Andre M. Samuel

Industry ties in otolaryngology: initial insights from the physician payment sunshine act.

Objective To characterize nonresearch payments made by industry to otolaryngologists in order to explore how the potential for conflicts of interests varies among otolaryngologists and compares between otolaryngologists and other surgical specialists. Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional database analysis. Setting Open Payments program database recently released by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Subjects Surgeons nationwide who were identified as receiving nonresearch payment from industry in accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Methods The proportion of otolaryngologists receiving payment, the mean payment per otolaryngologist, and the standard deviation thereof were determined using the Open Payments database and compared to other surgical specialties. Otolaryngologists were further compared by specialization, census region, sponsor, and payment amount. Results Less than half of otolaryngologists (48.1%) were reported as receiving payments over the study period, the second smallest proportion among surgical specialties. Otolaryngologists received the lowest mean payment per compensated individual (

Orthopaedic Surgeons Receive the Most Industry Payments to Physicians but Large Disparities are Seen in Sunshine Act Data

573) compared to other surgical specialties. Although otolaryngology had the smallest variance in payment among surgical specialties (SD,

Patient factors associated with 30-day morbidity, mortality, and length of stay after surgery for subdural hematoma: a study of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

2806), the distribution was skewed by top earners; the top 10% of earners accounted for 87% (

Risk Factors for Blood Transfusion with Primary Posterior Lumbar Fusion.

2,199,254) of all payment to otolaryngologists. Otolaryngologists in the West census region were less likely to receive payments (38.6%, P < .001). Conclusion Over the study period, otolaryngologists appeared to have more limited financial ties with industry compared to other surgeons, though variation exists within otolaryngology. Further refinement of the Open Payments database is needed to explore differences between otolaryngologists and leverage payment information as a tool for self-regulation.

General versus spinal anaesthesia for patients aged 70 years and older with a fracture of the hip

BackgroundIndustry payments made to physicians by drug and device manufacturers or group purchasing organizations are now reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a part of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Initial reports from the program show that orthopaedic surgeons lead all physician specialties in total and average industry payments. However, before further discussion of these payments and their implications can take place, it remains to be seen whether these figures are a true reflection of the field of orthopaedic surgery in general, rather than the result of a few outlier physicians in the field. In addition, the nature and sources of these funds should be determined to better inform the national dialogue surrounding these payments.Questions/PurposesWe asked: (1) How do industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons compare with payments to physicians and surgeons in other fields, in terms of median payments and the Gini index of disparity? (2) How much do payments to the highest-receiving orthopaedic surgeons contribute to total payments? (3) What kind of industry payments are orthopaedic surgeons receiving? (4) How much do the highest-paying manufacturers contribute to total payments to orthopaedic surgeons?Materials and MethodsWe reviewed the most recent version of the CMS Sunshine Act Open Payments database released on December 19, 2014, containing data on payments made between August 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Data on total payments to individual physicians, physician specialty, the types of payments made, and the manufacturers making payments were reviewed. The Gini index of statistical dispersion was calculated for payments made to orthopaedic surgeons and compared with payments made to physicians and surgeons in all other medical specialties. A Gini index of 0 indicates complete equality of payments to everyone in the population, whereas an index of 1 indicates complete inequality, or all income going to one individual.ResultsA total of 15,376 orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments during the 5-month period were identified, accounting for USD 109,846,482. The median payment to orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments was USD 121 (interquartile range, USD 34–619). The top 10% of orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments (1538 surgeons) received at least USD 4160 and accounted for 95% of total payments. Royalties and patent licenses accounted for 69% of all industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons.ConclusionsEven as a relatively small specialty, orthopaedic surgeons received substantial payments from industry (more than USD 110 million) during the 5-month study period. Whether there is a true return of value from these payments remains to be seen; however, future ethical and policy discussions regarding industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons should take into account the large disparities in payments that are present and also the nature of the payments being made. It is possible that patients and policymakers may view industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons more positively in light of these new findings.Level of EvidenceLevel III, Economic and Decision Analysis.

Timing of Complications After Spinal Fusion Surgery.

OBJECTIVE Surgery for subdural hematoma (SDH) is a commonly performed neurosurgical procedure. This study identifies patient characteristics associated with adverse outcomes and prolonged length of stay (LOS) in patients who underwent surgical treatment for SDH. METHODS All patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) who were treated via craniotomy or craniectomy for SDH between 2005 and 2012 were identified. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes were described. Multivariate regression was used to identify predictors of adverse events. RESULTS A total of 746 surgical procedures performed for SDH were identified and analyzed. Patients undergoing this procedure were 64% male with an average age (± SD) of 70.9 ± 14.1 years. The most common individual adverse events were death (17%) and intubation for more than 48 hours (19%). In total, 34% experienced a serious adverse event other than death, 8% of patients returned to the operating room (OR), and the average hospital LOS was 9.8 ± 9.9 days. In multivariate analysis, reduced mortality was associated with age less than 60 years (relative risk [RR] = 0.47, p = 0.017). Increased mortality was associated with gangrene (RR = 3.5, p = 0.044), ascites (RR = 3.00, p = 0.006), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class 4 or higher (RR = 2.34, p = 0.002), coma (RR = 2.25, p < 0.001), and bleeding disorders (RR = 1.87, p = 0.003). Return to the OR was associated with pneumonia (RR = 3.86, p = 0.044), male sex (RR = 1.85, p = 0.015), and delirium (RR = 1.75, p = 0.016). Serious adverse events were associated with ventilator dependence preoperatively (RR = 1.86, p < 0.001), dialysis (RR = 1.44, p = 0.028), delirium (RR = 1.40, p = 0.005), ASA Class 4 or higher (RR = 1.36, p = 0.035), and male sex (RR = 1.29, p = 0.037). Similarly, LOS was increased in ventilator dependent patients by 1.56-fold (p = 0.002), in patients with ASA Class 4 or higher by 1.30-fold (p = 0.006), and in delirious patients by 1.29-fold (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS Adverse outcomes are common after surgery for SDH. In this study, 18% of the patients died within 30 days of surgery. Factors associated with adverse outcomes were identified. Patients and families should be counseled about the serious risks of morbidity and death associated with acute traumatic SDH requiring surgery.

Spinal Fracture in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis: Cohort Definition, Distribution of Injuries, and Hospital Outcomes.

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. To identify factors associated with blood transfusion for primary posterior lumbar fusion surgery, and to identify associations between blood transfusion and other postoperative complications. Summary of Background Data. Blood transfusion is a relatively common occurrence for patients undergoing primary posterior lumbar fusion. There is limited information available describing which patients are at increased risk for blood transfusion, and the relationship between blood transfusion and short‐term postoperative outcomes is poorly characterized. Methods. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS‐NSQIP) database was used to identify patients undergoing primary posterior lumbar fusion from 2011 to 2013. Multivariate analysis was used to find associations between patient characteristics and blood transfusion, along with associations between blood transfusion and postoperative outcomes. Results. Out of 4223 patients, 704 (16.7%) had a blood transfusion. Age 60 to 69 (relative risk [RR] 1.6), age greater than equal to 70 (RR 1.7), American Society of Anesthesiologists class greater than equal to 3 (RR 1.1), female sex (RR 1.1), pulmonary disease (RR 1.2), preoperative hematocrit less than 36.0 (RR 2.0), operative time greater than equal to 310 minutes (RR 2.9), 2 levels (RR 1.6), and 3 or more levels (RR 2.1) were independently associated with blood transfusion. Interbody fusion (RR 0.9) was associated with decreased rates of blood transfusion. Receiving a blood transfusion was significantly associated with any complication (RR 1.7), sepsis (RR 2.6), return to the operating room (RR 1.7), deep surgical site infection (RR 2.6), and pulmonary embolism (RR 5.1). Blood transfusion was also associated with an increase in postoperative length of stay of 1.4 days (P < 0.001). Conclusion. 1 in 6 patients received a blood transfusion while undergoing primary posterior lumbar fusion, and risk factors for these occurrences were characterized. Strategies to minimize blood loss might be considered in these patients to avoid the associated complications. Level of Evidence: 3

Delayed surgery after acute traumatic central cord syndrome is associated with reduced mortality.

The aim of this study was to compare the operating time, length of stay (LOS), adverse events and rate of re-admission for elderly patients with a fracture of the hip treated using either general or spinal anaesthesia. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent surgery for a fracture of the hip between 2010 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Of the 9842 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7253 (73.7%) were treated with general anaesthesia and 2589 (26.3%) with spinal anaesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis, general anaesthesia was associated with slightly increased operating time (+5 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) +4 to +6, p < 0.001) and post-operative time in the operating room (+5 minutes, 95% CI +2 to +8, p < 0.001) compared with spinal anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with a shorter LOS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34, p < 0.001). Any adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32, p < 0.001), thromboembolic events (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.89, p = 0.003), any minor adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32, p < 0.001), and blood transfusion (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49, p < 0.001) were associated with general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with decreased rates of urinary tract infection (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87, p < 0.001). There was no clear overall advantage of one type of anaesthesia over the other, and surgeons should be aware of the specific risks and benefits associated with each type.

How Much Do Adverse Event Rates Differ Between Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. To characterize the timing of complications after spinal fusion procedures. Summary of Background Data. Despite many publications on risk factors for complications after spine surgery, there are few publications on the timing at which such complications occur. Methods. Patients undergoing anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) or posterior lumbar fusion (PLF; with or without interbody) procedures during 2011–2013 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. For each of 8 different complications, the median time from surgery until complication was determined, along with the interquartile range and middle 80%. Results. A total of 12,067 patients undergoing ACDF and 11,807 patients undergoing PLF were identified. For ACDF, the median day of diagnosis (and interquartile range; middle 80%) for anemia requiring transfusion was 0 (0–1; 0–2), myocardial infarction 2 (1–5; 0–15), pneumonia 4 (2–9; 1–14), pulmonary embolism 5 (2–9; 1–10), deep vein thrombosis 10.5 (7–16.5; 5–21), sepsis 10.5 (4–18; 1–23), surgical site infection 13 (8–19; 5–25), and urinary tract infection 17 (8–22; 4–26). For PLF, the median day of diagnosis (and interquartile range; middle 80%) for anemia requiring transfusion was 0 (0–1; 0–2), myocardial infarction 2 (1–4; 1–8), pneumonia 4 (2–9; 1–17), pulmonary embolism 5 (3–11; 2–17), urinary tract infection 7 (4–14; 2–23), deep vein thrombosis 8 (5–16; 3–20), sepsis 9 (4–16; 2–22), and surgical site infection 17 (13–22; 9–27). Conclusion. These precisely described postoperative time periods enable heightened clinical awareness among spine surgeons. Spine surgeons should have the lowest threshold for testing for each complication during the time period of greatest risk. Authors, reviewers, and surgeons utilizing research on postoperative complications should carefully consider the impact that the duration of follow-up has on study results. Level of Evidence: 3

Analysis of Delays to Surgery for Cervical Spinal Cord Injuries

Study Design. A retrospective cohort. Objective. The aim of this study was to characterize spinal fractures in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Summary of Background Data. Patients with ankylosing spondylitis are susceptible to fractures of the spinal column, even from minor trauma. However, the literature describing patients with ankylosing spondylitis and spinal fractures consists largely of case reports and small case series. The purpose of this study is to better characterize fractures of the ankylosed spine, including the patient population, locations of fracture, and outcomes in a large, nationally representative sample. Methods. All patients with diagnoses of both fracture of the spinal column and ankylosing spondylitis admitted between 2005 and 2011 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Patient demographics, fracture regions, and complications were characterized with descriptive statistics. The associations between injury characteristics and outcomes were assessed using Poisson regression. Results. A total of 939 patients with ankylosing spondylitis admitted with a spinal fracture were identified in NIS. The average age was 68.4 ± 14.7 years, and 85% of patients were male. Cervical fractures were the most common (53.0%), followed by thoracic (41.9%), lumbar (18.2%), and sacral (1.5%). Spinal cord injury was present in 27.5% of cervical fractures, 16.0% of thoracic fractures, and 21.1% of cases overall. Fractures involving more than 1 region of the spine occurred in 13.1% of patients. Patients were treated with fusion in 49.9% of cases. In-hospital adverse events occurred in 29.4% of patients, and 6.6% of patients died during their admission. Conclusion. More than 10% of patients had fractures in more than 1 region of the spine. There is a high risk of adverse events in this population, and 6.6% of patients died during their inpatient stay. These results provide clinicians with a better understanding of the distribution and the high morbidity and mortality of fractures in the ankylosed spine. Level of Evidence: 3