S of radiation that are administered. This investigation was performed to quantify the effective doses of computerized tomographic scans that are performed for various musculoskeletal applications....

Elective total hip arthroplasty from 2010 to 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Operating room times, length of stay, thirty-day adverse events, and readmission were compared between patients who had received general anesthesia and those who had received spinal anesthesia. Propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis was used to control for selection bias and baseline patient characteristics. Results: A total of 20,936 patients who had undergone total hip arthroplasty met inclusion criteria for this study. Of these, 12,752 patients (60.9%) had received general anesthesia and 8184 patients (39.1%) had received spinal anesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analyses, general anesthesia for total hip arthroplasty was associated with increased operative time (+12 minutes [95% confidence interval, +11 to +13 minutes]; p < 0.001) and postoperative room time (+5 minutes [95% confidence interval, +4 to +6 minutes]; p < 0.001). General anesthesia was also associated with the occurrence of any adverse event (odds ratio, 1.31 [95% confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.41]; p < 0.001), prolonged postoperative ventilator use (odds ratio, 5.81 [95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 25.06]; p = 0.018), unplanned intubation (odds ratio, 2.17 [95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 4.29]; p = 0.024), stroke (odds ratio, 2.51 [95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 6.20]; p = 0.046), cardiac arrest (odds ratio, 5.04 [95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 22.07]; p = 0.032), any minor adverse event (odds ratio, 1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.45]; p = 0.001), and blood transfusion (odds ratio, 1.34 [95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.45]; p < 0.001). General anesthesia was not associated with any difference in preoperative room time, postoperative length of stay, or readmission. Conclusions: General anesthesia was associated with an increased rate of adverse events and mildly increased operating room times. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence....

Background: There has been an increasing use of national databases to conduct orthopaedic research. Questions regarding the validity and consistency of these studies have not been fully addressed. The purpose of this study was to test for similarity in reported measures between two national databases commonly used for orthopaedic research. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion procedures during 2009 to 2011 was performed in two national databases: the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and inpatient adverse events were directly compared between databases. Results: The total numbers of patients included were 144,098 from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and 8434 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. There were only small differences in demographic characteristics between the two databases. There were large differences between databases in the rates at which specific comorbidities were documented. Non-morbid obesity was documented at rates of 9.33% in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and 36.93% in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (relative risk, 0.25; p < 0.05). Peripheral vascular disease was documented at rates of 2.35% in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and 0.60% in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (relative risk, 3.89; p < 0.05). Similarly, there were large differences between databases in the rates at which specific inpatient adverse events were documented. Sepsis was documented at rates of 0.38% in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and 0.81% in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (relative risk, 0.47; p < 0.05). Acute kidney injury was documented at rates of 1.79% in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and 0.21% in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (relative risk, 8.54; p < 0.05). Conclusions: As database studies become more prevalent in orthopaedic surgery, authors, reviewers, and readers should view these studies with caution. This study shows that two commonly used databases can identify demographically similar patients undergoing a common orthopaedic procedure; however, the databases document markedly different rates of comorbidities and inpatient adverse events. The differences are likely the result of the very different mechanisms through which the databases collect their comorbidity and adverse event data. Findings highlight concerns regarding the validity of orthopaedic database research.

National databases are being used with increasing frequency to conduct orthopaedic research. However, there are important differences in these databases, which could result in different answers to similar questions; this important potential limitation pertaining to database research in orthopaedic surgery has not been adequately explored. The purpose of this study was to explore the interdatabase reliability of two commonly used national databases, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), in terms of (1) demographics; (2) comorbidities; and (3) adverse events. In addition, using the NSQIP database, we identified (4) adverse events that had a higher prevalence after rather than before discharge, which has important implications for interpretation of studies conducted in the NIS. A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing operative stabilization of transcervical and intertrochanteric hip fractures during 2009 to 2011 was performed in the NIS and NSQIP. Totals of 122,712 and 5021 patients were included from the NIS and NSQIP, respectively. Age, sex, fracture type, and lengths of stay were compared. Comorbidities common to both databases were compared in terms of more or less than twofold difference between the two databases. Similar comparisons were made for adverse events. Finally, adverse events that had a greater postdischarge prevalence were identified from the NSQIP database. Tests for statistical difference were thought to be of little value given the large sample size and the resulting fact that statistical differences would have been identified even for small, clinically inconsequential differences resulting from the associated high power. Because it is of greater clinical importance to focus on the magnitude of differences, the databases were compared by absolute differences. Demographics and hospital lengths of stay were not different between the two databases. In terms of comorbidities, the prevalences of nonmorbid obesity, coagulopathy, and anemia in found in the NSQIP were more than twice those in the NIS; the prevalence of peripheral vascular disease in the NIS was more than twice that in the NSQIP. Four other comorbidities had prevalences that were not different between the two databases. In terms of inpatient adverse events, the frequencies of acute kidney injury and urinary tract infection in the NIS were more than twice those in the NSQIP. Ten other inpatient adverse events had frequencies that were not different between the two databases. Because it does not collect data after patient discharge, it can be implied from the NSQIP data that the NIS does not capture more than ½ of the deaths and surgical site infections occurring during the first 30 postoperative days. This study shows that two databases commonly used in orthopaedic research can identify similar populations of operative patients but may generate very different results for specific commonly studied comorbidities and adverse events. The NSQIP identified higher rates of morbid obesity, coagulopathy, and anemia. The NIS identified higher rates of peripheral vascular disease, acute kidney injury, and urinary tract infection. Level II, prognostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.