Peter R. Swiatek

Racial Variation in Treatment of Traumatic Finger/Thumb Amputation: A National Comparative Study of Replantation and Revision Amputation.

Background: Traumatic finger/thumb amputations are some of the most prevalent traumatic injuries affecting Americans each year. Rates of replantation after traumatic finger/thumb amputation, however, have been declining steadily across U.S. hospitals, which may make these procedures less accessible to minorities and vulnerable populations. The specific aim of this study was to examine racial variation in finger replantation after traumatic finger/thumb amputation. Methods: Using a two-level hierarchical model, the authors retrospectively compared replantation rates for African American patients with those of whites, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Patients younger than 65 years with traumatic finger/thumb amputation injuries who sought care at a U.S. trauma center between 2007 and 2012 were included in the study sample. Results: The authors analyzed 13,129 patients younger than 65 years with traumatic finger/thumb amputation. Replantation rates declined over time from 19 percent to 14 percent (p = 0.004). Adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, African Americans (OR, 0.81; 95 percent CI, 0.66 to 0.99; p = 0.049) were less likely to undergo replantation procedures than whites, and uninsured patients (OR, 0.73; 95 percent CI, 0.62 to 0.84; p < 0.0001) were less likely than those who were privately insured. Conclusions: Despite advancements in microsurgical techniques and the increasing use of reconstructive surgery in other fields, finger/thumb replantation rates are declining in the United States and vulnerable populations are less likely to undergo replantation after amputation injuries. Regionalization of care for these injuries may not only provide a higher quality care but also reduce variations in treatment. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Hospital quality and performance of a complex surgical procedure after traumatic digit amputation

BACKGROUND Traumatic digit amputations are prevalent injuries that have long-term disabling consequences. Although replantation after traumatic digit amputation is a complex procedure, the aesthetic, functional, and long-term economic benefits of replantation render it preferable to revision amputation when clinically indicated. The authors adapted the Donabedian quality-of-care conceptual framework to examine the association between hospital outcome quality measured by observed-to-expected mortality ratio and the treatment received after traumatic digit amputation. The authors hypothesized that the probability of undergoing replantation is higher in hospitals with lower observed-to-expected mortality ratios. METHODS Data from 106 qualified Level I and II trauma centers included in the 2007 to 2012 National Trauma Data Bank were used to estimate hospital-specific observed-to-expected mortality ratio. The authors then used a two-level logistic hierarchical model, adjusting for patient, clinical, and hospital characteristics, to examine whether observed-to-expected mortality ratio, as one of the commonly used hospital quality measures, is a predictor of the treatment received for 4169 patients with traumatic digit amputation. RESULTS Compared with trauma centers with high observed-to-expected mortality ratios, the probability of undergoing replantation was substantially higher in trauma centers with low observed-to-expected mortality ratios (OR, 5.09; 95 percent CI, 2.51 to 10.30; p < 0.001). Seeking care at hospitals with more than 400 beds increased the probability of digit replantation (OR, 2.08; 95 percent CI, 1.08 to 4.01; p = 0.029). Having no insurance decreased the odds of undergoing replantation (OR, 0.70; 95 percent CI, 0.53 to 0.91; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS Hospital observed-to-expected mortality ratio was the greatest predictor of undergoing replantation after digit amputation injury. The observed-to-expected mortality ratio, as an outcome measure of hospital quality, is an important predictor of the treatment received.

Emergency Department Wait Time and Treatment of Traumatic Digit Amputation: Do Race and Insurance Matter?

Background: Little is known about the association between the quality of trauma care and management of nonfatal injuries. The authors used emergency department wait times as a proxy for hospital structure, process, and availability of on-call surgeons with microsurgical skills. They evaluated the association between average hospital emergency department wait times and likelihood of undergoing digit replantation for patients with traumatic amputation digit injuries. The authors hypothesized that hospitals with shorter emergency department wait times were associated with higher odds of replantation. Methods: Using the 2007 to 2012 National Trauma Data Bank, the authors’ final sample included 12,126 patients. Regression modeling was used to first determine factors that were associated with longer emergency department wait times among patients with digit amputation injuries. Second, the authors examined the association between emergency department wait times for this population at a hospital level and replantation after all types of digit amputation and after complicated thumb amputation injuries only. Results: For patients with simple and complicated thumb amputation injuries, and patients with complicated thumb amputation injuries only, longer emergency department wait times were associated with lower odds of replantation. In addition, being minority and having no insurance were associated with longer emergency department wait times; teaching hospitals were associated with shorter emergency department wait times; and finally, for patients with complicated thumb amputation injuries only, there was no association between patients’ minority or insurance status and replantation. Conclusion: Variation in emergency department wait time and its effects on treatment of traumatic digit amputation may reflect maldistribution of hand or plastic surgeons with the required microsurgical skills among trauma centers across the United States. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Surgery and Research: A Practical Approach to Managing the Research Process.

Summary: Following a practical project management method is essential in completing a research project on time and within budget. Although this concept is well developed in the business world, it has yet to be explored in academic surgical research. Defining and adhering to a suitable workflow would increase portability, reusability, and therefore efficiency of the research process. In this article, the authors briefly review project management techniques. The authors specifically underline four main steps of project management—definition and organization, planning, execution, and evaluation—using practical examples from their own multidisciplinary plastic surgery research team.

The Influence of Insurance Type on Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: An Analysis of Nationwide Practice Trends.

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of insurance type on use of diagnostic testing, treatments, and the efficiency of care for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Methods: The 2009 to 2013 Truven MarketScan Databases were used to identify adult patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Insurance type was categorized as fee-for-service versus capitated managed care. Multivariable regression models were created to evaluate the relationship between insurance type and costs, number of visits, treatment, and electrodiagnostic study use, and controlling for demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Results: The cohort included 233,572 patients, of which 86 percent carried fee-for-service insurance. Predicted probabilities were clinically similar between the capitated and fee-for-service insurance types for therapy (0.23 versus 0.24), steroid injection (0.07 versus 0.09), and electrodiagnostic study use (0.44 versus 0.47). The difference in predicted probabilities between the insurance groups was greatest for surgery use (0.22 versus 0.28 for managed care and fee-for-service, respectively). The mean number of visits was similar between the two groups (2.1 versus 2.0 visits). In the controlled analysis, managed care was associated with a 10 percent decrease in cost compared to patients with fee-for-service (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Managed care was associated with a lower probability of surgery than fee-for-service, but similar use of less costly services. These data may be used to predict future practice trends with increased implementation of bundled payment reimbursement. Routine collection of validated patient outcomes measures is critical to assess patient outcomes associated with anticipated reduction of surgical services. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.