ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2025
Financial incentives and work relative value unit comparison of fixation versus total elbow arthroplasty for distal humerus fractures.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reimbursement, efficiency, and safety in rotator cuff repair: a comparative study of arthroscopic and open approaches.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistal humerus fractures (DHFs) are challenging orthopedic injuries requiring tailored management. Surgical options primarily include open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) for non-reconstructable fractures. While clinical considerations typically guide treatment, recent studies have shown better surgical incentives for arthroplasty compared to ORIF. This study aims to investigate compensation differences across treatment options for DHFs and to evaluate the potential association of financial incentives with clinical decisions in orthopedic surgical care.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was conducted for DHF cases from 2006 to 2022. Patients undergoing ORIF or TEA were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching, controlling for demographics and comorbidities. Work relative value units (wRVUs), operative times, Medicare reimbursement rates, and 30- day postoperative complications were compared.
resultsAmong the 506 matched patients (253 ORIF, 253 TEA), mean operative time was similar (P=0.903), while TEA procedures had significantly higher wRVUs per minute (0.15±0.06 vs. 0.11±0.05, P<0.001) and revenue per case ($684.05±$89.73 vs. $469.48±$36.04, P<0.001). No significant differences in 30-day postoperative complication rates, including bleeding requiring transfusion, surgical site infections, or major complications, were observed.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that ORIF generates lower surgeon reimbursement than TEA for DHFs despite similar short-term outcomes, suggesting that financial incentives do not favor TEA when surgically indicated. These findings underscore the need to evaluate RVU assignment to procedures, aligning physician incentives with patient care priorities. Level of evidence: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.