Tethered Cord Syndrome: Role of Imaging Findings in Surgical Decision-Making.

For infants presenting with urinary problems or lower extremity weakness, imaging is ordered to investigate spinal pathology. Tethered cord syndrome (TCS) often manifests without conclusive anatomic evidence. In our case, a premature infant presented with urosepsis and was found to have an asymmetric gluteal crease and a sacral dimple. Renal ultrasound showed mild hydronephrosis, and a cystourethrogram revealed bilateral high-grade vesicoureteral reflux. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a borderline low-lying spinal cord at the mid-L3 vertebral level. Urodynamic testing to confirm neurogenic bladder could not be completed on the first attempt due to urinary tract infection and on the second attempt due to instrument intolerance. Despite the lack of conclusive imaging evidence of a tethered cord, enough supportive clinical data was present to proceed with surgical intervention with the goal of preventing the progression of neurological dysfunction. Because TCS is ultimately a clinical diagnosis, appropriate management should not be discouraged by inconclusive or borderline imaging findings.

Developmental Abnormalities of the Pediatric Spine: A Review of the Correlation Between Ultrasound and MRI Findings.

A broad spectrum of spinal pathologies can affect the pediatric population. Ultrasound (US) is the primary modality for pediatric spine assessment due to its widespread availability, non-requirement of sedation, and absence of ionizing radiation. Supplementing this, MRI offers an in-depth exploration of these conditions, aiding in preoperative strategizing. In this review, we examine the clinical indications, methodologies, and protocols for US and MRI scans of the pediatric spine. Additionally, we illustrate normal pediatric spinal anatomy, highlighting several examples of normal variants that are often misinterpreted. Through a series of case-based illustrations, we offer a comprehensive overview of various pathological conditions such as tethered cord, spinal dysraphism, spinal lipoma, diastematomyelia, and dermal sinus tract, among others. Furthermore, we explore the correlation between US and MRI findings for these lesions, employing real-world cases to enhance our understanding of this topic.

Influence of surgeon specialty and volume on the utilization of minimally invasive surgery and outcomes for colorectal cancer: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has multiple determinants, one being the specialization of the surgeon. The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in the utilization of MIS, associated length of stay (LOS), and complications for colorectal cancer between colorectal (CRS) and general surgeons (GS). Previous studies have documented the influence of surgical volume and surgeon specialty on clinical outcomes and patient survival following colorectal cancer surgery. It is unclear whether there are differences in the utilization of MIS for colorectal cancer based on surgeon's specialization and how this influences clinical outcomes. METHODS: Using the 2013-2015 Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset and the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System, colorectal cancer patients experiencing a colorectal surgery were identified as well as the operating physician's specialty. Mixed-effects regression models were used to identify associations between the use of MIS, complications during the hospital stay, and patient LOS with patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: There is no difference in the use of MIS, complication, nor LOS between GS and CRS for colorectal cancer surgery. However, physician volume was associated with increased use of MIS (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09, 1.46) and MIS was associated with decreases in certain complications as well as reductions in LOS overall (ß = - 0.16, p < 0.001) and for each specialty (GS: ß = - 0.18, p < 0.001; CRS ß = - 0.12, p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher amount of proctectomies performed by CRS, no difference in MIS utilization, complication rate, or LOS was found for colorectal cancer patients based on surgeon specialty. While there are some differences in clinical outcomes attributable to specialized training, results from this study indicate that differences in surgical approach (MIS vs. Open), as well as the patient populations encountered by these two specialties, are key factors in the outcomes observed.

Impact of travel distance on quality outcomes in colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the impact of distance traveled from place of residence to surgical facility for elective colorectal surgery on surgical outcomes, length of stay, and complication rate. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer were identified from the Florida Inpatient Discharge Database. Distance traveled from primary residence to surgical facility was estimated using zip code. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, multivariate regression models compared bypassed hospitals, the length of stay, and complication rates for patients traveling different distances to receive care. RESULTS: Patients residing in rural areas and in South (odds ratio [OR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.55-3.63) and Central Florida (OR, 5.86; 95% CI, 3.86-8.89) were more likely to travel more than 50 miles for treatment. Teaching status of the hospital (OR, 9.99; 95% CI, 6.98-14.31), a hospital's availability of a colorectal surgeon (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.45-2.31), and metastasized cancer (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.82) influenced the patient's decision to travel farther for treatment. Length of stay was significantly higher for patients traveling farther (P < .0343). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of complications among the groups (those traveling 25-50 miles vs < 25 miles [P = .5766] and those traveling > 50 miles vs < 25 miles [P = .4516]). CONCLUSIONS: A greater number of patients travel more than 50 miles to the surgical facility at a later stage of disease. These patients do not significantly differ from those traveling less than 50 miles in their rates of complications; however, they stay longer at the surgical facility.