Medical comorbidities are a critical factor in the decision-making process for operative management and risk-stratification. The Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) risk adjustment model is a powerful measure of illness severity for patients treated by surgeons. The HCC is utilized by Medicare to predict medical expenditure risk and to reimburse physicians accordingly. HCC weighs comorbidities differently to calculate risk. This study determines the prevalence of medical comorbidities and the average HCC score in Medicare patients being evaluated by neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeon, as well as a subset of academic spine surgeons within both specialities, in the USA. The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database, which is based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ National Claims History Standard Analytic Files, was analyzed for this study. Every surgeon who submitted a valid Medicare Part B non-institutional claim during the 2013 calendar year was included in this study. This database was queried for medical comorbidities and HCC scores of each patient who had, at minimum, a single office visit with a surgeon. This data included 21,204 orthopaedic surgeons and 4,372 neurosurgeons across 54 states/territories in the USA.Aims
Methods
Objectives. We have increased the dose of tranexamic acid (TXA) in our enhanced total joint recovery protocol at our institution from 15 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg (maximum 2.5 g) as a single, intravenous (IV) dose. We report the clinical effect of this dosage change. Methods. We retrospectively compared two cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery in our unit between 2008 and 2013. One group received IV TXA 15 mg/kg, maximum 1.2 g, and the other 30 mg/kg, maximum 2.5 g as a single pre-operative dose. The primary outcome for this study was the requirement for blood transfusion within 30 days of surgery. Secondary measures included length of hospital stay, critical care requirements,
There is a large amount of evidence available
about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty
(UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw
different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability
in the usage of UKA. The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some
surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons
believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that
UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision
is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA
such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better
function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken
whenever appropriate. The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate
of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence
suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least
20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate
for these broad indications. Cite this article:
