Effect of revision sacroiliac joint fusion on unresolved pain and disability: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The sacroiliac (SI) joint is recognized as a source of low back pain in 15-30% of patients. Though randomized controlled trials have shown clinical improvement following SI joint fusion in 83.1% of patients, revision rates of 2.9% within 2 years have been reported. There is a paucity of literature reviewing this small yet significant population of patients requiring revision surgery. METHODS: Following IRB approval, retrospective review of patients, who underwent a revision SI joint fusion from 2009 to 2021 was completed. Patient-reported outcomes were measured before and at each clinic visit after surgery with visual analoge scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient characteristics (chronic opiate use and prior lumbar fusion) and surgical factors (operative approach, type/number of implants and use of bone graft) were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with Paired t and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression determined if patients met the minimally clinical important differences (MCID) for VAS-back pain and ODI scores at 1 year. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients (77% female) with an average age of 49.1 (SD ± 11.1) years met inclusion criteria. Forty-four had single sided revisions and eight bilateral revisions. At 1 year follow-up there was no significant improvement in VAS-Back (p = 0.06) or ODI (p = 0.06). Patients with chronic opioid use were 8.5 times less likely to achieve the MDC for ODI scores (OR 0.118, p = 0.029). There was no difference in outcomes when comparing the different surgical approaches (p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates patients undergoing revision surgery have moderate improvement in low back pain, however, few have complete resolution of their symptoms. Specific patient factors, such as chronic opiate use and female sex may decrease the expected improvement in patient-reported outcomes following surgery. Failure to obtain relief may be due to incorrect indications, lack of biologic fusion and/or presence of co-pathologies. Further clinical examination and consistent long-term follow-up, clarify the role revision surgery plays in long-term patient outcomes.

Integrating Mental and Social Health in Orthopaedic Practice: The Time Is Now.

Tremendous advances have been made in understanding the intimate relationships between physical, emotional, and social health. There is now a substantial body of evidence demonstrating that mental health and social health may have as much influence on patients' symptom intensity and level of capability-the key metrics of success in orthopaedic care-as pathophysiology. But as a specialty the focus remains mostly on biomedical management (which focuses on structural damage and technical solutions), rather than taking a biopsychosocial approach, which involves screening, measurement, and decision making that prioritizes mental and social health concerns. Failure to do so means orthopaedic surgeons fall short in delivering whole-person care. It is important to highlight the biopsychosocial model of health and healthcare; describe the evidence for mental and social health in orthopaedic practice; outline strategies to identify, measure, and manage psychological and social concerns; and provide frameworks to implement comprehensive models of orthopaedic care that promise to benefit patients, populations, and health systems.

Reamed compared with unreamed nailing of tibial shaft fractures: Does the initial method of nail insertion influence outcome in patients requiring reoperations?

BACKGROUND: Patients with a tibial shaft fracture experiencing their first postoperative complication following treatment with intramedullary nails may be at greater risk of subsequent complications than the whole population. We aimed to determine whether the initial method of nail insertion influences outcome in patients with a tibial shaft fracture requiring multiple reoperations. METHODS: Using the Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Tibial Shaft Fractures trial data, we categorized patients as those not requiring reoperation, those requiring a single reoperation and those requiring multiple reoperations, and we compared them by nail insertion technique (reamed v. unreamed) and fracture type (open v. closed). We then determined the number of patients whose first reoperation was in response to infection, and we compared other clinical outcomes between the reamed and unreamed groups. RESULTS: Among 1226 patients included in this analysis, 175 (14.27%) experienced a single reoperation and 44 patients (3.59%) underwent multiple reoperations. Nail insertion techniques (reamed v. unreamed) did not play a role in the need to perform multiple reoperations. Seventy-five percent of patients requiring multiple reoperations had open tibial shaft fractures. An equal number of these were reamed and unreamed insertions. The majority of patients had their course complicated by infection and almost 50% of patients whose first reoperation was for infection required more than 2 reoperations for management. The rest required multiple procedures for nonunion or bone loss. CONCLUSION: Our findings corroborate those of other studies, in which open fracture type rather than nail insertion technique was found to be the cause of morbidity following intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, no. NCT00038129.

Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted percutaneous fixation versus open reduction internal fixation of lateral tibial plateau fractures.

PURPOSE: Treatment for tibial plateau fractures continues to evolve but maintains primary objectives of anatomic reduction of the joint line and a rapid recovery course. Arthroscopic-assisted percutaneous fixation (AAPF) has been introduced as an alternative to traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). The purpose of the study is to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with low-energy Schatzker type I-III tibial plateau fractures treated with AAPF versus ORIF. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed at a level 1 trauma centre to compare outcomes of 120 patients (57 AAPF, 63 ORIF) with low-energy lateral Schatzker type I-III tibial plateau fractures who underwent tibial plateau fixation between 2009 and 2018. Demographic information, injury characteristics, and surgical treatment were recorded. The main outcome measurements included reduction step-off, joint space narrowing, time to weight bearing, and implant removal. RESULTS: There was no difference in age, gender distribution, BMI, ASA, Schatzker classification distribution, initial displacement, blood loss, and reduction step-off between the two groups (p > 0.05). Shorter tourniquet time (74.1 ± 21.7 vs 100.0 ± 21.0 min; p < 0.001), shorter time to full weight bearing (47.8 ± 15.2 vs. 69.1 ± 17.2 days; p < 0.001), and lower rate of joint space narrowing (3.5% vs. 28.6% with more than 1 mm, p < 0.001) were associated with the AAPF cohort, with no difference in pain, knee range of motion, or implant removal rate between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: AAPF may be a viable alternative to ORIF for the management of low-energy tibial plateau fractures with outcomes not inferior compared to the traditional ORIF method.

Outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted lateral tibial plateau fixation: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate and summarize the current literature on outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted tibial plateau fixation (AATPF) when applied for only lateral tibial plateau fractures. METHODS: A comprehensive search of nine databases was conducted: ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library via Wiley, Embase and MEDLINE via Ovid, Global Index Medicus, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus via EBSCO, and Web of Science Core Collection. The study was performed in concordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies eligible for inclusions included Schatzker I-III lateral tibial plateau fractures with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. Data extraction was performed by two authors independently using a predesigned form. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies, 7 prospective and 10 retrospective, including 565 patients (age 15-82 years old) treated with AATPF were included in this review with follow-up ranging from 6 to 138 months. All 10 studies that used categorical functional outcomes demonstrated excellent/very good or good outcomes in > 90% of patients. When compared to patients managed with the traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), patients treated with AATPF had statistically significantly better range of motion mean difference [5.21° (95% CI - 2.50 to 12.92, p < 0.0001)], lower blood loss [66.19 mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 32.54-99.84 mL, p < 0.0001)], shorter hospital stay [- 1.41 days (95% CI - 3.39 to 0.58 days, p < 0.0001)], better Hospital Special Surgery score [11.31 (95% CI 6.49-16.12, p < 0.0001)], and higher Rasmussen radiographic score [1.26 (95% CI - 0.72 to 3.23, p < 0.0001)]. CONCLUSION: AATPF is a promising treatment of lateral tibial plateau fractures with some advantages over the traditional ORIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders? METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process. RESULTS: Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

Patients With Femoral Neck Fractures Are at Risk for Conversion to Arthroplasty After Internal Fixation: A Machine-learning Algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures are common and are frequently treated with internal fixation. A major disadvantage of internal fixation is the substantially high number of conversions to arthroplasty because of nonunion, malunion, avascular necrosis, or implant failure. A clinical prediction model identifying patients at high risk of conversion to arthroplasty may help clinicians in selecting patients who could have benefited from arthroplasty initially. QUESTION/PURPOSE: What is the predictive performance of a machine-learning (ML) algorithm to predict conversion to arthroplasty within 24 months after internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures? METHODS: We included 875 patients from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial. The FAITH trial consisted of patients with low-energy femoral neck fractures who were randomly assigned to receive a sliding hip screw or cancellous screws for internal fixation. Of these patients, 18% (155 of 875) underwent conversion to THA or hemiarthroplasty within the first 24 months. All patients were randomly divided into a training set (80%) and test set (20%). First, we identified 27 potential patient and fracture characteristics that may have been associated with our primary outcome, based on biomechanical rationale and previous studies. Then, random forest algorithms (an ML learning, decision tree-based algorithm that selects variables) identified 10 predictors of conversion: BMI, cardiac disease, Garden classification, use of cardiac medication, use of pulmonary medication, age, lung disease, osteoarthritis, sex, and the level of the fracture line. Based on these variables, five different ML algorithms were trained to identify patterns related to conversion. The predictive performance of these trained ML algorithms was assessed on the training and test sets based on the following performance measures: (1) discrimination (the model's ability to distinguish patients who had conversion from those who did not; expressed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]), (2) calibration (the plotted estimated versus the observed probabilities; expressed with the calibration curve intercept and slope), and (3) the overall model performance (Brier score: a composite of discrimination and calibration). RESULTS: None of the five ML algorithms performed well in predicting conversion to arthroplasty in the training set and the test set; AUCs of the algorithms in the training set ranged from 0.57 to 0.64, slopes of calibration plots ranged from 0.53 to 0.82, calibration intercepts ranged from -0.04 to 0.05, and Brier scores ranged from 0.14 to 0.15. The algorithms were further evaluated in the test set; AUCs ranged from 0.49 to 0.73, calibration slopes ranged from 0.17 to 1.29, calibration intercepts ranged from -1.28 to 0.34, and Brier scores ranged from 0.13 to 0.15. CONCLUSION: The predictive performance of the trained algorithms was poor, despite the use of one of the best datasets available worldwide on this subject. If the current dataset consisted of different variables or more patients, the performance may have been better. Also, various reasons for conversion to arthroplasty were pooled in this study, but the separate prediction of underlying pathology (such as, avascular necrosis or nonunion) may be more precise. Finally, it may be possible that it is inherently difficult to predict conversion to arthroplasty based on preoperative variables alone. Therefore, future studies should aim to include more variables and to differentiate between the various reasons for arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Impact of centre volume, surgeon volume, surgeon experience and geographic location on reoperation after intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures

Background: Tibial shaft fractures are the most common long-bone injury, with a reported annual incidence of more than 75 000 in the United States. This study aimed to determine whether patients with tibial fractures managed with intramedullary nails experience a lower rate of reoperation if treated at higher-volume hospitals, or by higher-volume or more experienced surgeons. Methods: The Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT) was a multicentre randomized clinical trial comparing reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing on rates of reoperation to promote fracture union, treat infection or preserve the limb in patients with open and closed fractures of the tibial shaft. Using data from SPRINT, we quantified centre and surgeon volumes into quintiles. We performed analyses adjusted for type of fracture (open v. closed), type of injury (isolated v. multitrauma), gender and age for the primary outcome of reoperation using multivariable logistic regression. Results: There were no significant differences in the odds of reoperation between high- and low-volume centres (p = 0.9). Overall, surgeon volume significantly affected the odds of reoperation (p = 0.03). The odds of reoperation among patients treated by moderate-volume surgeons were 50% less than those among patients treated by verylow-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28­0.88), and the odds of reoperation among patients treated by high-volume surgeons were 47% less than those among patients treated by very-low-volume surgeons (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30­0.93). Conclusion: There appears to be no significant additional patient benefit in treatment by a higher-volume centre for intramedullary fixation of tibial shaft fractures. Additional research on the effects of surgical and clinical site volume in tibial shaft fracture management is needed to confirm this finding. The odds of reoperation were higher in patients treated by very-low-volume surgeons; this finding may be used to optimize the results of tibial shaft fracture management. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00038129

Contexte: La fracture de la diaphyse tibiale est la plus commune des fractures des os longs, avec une incidence annuelle déclarée de plus 75 000 cas aux États-Unis. Cette étude visait à déterminer si les patients traités par enclouage intramédullaire pour une fracture du tibia sont moins souvent réopérés quand l'intervention est effectuée dans des établissements qui traitent de plus forts volumes de cas ou par des chirurgiens opérant un plus fort volume de cas ou plus expérimentés. Méthodes: L'étude SPRINT (Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures) est un essai clinique multicentrique randomisé qui a comparé l'effet de l'enclouage alésé c. non alésé sur le taux des réinterventions visant à promouvoir la consolidation osseuse de la fracture, à traiter une infection ou à préserver le membre chez des patients victimes de fractures fermées ou ouvertes de la diaphyse tibiale. À partir des données de l'étude SPRINT, nous avons classé les établissements et les chirurgiens en quintiles selon les volumes de cas traités. Nous avons effectué des analyses ajustées en fonction du type de fracture (ouverte c. fermée), du type de blessure (isolée c. polytraumatisme), du sexe et de l'âge, pour établir le taux de réintervention (paramètre principal), en utilisant la régression logistique multivariée. Résultats: On n'a noté aucune différence significative quant au risque de réintervention entre les centres qui traitaient des volumes élevés c. bas (p = 0,9). Dans l'ensemble le volume d'opérations des chirurgiens a significativement influé sur le risque de réintervention (p = 0,03). Le risque de réintervention chez les patients traités par des chirurgiens dont le volume d'interventions était moyen était de 50 % de moins que chez les patients traités par des chirurgiens dont le volume était très bas (risque relatif [RR] 0,50, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 0,28­0,88) et le risque de réintervention chez les patients traités par des chirurgiens dont le volume était très élevé était de 47 % de moins que chez les patients traités par des chirurgiens dont le volume était très bas (RR 0,53, IC à 95 % 0,30­0,93). Conclusion: Il ne semble y avoir aucun bienfait additionnel significatif au fait d'être opéré dans un centre où le volume d'interventions pour enclouage intramédullaire des fractures de la diaphyse tibiale est élevé. Il faudra approfondir la recherche sur les effets du volume chirurgical et de l'expérience clinique des établissements pour confirmer cette observation. Le risque de réintervention a été plus élevé chez les patients traités par des chirurgiens dont le volume d'interventions était très bas; cette observation pourrait être utilisée pour optimiser l'issue du traitement des fractures de la diaphyse tibiale. Enregistrement de l'essai clinique : ClinicalTrials. gov, NCT00038129.

Extremity War Injuries VIII: sequelae of combat injuries.

The 2013 Extremity War Injury symposium focused on the sequelae of combat-related injuries, including posttraumatic osteoarthritis, amputations, and infections. Much remains to be learned about posttraumatic arthritis, and there are few circumstances in which a definitive arthroplasty should be performed in an acutely injured and open joint. Although the last decade has seen tremendous advances in the treatment of combat upper extremity injuries, many questions remain unanswered, and continued research focusing on improving reconstruction of large segmental defects remains critical. Discussion of infection centered on the need for novel methods to reduce the bacterial load following the initial débridement procedures. Novel methods of delivering antimicrobial therapy and anti-inflammatory medications directly to the wound were discussed as well as the need for near real-time assessment of bacterial and fungal burden and further means of prevention and treatment of biofilm formation and the importance of animal models to test therapies discussed. Moderators and lecturers of focus groups noted the continuing need for improved prehospital care in the management of junctional injuries, identified optimal strategies for both surgical repair and/or reconstruction of the ligaments in multiligamentous injuries, and noted the need to mitigate bone mineral density loss following amputation and/or limb salvage as well as the necessity of developing better methods of anticipating and managing heterotopic ossification.

Minimally invasive versus open sacroiliac joint fusion: are they similarly safe and effective?

BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint has been implicated as a source of chronic low back pain in 15% to 30% of patients. When nonsurgical approaches fail, sacroiliac joint fusion may be recommended. Advances in intraoperative image guidance have assisted minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques using ingrowth-coated fusion rods; however, how these techniques perform relative to open anterior fusion of the sacroiliac joint using plates and screws is not known. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between patients undergoing MIS and open sacroiliac joint fusion. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 63 patients (open: 36; MIS: 27) who underwent sacroiliac joint fusion with minimum 1-year followup at our institution from 2006 to 2011. Of those, 10 in the open group had incomplete records. All patients had sacroiliac joint dysfunction confirmed by image-guided intraarticular anesthetic sacroiliac joint injection and had failed nonoperative treatment. Patients were matched via propensity score, adjusting for age, sex, BMI, history of spine fusion, and preoperative ODI scores, leaving 22 in each group. Nine patients were not matched. We reviewed patient medical records to obtain EBL, length of surgery, LOS, and pre- and postoperative ODI scores. Mean followup was 13 months (range, 11-33 months) in the open group and 15 months (range, 12-26 months) in the MIS group. RESULTS: Patients in the open group had a higher mean EBL (681 mL versus 41 mL, p < 0.001). Mean surgical time and LOS were shorter in the MIS group than in the open group (68 minutes versus 128 minutes and 3.3 days versus 2 days, p < 0.001 for both). With the numbers available, mean postoperative ODI scores were not different between groups (47% versus 54%, p = 0.272). CONCLUSIONS: EBL, surgery time, and LOS favored the MIS sacroiliac fusion group. With the numbers available, ODI scores were similar between groups, though the study size was relatively small and it is possible that the study was underpowered on this end point. Because the implants used for these procedures make assessment of fusion challenging with available imaging techniques, we do not know how many patients' sacroiliac joints successfully fused, so longer followup and critical evaluation of outcomes scores over time are called for. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma: Pooled Data from 7 Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) is a well validated, widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure for orthopaedic patients. Despite its widespread use and acceptance, this measure does not have an agreed upon minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The purpose of the present study was to create distributional MCIDs with use of a large cohort of research participants with severe lower extremity fractures. METHODS: Three distributional approaches were used to calculate MCIDs for the Dysfunction and Bother Indices of the SMFA as well as all its domains: (1) half of the standard deviation (one-half SD), (2) twice the standard error of measurement (2SEM), and (3) minimal detectable change (MDC). In addition to evaluating by patient characteristics and the timing of assessment, we reviewed these calculations across several injury groups likely to affect functional outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4,298 SMFA assessments were collected from 3,185 patients who had undergone surgical treatment of traumatic injuries of the lower extremity at 60 Level-I trauma centers across 7 multicenter, prospective clinical studies. Depending on the statistical approach used, the MCID associated with the overall sample ranged from 7.7 to 10.7 for the SMFA Dysfunction Index and from 11.0 to 16.8 for the SMFA Bother Index. For the Dysfunction Index, the variability across the scores was small (<5%) within the sex and age subgroups but was modest (12% to 18%) across subgroups related to assessment timing. CONCLUSIONS: A defensible MCID can be found between 7 and 11 points for the Dysfunction Index and between 11 and 17 points for the Bother Index. The precise choice of MCID may depend on the preferred statistical approach and the population under study. While differences exist between MCID values based on the calculation method, values were consistent across the categories of the various subgroups presented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.