Formal Radiologist Interpretations of Intraoperative Spine Radiographs Have Low Clinical Value.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical relevance, usefulness, and financial implications of intraoperative radiograph interpretation by radiologists in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to rising healthcare costs, spine surgery is under scrutiny to maximize value-based care. Formal radiographic analysis remains a potential source of unnecessary healthcare costs, especially for intra-operative radiographs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all adult elective spine surgeries at a single institution between July 2020 and July 2021. Demographic and radiographic data was collected, including intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs. Financial data was obtained through the institution's price estimator. Radiographic characteristics included time from radiographic imaging to completion of radiologist interpretation report, completion of radiologist interpretation report prior to the conclusion of surgical procedure, clinical relevance, and clinical usefulness. Reports were considered clinically relevant if spinal level of the procedure was described and clinically useful if completed prior to conclusion of the procedure and deemed clinically relevant. RESULTS: 481 intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs from 360 patients revealed a median delay of 128 minutes between imaging and completion of interpretive report. Only 38.9% of reports were completed before conclusion of surgery. There were 79.4% deemed clinically relevant and only 33.5% were clinically useful. Localization reports were completed more frequently before conclusion of surgery (67.2% vs. 34.4%), but with lower clinical relevance (90.1% vs. 98.5%) and clinical usefulness (60.3% vs. 33.6%) than post-instrumentation reports. Each patient was charged $32-$34 for interpretation fee, cumulating a minimum total cost of $15,392. CONCLUSION: Formal radiographic interpretation of intraoperative spine radiographs was of low clinical utility for spine surgeons. Institutions should consider optimizing radiology workflows to improve timeliness and clinical relevance or evaluate the necessity of reflexive consultation to radiology for intraoperative imaging interpretation to ensure that value-based care is maximized during spine surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Characterizing Negative Online Reviews of Spine Surgeons.

DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: Characterize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States. SUMMARY: Physician rating websites significantly influence the selection of doctors by other patients. Negative experiences are impacted by various factors, both clinical and nonclinical, geography, and practice structure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and categorize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States, with a focus on surgical versus nonsurgical reviewers. METHODS: Spine surgeons were selected from available online professional society membership directories. A search for reviews was performed on Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.com for the past 10 years. Free response reviews were coded by complaint, and qualitative analysis was performed. χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and multiple comparisons were adjusted with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. A binary logistic regression model was performed for the top three most mentioned nonclinical and clinical complaint labels. A P -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 16,695 online reviews were evaluated, including 1690 one-star reviews (10.1%). Among one-star reviews, 64.7% were written by nonsurgical patients and 35.3% by surgical patients. Nonclinical and clinical comments constituted 54.9% and 45.1% of reviews, respectively. Surgeons in the South had more "bedside manner" comments (43.3%, P <0.0001), while Northeast surgeons had more "poor surgical outcome" remarks compared with all other geographic regions (14.4%, P <0.001). Practicing in the South and Northeast were independent predictors of having complaints about "bedside manner" and "poor surgical outcome," respectively. CONCLUSION: Most one-star reviews of spine surgeons were attributed to nonsurgical patients, who tended to be unsatisfied with nonclinical factors, especially "bedside manner." However, there was substantial geographic variation. These results suggest that spine surgeons could benefit from focusing on nonclinical factors (bedside manner), especially among nonoperative patients, and that regional nuances should be considered in delivering spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level- 5.

Delayed multiligament PCL reconstruction is associated with a higher prevalence of intraarticular injury and may influence treatment.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate differences in concomitant injury patterns and their treatment in patients undergoing early (≤ 12 weeks) and delayed (> 12 weeks) primary multiligament posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction (PCL-R). METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing primary multiligament PCL-R at a single institution between 2008 and 2020. Multiligament PCL-R was defined as PCL-R and concurrent surgical treatment of one or more additional knee ligament(s). Exclusion criteria included isolated PCL-R, PCL repair, and missing data for any variable. Patients were dichotomized into early (≤ 12 weeks) and delayed (> 12 weeks) PCL-R groups based on the time elapsed between injury and surgery. Between-group comparison of variables were conducted with the Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and independent samples t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were eligible for analysis, with 57 (38.5%) patients in the early and 91 (61.1%) patients in the delayed multiligament PCL-R groups. Concomitant LCL/PLC reconstruction (LCL-R/PLC-R) was performed in 55 (60%) of delayed multiligament PCL-Rs and 23 (40%) of early PCL-Rs (p = 0.02). Despite similar rates of meniscus injury, concomitant meniscus surgery was significantly more prevalent in the early (n = 25, 44%) versus delayed (n = 19, 21%) multiligament PCL-R group (p = 0.003), with a significantly greater proportion of medial meniscus surgeries performed in the early (n = 16, 28%) compared to delayed (n = 13, 14%) PCL-R group (p = 0.04). The prevalence of knee cartilage injury was significantly different between the early (n = 12, 24%) and delayed (n = 41, 46%) multiligament PCL-R groups (p = 0.01), with more frequent involvement of the lateral (n = 17, 19% vs. n = 3, 5%, respectively; p = 0.04) and medial (n = 31, 34% vs. n = 6, 11%, respectively; p = 0.005) femoral condyles in the delayed compared to the early PCL-R group. CONCLUSIONS: Given higher rates of chondral pathology and medial meniscus surgery seen in delayed multiligament PCL-R, early management of PCL-based multiligament knee injury is recommended to restore knee stability and potentially prevent the development of further intraarticular injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

BIOSMILE web search: a web application for annotating biomedical entities and relations.

BIOSMILE web search (BWS), a web-based NCBI-PubMed search application, which can analyze articles for selected biomedical verbs and give users relational information, such as subject, object, location, manner, time, etc. After receiving keyword query input, BWS retrieves matching PubMed abstracts and lists them along with snippets by order of relevancy to protein-protein interaction. Users can then select articles for further analysis, and BWS will find and mark up biomedical relations in the text. The analysis results can be viewed in the abstract text or in table form. To date, BWS has been field tested by over 30 biologists and questionnaires have shown that subjects are highly satisfied with its capabilities and usability. BWS is accessible free of charge at http://bioservices.cse.yzu.edu.tw/BWS.