluids for the presence of Zika virus over a length of time.

The team sought to determine the frequency and duration of detectable Zika virus RNA in serum, saliva, urine, semen, and vaginal secretions.

They collected such specimens from 150 men and women in Puerto Rico who initially tested positive for Zika virus in urine or blood. The specimens were collected weekly for the first month and then at 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months.

The researchers tested all specimens using the Trioplex RT-PCR assay, a test that can be used to detect dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus RNA. There have been allegations that this assay is less effective than a test used to detect Zika virus alone.

The researchers also performed validation analyses for the use of the Trioplex RT-PCR assay in semen. And they tested serum using the Zika IgM Antibody Capture Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (Zika MAC-ELISA).

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed both Zika MAC-ELISA and the Trioplex RT-PCR assay. This research was supported by the CDC.

After sample testing was complete, the researchers used parametric Weibull regression models to estimate the time to the loss of Zika virus RNA, which they reported in medians and 95th percentiles.

Results

The researchers said 88% of subjects (132/150) had detectable Zika virus RNA in at least 1 serum specimen. The median time to the loss of RNA detection in serum was 14 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 11 to 17), and the 95th percentile of time was 54 days (95% CI, 43 to 64).

The team also found that 61.7% of eligible subjects (92/149) had detectable Zika virus RNA in at least 1 urine specimen. The median time to the loss of RNA detection in urine was 8 days (95% CI, 6 to 10), and the 95th percentile of time was 39 days (95% CI, 31 to 47).

Fifteen subjects (10.1%) had detectable Zika virus RNA in urine but not serum, and 55 (36.7%) had RNA in serum but not urine.

Fifty-six percent of eligible male subjects (31/55) had Zika virus RNA in at least 1 semen specimen. The median time to loss of RNA detection in semen was 34 days (95% CI, 28 to 41), and the 95th percentile of time was 81 days (95% CI, 64 to 98).

The researchers noted that 11 of the 55 subjects had Zika virus RNA in their semen at their last visit and were still being followed at the time the NEJM article was written. The maximum duration of RNA detection was 125 days after the onset of symptoms.

Zika virus RNA levels were detectable in few saliva samples, with 10.2% of eligible subjects (15/147) having detectable levels in at least 1 saliva specimen.

Only 1 of 50 women (2%) had detectable Zika virus RNA in vaginal secretions.

“The findings of this study are important for both diagnostic and prevention purposes,” said study author Eli Rosenberg, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

“The results fully support current CDC sexual transmission recommendations but also provide critical information to help in understanding how often and how long evidence of Zika virus can be found in different body fluids. This knowledge is key to improving accuracy and effectiveness of testing methods while providing important baseline information for future research.”

SEATTLE – HIV-positive women treated with cryotherapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 were 52% more likely than women treated with loop excision to have a recurrence within 2 years, according to a randomized trial in Kenya.

The investigators called on the World Health Organization and other groups to support loop excision as the first-line option for HIV-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-resource settings, but the findings also support its use, when possible, in Western countries.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – HIV-positive women treated with cryotherapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 were 52% more likely than women treated with loop excision to have a recurrence within 2 years, according to a randomized trial in Kenya.

The investigators called on the World Health Organization and other groups to support loop excision as the first-line option for HIV-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-resource settings, but the findings also support its use, when possible, in Western countries.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – HIV-positive women treated with cryotherapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 were 52% more likely than women treated with loop excision to have a recurrence within 2 years, according to a randomized trial in Kenya.

The investigators called on the World Health Organization and other groups to support loop excision as the first-line option for HIV-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-resource settings, but the findings also support its use, when possible, in Western countries.

[email protected]

Take-Home Points

• Physician fees, operating room costs, therapy costs, and missed work account for most (92%) of the costs in distal radius fractures.
• Indirect costs (especially missed work) contribute a significant amount to the total cost of injury.
• Patients continue to accrue costs up to 3-6 months post-injury.
• Implant costs make up only 6% of the total costs of operatively treated distal radius fractures.

Distal radius fractures (DRFs) account for 20% of all fractures seen in the emergency department, and are the most common fractures in all patients under age 75 years.^1,2 Apart from causing pain and disability, DRFs have a large associated economic burden.^3-6 In addition, over the past decade, the fixation technology used for DRF treatment has expanded rapidly and revolutionized operative management. With this expansion has come a growing body of high-level evidence guiding treatment decisions regarding patient outcomes.^7-11 As operative treatment of these injuries has evolved, researchers have begun to critically evaluate both health outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of treatment choices.^12,13

Determining the cost-effectiveness of any medical intervention requires an accurate and standardized method for measuring the total cost of a course of treatment. Although several studies have attempted to evaluate the treatment costs of DRFs,^14-18 none has rigorously examined exactly what needs to be measured, and for how long, to accurately describe the overall cost. Many studies have examined only direct costs (treatment-related costs incurred in the hospital or clinic itself) and neglected indirect costs (eg, missed work, time in treatment, additional care requirements). As patient-reported disability from these injuries can be high,^19-22 it is likely that the additional indirect costs, often borne by the patient, are correspondingly high. This relationship has been suggested by indirect data from large retrospective epidemiologic studies^3-6 but has never been evaluated with primary data obtained in a prospective study.

Given these questions, we conducted an in-depth study of the treatment costs of these injuries to identify which factors should be captured, and for how long, to accurately describe the overall cost without missing any of the major cost-drivers. We hypothesized that indirect costs (particularly missed work) would be significant and variable cost-drivers in the overall economic impact of these injuries, and that direct prospective measurement of these costs would be the most reliable method for accurately assessing them. In short, this was a prospective, observational study of all the direct and indirect costs associated with treating DRFs. Its 2 main goals were to determine how much of the overall cost was attributable to indirect costs, and which cost factors should be measured, and for how long, to capture the true economic cost of these injuries.

Patients and Methods

Study Design

This prospective, observational study was approved by our hospital’s Institutional Review Board, and patients gave informed consent to participate. Patients with an isolated DRF that was treated either operatively or nonoperatively and followed at our hospital were eligible for the study. Treatment decisions for each patient were made by the treating surgeon and were based on injury characteristics. Patients with multiple concomitant injuries (polytrauma) were excluded. The AO/OTA (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association) classification system was used to grade all fractures.²³

Patients were seen 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after injury. Each time, clinical data (strength, range of motion, patient-rated outcome forms) and economic data were collected. A patient’s economic data were considered complete if the patient had full follow-up in our clinic up to 1 year after injury or, if applicable, the patient returned to work and had all recurring direct and indirect costs resolved. Costs were measured and calculated from the broadest possible perspective (overall societal costs) rather than from payer-specific perspectives (eg, institution costs, insurance costs).

Treatment and Rehabilitation Protocol

Each patient who underwent nonoperative treatment was placed in a molded sugar-tong splint with hand motion encouraged and followed in clinic. At 4 to 6 weeks, the splint was removed, and the patient was placed in a removable cock-up wrist splint for another 2 to 4 weeks. Throughout this period, the patient worked on elbow and finger motion with an occupational therapist (OT). On discontinuation of the wrist splint, the patient returned to the OT for gentle wrist motion and continuation of elbow and finger motion.

For each patient who underwent operative treatment, implant and approach were based on fracture pattern. Implants used included isolated Kirschner wires (K-wires), volar locked plates, dorsal plates, radial column plates, and ulnar plates. After fixation, the patient was placed in a well-padded volar splint and encouraged to start immediate finger motion. Ten to 14 days after surgery, the splint was removed, and the patient was referred to an OT for gentle wrist, finger, and elbow motion. Therapy was continued until wrist, finger, and elbow motion was full.

Direct Costs

Direct costs were obtained from hospital billing and collections records. Cost items measured included physician fees, imaging fees, inpatient bed fees (when applicable), operating room (OR) facility fees, implant costs, and OT costs. Whenever possible, the final amount collected (vs charged) was used for the cost, as this was thought to be the most reliable indicator of the real cost of an item. Total cost was obtained from ultimate collection/reimbursement for all physician, imaging, and OT fees.

In a few cases, ultimate amount collected was not in our system and instead was calculated by normalizing the charges based on internal departmental cost-to-charge ratios. Cost-to-charge ratios were used for OR/emergency department facility fees, inpatient bed fees, and implant costs.

Indirect Costs

Indirect costs were calculated from questionnaires completed by patients at initial enrollment and at each follow-up visit. The initial enrollment form captured basic demographic information, employment status and work type, and annual income. The follow-up form included questions about current work status, physical/occupational therapy frequency, and extra recurring expenses related to transportation, household chores, and personal care, among other items. Total recurring expenses from transportation, chores, and personal care were calculated by multiplying the weekly expenses listed at a given visit by the time since the previous visit.

Costs for missed work were estimated as a function of preinjury wages multiplied by decreased level of productivity and period of work missed. For a patient who indicated part-time work status, decreased level of productivity was calculated by dividing the patient’s weekly hours by 40 (assumes 40-hour week is full-time), which yielded a percentage of full-time capacity. The patient was also asked to indicate any change in work status, which allowed for an accurate accounting of how long the patient was away from work and how much the patient’s capacity was decreased, ultimately providing an estimate of total amount of work missed. Multiplying that period by annual preinjury wages gave the value used for total cost of missed work.

Results

Of the 82 patients enrolled in the study, 36 were treated operatively and 46 nonoperatively. Table 1 lists additional demographic information about the study population.

Table 2 provides a full breakdown of costs. OT costs were similar between groups but proportionally made up 27% of the costs for the nonoperative group and 4.9% for the operative group.

Discussion

The drive to use evidence-based treatments in medicine has led to increased scrutiny of the benefits of novel treatments and technologies. However, in addition to carefully measuring clinical benefits, we must monitor costs. Implementation of new treatments based on small clinical advantages, without consideration of economic impact, will not be sustainable over the long term.

This study was not intended to report the “true” cost of treating these injuries, or to make direct comparisons between operative and nonoperative groups (regional and institutional costs and practices vary so much that no single-site study can report a meaningful number for cost). Furthermore, the observational (nonrandomized) nature of this study makes direct comparison of operative and nonoperative groups too confounded to draw conclusions. Simply, this study was conducted to help determine what needs to be measured, with the ultimate goal being to obtain a relatively reliable estimate of the total cost to society of a given injury and its treatment.

In this study, physician fees and facility fees were major direct expenses—not surprising given the value of physician time and OR time. In addition, OT was a fairly large direct-cost driver, particularly for nonoperative patients, for whom other costs were relatively low. This finding supports what has been reported in studies of the frequency and duration of therapy as potential targets for cost containment.²⁴ Surprisingly, OT costs were lower for operatively (vs nonoperatively) treated patients. This finding may be attributable to earlier wrist motion in operatively treated patients (10-14 days) relative to nonoperatively treated patients (6-8 weeks), as earlier wrist motion may reduce stiffness and total need for therapy. Alternatively, the finding may be attributable to sampling error caused by difficulty in obtaining accurate OT costs, as some patients received therapy at multiple private offices, with records unavailable.

Although significant attention is often focused on implant costs, these actually comprised a relatively small portion (6%) of the total treatment costs for these injuries. However, implant costs vary significantly between institutions.

Indirect costs were a major factor, accounting for about one-third of total cost. Missed work was the single largest cost item in this study, comprising 93% of the indirect cost and 27% of the total cost. These findings suggest that the cost of missed work is crucial and should be measured in any study that compares the cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities.

In orthopedic trauma, earlier return to work is often cited as a potential benefit of surgical intervention. However, without defining the exact economic impact of missed work, it is difficult to decide if earlier return to work justifies the added cost of surgery. The situation is further muddled by conflicting priorities, as the entities that bear the cost of missed work (patient, disability insurance) are often different from the entity that bears the cost of surgery (medical insurance). In the light of this complex decision-making with multiple and sometimes conflicting stakeholders, accurate understanding of the economic impact of missed work is paramount. Our data showed return to work took slightly longer for operatively (vs nonoperatively) treated patients, though we think this is more likely a result of higher injury severity than treatment choice.

Patients in both groups were still not back working up to 6 months after injury, indicating that return of function after these injuries is not as rapid as we might hope or expect, and may play a role in setting expectations during initial discussions with patients.

The major strength of this study is that it was the first of its kind to prospectively measure these costs at a single institution in order to make direct comparisons of different cost factors. Whenever possible, rather than relying on cost-to-charge ratio estimates, we analyzed costs obtained directly from collections reports, which improved the validity of the results generated. Missed work was captured by directly asking patients about work capacity, not by retrospectively reviewing disability applications, which for a variety of reasons often inaccurately reflects true work productivity. In addition, our final follow-up rate was relatively high (91%), which helped minimize bias. Although this study focused on DRFs, the hope is that these data can serve as a template for the kinds of factors that need to be measured to accurately describe the cost of many different upper extremity injuries. This idea, however, needs to be formally tested.

This study had several limitations. First, some costs (OR time, facility fees) still had to be estimated with cost-to-charge ratios—a less precise method. Second, measuring the societal cost of missed work is controversial. We calculated this cost by using standard economic techniques, valuing the decreased productivity period according to baseline salary, though the true “loss” to society is less clear. Third, our data represent the costs at one hospital in one city and might be very different at other institutions with different cost structures. Fourth, this study was observational (vs randomized) and subject to the usual bias of such studies, so conclusions between treatment choices and cost or clinical outcomes could not be drawn (which was not our intent in this study). Although these issues limited our ability to calculate the exact “cost” of these injuries, the relative impact of the different cost factors could be measured (which was our intent).

DRFs are common injuries that can have significant associated expenses, many of which were not captured in previous cost analyses. In the present study, we found that measuring physician, OR, therapy, and missed work costs for at least 6 months after injury was generally sufficient for accurate capture of major costs. We hope these data can help in planning studies of the treatment costs of upper extremity injuries. Only through accurate and conscientious data gathering can we evaluate the clinical and economic effects of novel technologies and ensure delivery of high-quality care while containing costs and improving efficiency.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E54-E59. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Physician fees, operating room costs, therapy costs, and missed work account for most (92%) of the costs in distal radius fractures.
• Indirect costs (especially missed work) contribute a significant amount to the total cost of injury.
• Patients continue to accrue costs up to 3-6 months post-injury.
• Implant costs make up only 6% of the total costs of operatively treated distal radius fractures.

Distal radius fractures (DRFs) account for 20% of all fractures seen in the emergency department, and are the most common fractures in all patients under age 75 years.^1,2 Apart from causing pain and disability, DRFs have a large associated economic burden.^3-6 In addition, over the past decade, the fixation technology used for DRF treatment has expanded rapidly and revolutionized operative management. With this expansion has come a growing body of high-level evidence guiding treatment decisions regarding patient outcomes.^7-11 As operative treatment of these injuries has evolved, researchers have begun to critically evaluate both health outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of treatment choices.^12,13

Determining the cost-effectiveness of any medical intervention requires an accurate and standardized method for measuring the total cost of a course of treatment. Although several studies have attempted to evaluate the treatment costs of DRFs,^14-18 none has rigorously examined exactly what needs to be measured, and for how long, to accurately describe the overall cost. Many studies have examined only direct costs (treatment-related costs incurred in the hospital or clinic itself) and neglected indirect costs (eg, missed work, time in treatment, additional care requirements). As patient-reported disability from these injuries can be high,^19-22 it is likely that the additional indirect costs, often borne by the patient, are correspondingly high. This relationship has been suggested by indirect data from large retrospective epidemiologic studies^3-6 but has never been evaluated with primary data obtained in a prospective study.

Given these questions, we conducted an in-depth study of the treatment costs of these injuries to identify which factors should be captured, and for how long, to accurately describe the overall cost without missing any of the major cost-drivers. We hypothesized that indirect costs (particularly missed work) would be significant and variable cost-drivers in the overall economic impact of these injuries, and that direct prospective measurement of these costs would be the most reliable method for accurately assessing them. In short, this was a prospective, observational study of all the direct and indirect costs associated with treating DRFs. Its 2 main goals were to determine how much of the overall cost was attributable to indirect costs, and which cost factors should be measured, and for how long, to capture the true economic cost of these injuries.

Patients and Methods

Study Design

This prospective, observational study was approved by our hospital’s Institutional Review Board, and patients gave informed consent to participate. Patients with an isolated DRF that was treated either operatively or nonoperatively and followed at our hospital were eligible for the study. Treatment decisions for each patient were made by the treating surgeon and were based on injury characteristics. Patients with multiple concomitant injuries (polytrauma) were excluded. The AO/OTA (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association) classification system was used to grade all fractures.²³

Patients were seen 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after injury. Each time, clinical data (strength, range of motion, patient-rated outcome forms) and economic data were collected. A patient’s economic data were considered complete if the patient had full follow-up in our clinic up to 1 year after injury or, if applicable, the patient returned to work and had all recurring direct and indirect costs resolved. Costs were measured and calculated from the broadest possible perspective (overall societal costs) rather than from payer-specific perspectives (eg, institution costs, insurance costs).

Treatment and Rehabilitation Protocol

Each patient who underwent nonoperative treatment was placed in a molded sugar-tong splint with hand motion encouraged and followed in clinic. At 4 to 6 weeks, the splint was removed, and the patient was placed in a removable cock-up wrist splint for another 2 to 4 weeks. Throughout this period, the patient worked on elbow and finger motion with an occupational therapist (OT). On discontinuation of the wrist splint, the patient returned to the OT for gentle wrist motion and continuation of elbow and finger motion.

For each patient who underwent operative treatment, implant and approach were based on fracture pattern. Implants used included isolated Kirschner wires (K-wires), volar locked plates, dorsal plates, radial column plates, and ulnar plates. After fixation, the patient was placed in a well-padded volar splint and encouraged to start immediate finger motion. Ten to 14 days after surgery, the splint was removed, and the patient was referred to an OT for gentle wrist, finger, and elbow motion. Therapy was continued until wrist, finger, and elbow motion was full.

Direct Costs

Direct costs were obtained from hospital billing and collections records. Cost items measured included physician fees, imaging fees, inpatient bed fees (when applicable), operating room (OR) facility fees, implant costs, and OT costs. Whenever possible, the final amount collected (vs charged) was used for the cost, as this was thought to be the most reliable indicator of the real cost of an item. Total cost was obtained from ultimate collection/reimbursement for all physician, imaging, and OT fees.

In a few cases, ultimate amount collected was not in our system and instead was calculated by normalizing the charges based on internal departmental cost-to-charge ratios. Cost-to-charge ratios were used for OR/emergency department facility fees, inpatient bed fees, and implant costs.

Indirect Costs

Indirect costs were calculated from questionnaires completed by patients at initial enrollment and at each follow-up visit. The initial enrollment form captured basic demographic information, employment status and work type, and annual income. The follow-up form included questions about current work status, physical/occupational therapy frequency, and extra recurring expenses related to transportation, household chores, and personal care, among other items. Total recurring expenses from transportation, chores, and personal care were calculated by multiplying the weekly expenses listed at a given visit by the time since the previous visit.

Costs for missed work were estimated as a function of preinjury wages multiplied by decreased level of productivity and period of work missed. For a patient who indicated part-time work status, decreased level of productivity was calculated by dividing the patient’s weekly hours by 40 (assumes 40-hour week is full-time), which yielded a percentage of full-time capacity. The patient was also asked to indicate any change in work status, which allowed for an accurate accounting of how long the patient was away from work and how much the patient’s capacity was decreased, ultimately providing an estimate of total amount of work missed. Multiplying that period by annual preinjury wages gave the value used for total cost of missed work.

Results

Of the 82 patients enrolled in the study, 36 were treated operatively and 46 nonoperatively. Table 1 lists additional demographic information about the study population.

Table 2 provides a full breakdown of costs. OT costs were similar between groups but proportionally made up 27% of the costs for the nonoperative group and 4.9% for the operative group.

Discussion

The drive to use evidence-based treatments in medicine has led to increased scrutiny of the benefits of novel treatments and technologies. However, in addition to carefully measuring clinical benefits, we must monitor costs. Implementation of new treatments based on small clinical advantages, without consideration of economic impact, will not be sustainable over the long term.

This study was not intended to report the “true” cost of treating these injuries, or to make direct comparisons between operative and nonoperative groups (regional and institutional costs and practices vary so much that no single-site study can report a meaningful number for cost). Furthermore, the observational (nonrandomized) nature of this study makes direct comparison of operative and nonoperative groups too confounded to draw conclusions. Simply, this study was conducted to help determine what needs to be measured, with the ultimate goal being to obtain a relatively reliable estimate of the total cost to society of a given injury and its treatment.

In this study, physician fees and facility fees were major direct expenses—not surprising given the value of physician time and OR time. In addition, OT was a fairly large direct-cost driver, particularly for nonoperative patients, for whom other costs were relatively low. This finding supports what has been reported in studies of the frequency and duration of therapy as potential targets for cost containment.²⁴ Surprisingly, OT costs were lower for operatively (vs nonoperatively) treated patients. This finding may be attributable to earlier wrist motion in operatively treated patients (10-14 days) relative to nonoperatively treated patients (6-8 weeks), as earlier wrist motion may reduce stiffness and total need for therapy. Alternatively, the finding may be attributable to sampling error caused by difficulty in obtaining accurate OT costs, as some patients received therapy at multiple private offices, with records unavailable.

Although significant attention is often focused on implant costs, these actually comprised a relatively small portion (6%) of the total treatment costs for these injuries. However, implant costs vary significantly between institutions.

Indirect costs were a major factor, accounting for about one-third of total cost. Missed work was the single largest cost item in this study, comprising 93% of the indirect cost and 27% of the total cost. These findings suggest that the cost of missed work is crucial and should be measured in any study that compares the cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities.

In orthopedic trauma, earlier return to work is often cited as a potential benefit of surgical intervention. However, without defining the exact economic impact of missed work, it is difficult to decide if earlier return to work justifies the added cost of surgery. The situation is further muddled by conflicting priorities, as the entities that bear the cost of missed work (patient, disability insurance) are often different from the entity that bears the cost of surgery (medical insurance). In the light of this complex decision-making with multiple and sometimes conflicting stakeholders, accurate understanding of the economic impact of missed work is paramount. Our data showed return to work took slightly longer for operatively (vs nonoperatively) treated patients, though we think this is more likely a result of higher injury severity than treatment choice.

Patients in both groups were still not back working up to 6 months after injury, indicating that return of function after these injuries is not as rapid as we might hope or expect, and may play a role in setting expectations during initial discussions with patients.

The major strength of this study is that it was the first of its kind to prospectively measure these costs at a single institution in order to make direct comparisons of different cost factors. Whenever possible, rather than relying on cost-to-charge ratio estimates, we analyzed costs obtained directly from collections reports, which improved the validity of the results generated. Missed work was captured by directly asking patients about work capacity, not by retrospectively reviewing disability applications, which for a variety of reasons often inaccurately reflects true work productivity. In addition, our final follow-up rate was relatively high (91%), which helped minimize bias. Although this study focused on DRFs, the hope is that these data can serve as a template for the kinds of factors that need to be measured to accurately describe the cost of many different upper extremity injuries. This idea, however, needs to be formally tested.

This study had several limitations. First, some costs (OR time, facility fees) still had to be estimated with cost-to-charge ratios—a less precise method. Second, measuring the societal cost of missed work is controversial. We calculated this cost by using standard economic techniques, valuing the decreased productivity period according to baseline salary, though the true “loss” to society is less clear. Third, our data represent the costs at one hospital in one city and might be very different at other institutions with different cost structures. Fourth, this study was observational (vs randomized) and subject to the usual bias of such studies, so conclusions between treatment choices and cost or clinical outcomes could not be drawn (which was not our intent in this study). Although these issues limited our ability to calculate the exact “cost” of these injuries, the relative impact of the different cost factors could be measured (which was our intent).

DRFs are common injuries that can have significant associated expenses, many of which were not captured in previous cost analyses. In the present study, we found that measuring physician, OR, therapy, and missed work costs for at least 6 months after injury was generally sufficient for accurate capture of major costs. We hope these data can help in planning studies of the treatment costs of upper extremity injuries. Only through accurate and conscientious data gathering can we evaluate the clinical and economic effects of novel technologies and ensure delivery of high-quality care while containing costs and improving efficiency.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E54-E59. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Physician fees, operating room costs, therapy costs, and missed work account for most (92%) of the costs in distal radius fractures.
• Indirect costs (especially missed work) contribute a significant amount to the total cost of injury.
• Patients continue to accrue costs up to 3-6 months post-injury.
• Implant costs make up only 6% of the total costs of operatively treated distal radius fractures.

Distal radius fractures (DRFs) account for 20% of all fractures seen in the emergency department, and are the most common fractures in all patients under age 75 years.^1,2 Apart from causing pain and disability, DRFs have a large associated economic burden.^3-6 In addition, over the past decade, the fixation technology used for DRF treatment has expanded rapidly and revolutionized operative management. With this expansion has come a growing body of high-level evidence guiding treatment decisions regarding patient outcomes.^7-11 As operative treatment of these injuries has evolved, researchers have begun to critically evaluate both health outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of treatment choices.^12,13

Determining the cost-effectiveness of any medical intervention requires an accurate and standardized method for measuring the total cost of a course of treatment. Although several studies have attempted to evaluate the treatment costs of DRFs,^14-18 none has rigorously examined exactly what needs to be measured, and for how long, to accurately describe the overall cost. Many studies have examined only direct costs (treatment-related costs incurred in the hospital or clinic itself) and neglected indirect costs (eg, missed work, time in treatment, additional care requirements). As patient-reported disability from these injuries can be high,^19-22 it is likely that the additional indirect costs, often borne by the patient, are correspondingly high. This relationship has been suggested by indirect data from large retrospective epidemiologic studies^3-6 but has never been evaluated with primary data obtained in a prospective study.

Given these questions, we conducted an in-depth study of the treatment costs of these injuries to identify which factors should be captured, and for how long, to accurately describe the overall cost without missing any of the major cost-drivers. We hypothesized that indirect costs (particularly missed work) would be significant and variable cost-drivers in the overall economic impact of these injuries, and that direct prospective measurement of these costs would be the most reliable method for accurately assessing them. In short, this was a prospective, observational study of all the direct and indirect costs associated with treating DRFs. Its 2 main goals were to determine how much of the overall cost was attributable to indirect costs, and which cost factors should be measured, and for how long, to capture the true economic cost of these injuries.

Patients and Methods

Study Design

This prospective, observational study was approved by our hospital’s Institutional Review Board, and patients gave informed consent to participate. Patients with an isolated DRF that was treated either operatively or nonoperatively and followed at our hospital were eligible for the study. Treatment decisions for each patient were made by the treating surgeon and were based on injury characteristics. Patients with multiple concomitant injuries (polytrauma) were excluded. The AO/OTA (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association) classification system was used to grade all fractures.²³

Patients were seen 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after injury. Each time, clinical data (strength, range of motion, patient-rated outcome forms) and economic data were collected. A patient’s economic data were considered complete if the patient had full follow-up in our clinic up to 1 year after injury or, if applicable, the patient returned to work and had all recurring direct and indirect costs resolved. Costs were measured and calculated from the broadest possible perspective (overall societal costs) rather than from payer-specific perspectives (eg, institution costs, insurance costs).

Treatment and Rehabilitation Protocol

Each patient who underwent nonoperative treatment was placed in a molded sugar-tong splint with hand motion encouraged and followed in clinic. At 4 to 6 weeks, the splint was removed, and the patient was placed in a removable cock-up wrist splint for another 2 to 4 weeks. Throughout this period, the patient worked on elbow and finger motion with an occupational therapist (OT). On discontinuation of the wrist splint, the patient returned to the OT for gentle wrist motion and continuation of elbow and finger motion.

For each patient who underwent operative treatment, implant and approach were based on fracture pattern. Implants used included isolated Kirschner wires (K-wires), volar locked plates, dorsal plates, radial column plates, and ulnar plates. After fixation, the patient was placed in a well-padded volar splint and encouraged to start immediate finger motion. Ten to 14 days after surgery, the splint was removed, and the patient was referred to an OT for gentle wrist, finger, and elbow motion. Therapy was continued until wrist, finger, and elbow motion was full.

Direct Costs

Direct costs were obtained from hospital billing and collections records. Cost items measured included physician fees, imaging fees, inpatient bed fees (when applicable), operating room (OR) facility fees, implant costs, and OT costs. Whenever possible, the final amount collected (vs charged) was used for the cost, as this was thought to be the most reliable indicator of the real cost of an item. Total cost was obtained from ultimate collection/reimbursement for all physician, imaging, and OT fees.

In a few cases, ultimate amount collected was not in our system and instead was calculated by normalizing the charges based on internal departmental cost-to-charge ratios. Cost-to-charge ratios were used for OR/emergency department facility fees, inpatient bed fees, and implant costs.

Indirect Costs

Indirect costs were calculated from questionnaires completed by patients at initial enrollment and at each follow-up visit. The initial enrollment form captured basic demographic information, employment status and work type, and annual income. The follow-up form included questions about current work status, physical/occupational therapy frequency, and extra recurring expenses related to transportation, household chores, and personal care, among other items. Total recurring expenses from transportation, chores, and personal care were calculated by multiplying the weekly expenses listed at a given visit by the time since the previous visit.

Costs for missed work were estimated as a function of preinjury wages multiplied by decreased level of productivity and period of work missed. For a patient who indicated part-time work status, decreased level of productivity was calculated by dividing the patient’s weekly hours by 40 (assumes 40-hour week is full-time), which yielded a percentage of full-time capacity. The patient was also asked to indicate any change in work status, which allowed for an accurate accounting of how long the patient was away from work and how much the patient’s capacity was decreased, ultimately providing an estimate of total amount of work missed. Multiplying that period by annual preinjury wages gave the value used for total cost of missed work.

Results

Of the 82 patients enrolled in the study, 36 were treated operatively and 46 nonoperatively. Table 1 lists additional demographic information about the study population.

Table 2 provides a full breakdown of costs. OT costs were similar between groups but proportionally made up 27% of the costs for the nonoperative group and 4.9% for the operative group.

Discussion

The drive to use evidence-based treatments in medicine has led to increased scrutiny of the benefits of novel treatments and technologies. However, in addition to carefully measuring clinical benefits, we must monitor costs. Implementation of new treatments based on small clinical advantages, without consideration of economic impact, will not be sustainable over the long term.

This study was not intended to report the “true” cost of treating these injuries, or to make direct comparisons between operative and nonoperative groups (regional and institutional costs and practices vary so much that no single-site study can report a meaningful number for cost). Furthermore, the observational (nonrandomized) nature of this study makes direct comparison of operative and nonoperative groups too confounded to draw conclusions. Simply, this study was conducted to help determine what needs to be measured, with the ultimate goal being to obtain a relatively reliable estimate of the total cost to society of a given injury and its treatment.

In this study, physician fees and facility fees were major direct expenses—not surprising given the value of physician time and OR time. In addition, OT was a fairly large direct-cost driver, particularly for nonoperative patients, for whom other costs were relatively low. This finding supports what has been reported in studies of the frequency and duration of therapy as potential targets for cost containment.²⁴ Surprisingly, OT costs were lower for operatively (vs nonoperatively) treated patients. This finding may be attributable to earlier wrist motion in operatively treated patients (10-14 days) relative to nonoperatively treated patients (6-8 weeks), as earlier wrist motion may reduce stiffness and total need for therapy. Alternatively, the finding may be attributable to sampling error caused by difficulty in obtaining accurate OT costs, as some patients received therapy at multiple private offices, with records unavailable.

Although significant attention is often focused on implant costs, these actually comprised a relatively small portion (6%) of the total treatment costs for these injuries. However, implant costs vary significantly between institutions.

Indirect costs were a major factor, accounting for about one-third of total cost. Missed work was the single largest cost item in this study, comprising 93% of the indirect cost and 27% of the total cost. These findings suggest that the cost of missed work is crucial and should be measured in any study that compares the cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities.

In orthopedic trauma, earlier return to work is often cited as a potential benefit of surgical intervention. However, without defining the exact economic impact of missed work, it is difficult to decide if earlier return to work justifies the added cost of surgery. The situation is further muddled by conflicting priorities, as the entities that bear the cost of missed work (patient, disability insurance) are often different from the entity that bears the cost of surgery (medical insurance). In the light of this complex decision-making with multiple and sometimes conflicting stakeholders, accurate understanding of the economic impact of missed work is paramount. Our data showed return to work took slightly longer for operatively (vs nonoperatively) treated patients, though we think this is more likely a result of higher injury severity than treatment choice.

Patients in both groups were still not back working up to 6 months after injury, indicating that return of function after these injuries is not as rapid as we might hope or expect, and may play a role in setting expectations during initial discussions with patients.

The major strength of this study is that it was the first of its kind to prospectively measure these costs at a single institution in order to make direct comparisons of different cost factors. Whenever possible, rather than relying on cost-to-charge ratio estimates, we analyzed costs obtained directly from collections reports, which improved the validity of the results generated. Missed work was captured by directly asking patients about work capacity, not by retrospectively reviewing disability applications, which for a variety of reasons often inaccurately reflects true work productivity. In addition, our final follow-up rate was relatively high (91%), which helped minimize bias. Although this study focused on DRFs, the hope is that these data can serve as a template for the kinds of factors that need to be measured to accurately describe the cost of many different upper extremity injuries. This idea, however, needs to be formally tested.

This study had several limitations. First, some costs (OR time, facility fees) still had to be estimated with cost-to-charge ratios—a less precise method. Second, measuring the societal cost of missed work is controversial. We calculated this cost by using standard economic techniques, valuing the decreased productivity period according to baseline salary, though the true “loss” to society is less clear. Third, our data represent the costs at one hospital in one city and might be very different at other institutions with different cost structures. Fourth, this study was observational (vs randomized) and subject to the usual bias of such studies, so conclusions between treatment choices and cost or clinical outcomes could not be drawn (which was not our intent in this study). Although these issues limited our ability to calculate the exact “cost” of these injuries, the relative impact of the different cost factors could be measured (which was our intent).

DRFs are common injuries that can have significant associated expenses, many of which were not captured in previous cost analyses. In the present study, we found that measuring physician, OR, therapy, and missed work costs for at least 6 months after injury was generally sufficient for accurate capture of major costs. We hope these data can help in planning studies of the treatment costs of upper extremity injuries. Only through accurate and conscientious data gathering can we evaluate the clinical and economic effects of novel technologies and ensure delivery of high-quality care while containing costs and improving efficiency.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E54-E59. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.