Clinical, Radiographic, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of First Metatarsophalangeal Interposition Arthrodesis Using Porous Titanium Wedges.

BACKGROUND: First metatarsophalangeal (MTP) arthrodesis is a common surgical procedure for addressing hallux MTP pathology. In the setting of revision procedures with significant bone loss, porous titanium wedges may provide an alternative to structural bone autograft or allograft. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes achieved in first MTP interposition arthrodesis using porous titanium wedges. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 9 patients with a mean age 65.4 years (45-82 years) who underwent first MTP interposition arthrodesis with the use of porous titanium wedges from February 2014 to September 2017 was performed. Outcomes were assessed using both plain-film radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans, as well as patient-reported outcome measures, including Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) (Sports and Activities of Daily Living), pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Average follow-up time was 34.2 months (14-72 months). RESULTS: At final follow-up, the average FAAM score was 91.1 ± 14.7 (75.1 ± 5.3 FAAM Activities of Daily Living; 17.9 ± 9.9 FAAM Sports). Average pain VAS score was 1.9 ± 1.7. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging was obtained for 5 patients, all of which demonstrated good bony apposition or osseous integration of the wedge. Four patients underwent subsequent surgical procedures, including 3 isolated dorsal fixation revisions, and 1 complete MTP arthrodesis revision. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study represents the first reported clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing first MTP interposition arthrodesis with use of porous titanium wedges. While we found this technique to be a viable alternative to bone grafting for this difficult problem, further research should focus on comparative data with other commonly performed operative techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV: Case series.

Patient Perspectives on the Cancellation of Elective Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in the unprecedented widespread cancellation of scheduled elective primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States. The impact of postponing scheduled total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty procedures on patients has not been well studied and may have physical, emotional, and financial consequences. METHODS: All patients whose elective primary TJA procedures at a tertiary academic medical center were postponed because of COVID-19 were surveyed. Seventy-four patients agreed to answer 13 questions concerning the physical, mental, and financial impact of surgery cancellation. Statistical analysis, including Pearson correlation coefficients, cross-tabulation analysis, and chi squares, was performed. RESULTS: 13.5% of patients strongly disagreed with the use of "elective" to describe their cancelled TJA surgery and 25.7% of patients reported substantial physical and/or mental deterioration due to postponement. Younger individuals experienced greater change in their symptoms (P = 0.034), anxiety about their pain (P = 0.010), and frustration/anger (P = 0.043). Poor quality of life, mood, and lower HOOS/KOOS Jr interval scores were correlated with greater financial strain, disagreement with the postponement, and disagreement with the use of "elective" to describe surgery. Disagreement with the use of "elective" to describe surgery was associated with greater financial strain (P = 0.013) and disagreement with the decision to postpone surgery (P = 0.008). In addition, greater financial strain was associated with disagreement with postponement (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: The cancellation of elective TJA during the COVID-19 pandemic had a variety of consequences for patients. One in four patients reported experiencing substantial physical and/or emotional deterioration. Associations of poor quality of life and mood with greater financial strain and disagreement with the term "elective" were seen. These results help quantify the deleterious effects of cancelling elective surgery and identify at-risk patients should another postponement of surgery occur. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-Prospective cohort study.

Resident Surgeons Underrate Their Laparoscopic Skills and Comfort Level When Compared With the Rating by Attending Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: The development of operative skills during general surgery residency depends largely on the resident surgeons' (residents) ability to accurately self-assess and identify areas for improvement. We compared evaluations of laparoscopic skills and comfort level of residents from both the residents' and attending surgeons' (attendings') perspectives. DESIGN: We prospectively observed 111 elective cholecystectomies at the University of Michigan as part of a larger quality improvement initiative. Immediately after the operation, both residents and attendings completed a survey in which they rated the residents' operative proficiency, comfort level, and the difficulty of the case using a previously validated instrument. Residents' and attendings' evaluations of residents' performance were compared using 2-sided t tests. SETTING: The University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor, MI. Large academic, tertiary care institution. PARTICIPANTS: All general surgery residents and faculty at the University of Michigan performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy between June 1 and August 31, 2013. Data were collected for 28 of the institution's 54 trainees. RESULTS: Attendings rated residents higher than what residents rated themselves on a 5-point Likert-type scale regarding depth perception (3.86 vs. 3.38, p < 0.005), bimanual dexterity (3.75 vs. 3.36, p = 0.005), efficiency (3.58 vs. 3.18, p < 0.005), tissue handling (3.69 vs. 3.23, p < 0.005), and comfort while performing a case (3.86 vs. 3.38, p < 0.005). Attendings and residents were in agreement on the level of autonomy displayed by the resident during the case (3.31 vs. 3.34, p = 0.85), the level of difficulty of the case (2.98 vs. 2.85, p = 0.443), and the degree of teaching done by the attending during the case (3.61 vs. 3.54, p = 0.701). CONCLUSIONS: A gap exists between residents' and attendings' perception of residents' laparoscopic skills and comfort level in performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings call for improved communication between residents and attendings to ensure that graduates are adequately prepared to operate independently. In the context of changing methods of resident evaluations that call for explicitly defined competencies in surgery, it is essential that residents are able to accurately self-assess and be in general agreement with attendings on their level of laparoscopic skills and comfort level while performing a case.