Operative approach and case volume are associated with negative resection margins for adrenocortical carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection with negative margins is the treatment of choice for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). This study was undertaken to determine factors associated with negative resection margins. METHODS: National Cancer Database was queried from 2010 to 2016 to identify patients with AJCC/ENSAT Stage I-III ACC who underwent adrenalectomy. Patient, tumor, facility, and operative characteristics were compared by margin status (positive-PM or negative-NM) and operative approach (open-OA, laparoscopic-LA, or robotic-RA). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with PM. RESULTS: Eight hundred and eighty-one patients were identified, of which 18.4% had PM and 81.6% had NM. Patients with advanced pathologic T stage and pathologic N1 stage were more likely to have PM (vs. NM) (T3, 49.7% vs. 24.8%, p < 0.01; T4, 26.2% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.01; N1, 6.7% vs. 3.5%, p < 0.01). Patients undergoing OA (vs. LA and RA) were more likely to have advanced clinical T stage (T4, 16.6% vs. 5.7% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.01) and larger tumors (> 6 cm, 84.6% vs. 64.1% vs. 62.3%, p < 0.01). High-volume centers (≥ 5 cases) were more likely to utilize OA. Patients undergoing LA (vs. RA) were more likely to require conversion to open (20.3% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.011). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher odds of PM included T3 disease (OR 7.02, 95% CI 2.66-18.55), T4 disease (OR 10.22, 95% CI 3.66-28.53), and LA (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.28-3.09). High-volume centers were associated with lower odds of PM (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.98). There was no significant difference in margin status between OA and RA (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.71-2.90). CONCLUSION: Centers with higher ACC case volumes have lower odds of PM and utilize OA more often. LA is associated with higher odds of PM, whereas RA is not. These factors should be considered when planning the operative approach for ACC.

Outcomes from laparoscopic versus robotic mesh removal after inguinal hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Preperitoneally placed mesh for inguinal hernia repair may require removal to address hernia recurrence, mesh reaction, meshoma, or other chronic pain. These are best approached either laparoscopically or robotically, but there is no consensus on which is the best approach for mesh removal nor are there any studies to evaluate and compare their outcomes. METHODS: All patients who underwent inguinal mesh removal via laparoscopic and robotic approaches from 2011 to 2020 were analyzed. Data regarding demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Over 9 years, 62 patients underwent 24 laparoscopic and 50 robotic operations. Laparoscopic cases had a shorter operative time by a mean of 55 min (p = 0.02). There were no differences in intraoperative complications or postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement after mesh removal (p = 0.02, p < 0.01) within 2 weeks postoperatively and at long-term follow up (p < 0.01, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: It is our experience that both laparoscopic and robotic approaches are viable options for removal of retroperitoneally placed inguinal mesh. Operative time with the laparoscopic approach was significantly shorter than the robotic approach. Patients on average had significant reduction in their preoperative pain, regardless of the approach. Minimally invasive mesh removal is a technically challenging operation, with risk of vascular and nerve injuries regardless of the approach. These findings demonstrate that both modalities are safe and effective with experienced surgeons.

Pelvic Obliquity Correction in Distraction-Based Growth Friendly Implants.

DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate radiographic outcomes and complication rates of patients treated with distraction based implants and pelvic fixation with either screws (sacral-alar-iliac [SAI] screws or iliac screws) or hooks (S hook iliac fixation). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple options exist for pelvic fixation in distraction-based growing rod systems; however, limited comparative data are available. METHODS: Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) patients of all diagnoses with distraction-based implants that had pelvic fixation from 2000 to 2013 were reviewed from two EOS multicenter databases. Patients were divided into two groups by type of pelvic fixation: (1) screw group (SAI screws or iliac screws) or (2) S hooks. Exclusion criteria were as follows: index instrumentation ≥10 years old and follow up <2 years. A total of 153 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at index surgery was 6.1 years (range 1.0-9.9 years) and mean follow-up was 4.9 years. RESULTS: Pelvic fixation in the 153 patients was as follows: screw group = 42 and S hook group = 111. When comparing patients with >20° of initial pelvic obliquity, the screw group had significantly more correction; mean 26° ± 13° for the screw group versus mean 17° ± 7° in the S hook group (p = .039). There was no significant difference in change in T1-S1 length (40 vs. 39 mm, p = .89) or correction of Cobb angle (30° vs. 24°, p = .24). The total complication rate for the screw group was 14% (6/42) versus 25% (28/111) in the S hook group, though this did not achieve significance (p = .25). The most common complications were device migration (13), implant failure (8), and implant prominence (4) for S hooks and implant failure (3), implant prominence (2), and device migration (1) for the screw group. CONCLUSION: In distraction-based growth-friendly constructs, pelvic fixation with screws achieved better correction of pelvic obliquity than S hooks. Complications were almost twice as common with S hooks than screws, though this did not reach statistical significance.

Confirming the Presence of Unrecognized Meniscal Injuries on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has shown decreased accuracy of meniscal injury detection using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient adult patients as well as ACL-deficient pediatric and adolescent patients. The objectives of this study were the following: (1) assess the diagnostic ability of MRI in detecting meniscal injuries for pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and (2) characterize the unrecognized meniscal injuries. METHODS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of meniscal tears (medial, lateral, or both) on MRI were calculated for the 107 patients in this cohort. Fisher exact tests were used to compare event frequencies between medial meniscal (MM) and lateral meniscal (LM) tears. One-way analysis of variance tests were performed to compare event rates between the location and type of unrecognized meniscal tears. RESULTS: The median age of the cohort was 15 (range: 7 to 18). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MRI in detecting meniscal tears (medial, lateral, or both) in ACL-deficient pediatric and adolescent patients was 62.3%, 68.4%, 78.2%, and 50.0%, respectively. There were 26 (24.3%) cases in which a meniscal injury was not detected on MRI, but was discovered arthroscopically (MM: 5 knees, LM: 20 knees, both: 1 knee). These unrecognized meniscal injuries were more commonly the LM than the MM (77.8%, P-value=0.100), a vertical/longitudinal tear type (77.8%, P-value <0.001), and located in the posterior horn (74.1%, P-value <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this ACL-deficient pediatric and adolescent cohort, there were 26 (24.3%) patients with unrecognized meniscal injuries. A vertical tear in the posterior horn was the most commonly unrecognized meniscal injury, supporting the findings of prior research postulating that the location and configuration of a tear influence the accuracy of MRI in detecting these injuries. More research is needed to investigate strategies to improve the detection of meniscal tears in pediatric and adolescent patients preoperatively. These findings have implications with regard to patient counseling, operative planning, anticipatory guidance with regard to postoperative rehabilitation, recovery expectations, and surgical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Preventing Distal Junctional Kyphosis by Applying the Stable Sagittal Vertebra Concept to Selective Thoracic Fusion in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of using the stable sagittal vertebra (SSV) for selecting the lowest instrumented vertebrae (LIV) to prevent distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) in selective thoracic fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cho et al. reported that including the SSV in a fusion decreased the rate of DJK in thoracic hyperkyphosis. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients from two pediatric hospitals with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who underwent selective posterior thoracic fusion with the LIV at L2 or above from 2000 to 2012. Patients with less than 2 years' follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome measure was DJK, defined radiographically as ≥10° between the superior end plate of the LIV and the inferior end plate of the vertebra below on a standing lateral radiograph. We investigated the SSV, which was defined as the vertebral level at which 50% of the vertebral body was in front of the posterior sacral vertical line (PSVL) on a standing lateral radiograph. This particular definition was referred to as SSV. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 14.4 years. Mean Cobb angle was 58°. The overall rate of DJK was 7% (8/113). When the LIV was superior to SSV, the rate of DJK was 17% (8/46) versus 0% (0/67) when the LIV was at or inferior to SSV (p=.01). The rates of DJK for patients with the LIV one, two, and three levels above SSV were 17% (4/24), 7% (1/14), and 43% (3/7), respectively. There was no significant association between preoperative or postoperative maximum kyphosis, thoracic kyphosis, thoracolumbar kyphosis, pelvic incidence, sagittal balance or coronal balance, and development of DJK. CONCLUSION: Although LIV selection is complex, choosing the LIV at or below the SSV is a simple rule that minimizes the risk of DJK. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.