Outcomes of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 7-year.

PURPOSE: Compare the outcomes of randomized clinical trials of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. METHODS: Nine randomized clinical trials were selected. The clinical, radiological, and surgical outcomes were analyzed, including functional and pain scores, range of motion, adjacent segment degeneration, adverse events, and need for reoperation. RESULTS: 2664 patients were included in the study. Pooled results indicated that the CDA group had a significantly higher overall success rate (p < 0.001), a higher improvement in the neck disability index (NDI) (p = 0.002), less VAS arm pain (p = 0.01), and better health questionnaire SF-36 physical component (p = 0.01) than ACDF group. Likewise, the pooled results indicated a significantly higher motion rate (p < 0.001), less adjacent syndrome (p < 0.05), and a lower percentage of reoperation (p < 0.001) in the CDA group. There were no significant differences between the CDA and ACDF groups in the neck pain scale (p = 0.11), the health questionnaire SF-36 mental component (p = 0.10), and in adverse events (p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: In long-term follow-up, CDA showed a better overall success rate, better improvement in NDI, less VAS arm pain, better health questionnaire SF-36 physical component, a higher motion rate, less adjacent syndrome, and less reoperation rate than ACDF. No significant differences were found in the neck pain scale, SF-36 mental component, and in adverse events.

Is routine blood typing and screening necessary for degenerative cervical spine surgery patients in specialty surgical hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Blood loss warranting transfusion is a relatively rare requirement for degenerative cervical spine surgery. Despite this rarity, pretransfusion testing (blood typing, screening, and cross-matching) has become routine in most parts of the world. We sought to determine if such routine testing is necessary for patients who undergo degenerative cervical spine surgery patients in specialty surgical hospitals by (1) measuring the current rate of intraoperative transfusions in degenerative cervical spine surgery and (2) identifying risk factors for transfusions. STUDY METHODS: Retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent degenerative cervical spine surgery in two institutions. Demographic and baseline clinical and laboratory data were collected and analyzed to identify predictors of transfusion. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify perioperative transfusion risk factors. RESULTS: Overall transfusion rate was 1.9% (7/372), with no emergent transfusions. Decreases between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit were 1.4 (SD 1.1) g/dL and 7.2 (SD 4.1) %, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression identified preoperative Hgb lower than 12 gr/dl (OR 27.62; 95% CI 4.31-176.96; p < 0.001) as significant independent transfusion risk factor. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the model showed a very good discriminatory power with an area under the curve of 0.91. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that pretransfusion testing for all patients undergoing degenerative cervical spine surgery is unnecessary. We recommend that only patients with preoperative Hgb lower than 12 gr/dl would routinely need pretransfusion testing.

Subcutaneous Radiographic Measurement: A Marker to Evaluate Surgical Site Infection Risk in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients.

Objectives: Obesity is a documented comorbidity that is prevalent in the elderly population and a known predictor for surgical site infection (SSI). Body mass index is a convenient method to classify obesity, but it fails to account for fat distribution. The objective of our study was to evaluate the association between surgical site infection and a subcutaneous radiographic measurement (SRM) in elderly hip fracture patients. Materials and Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted to compare SRMs at the hip in patients diagnosed with surgical site infection after hip fracture surgery with patients that were not diagnosed with surgical site infection. Each case was matched to two controls. An SRM was defined as the distance from the tip of the greater trochanter to the skin following a perpendicular line to the femoral diaphysis in anteroposterior hip radiographs. Clinical diagnosis of acute surgical site infection was based on Tsukayama criteria. Results: Patients with an SRM greater than 6.27cm had a 7-fold increase in the odds of surgical site infection (OR=7.42, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=3.01-18.28, p<0.001) compared to those with smaller measurements. The odds ratio (OR) for infection of patients with an ASA score of 3 was 15.82(95% CI=5.11-48.9, p-value<0.001) A statistically significant difference between cases and controls was also found when SRM at the hip was analyzed as a continuous variable. Patients with an infection had a 2.24cm (95% CI=1.59 - 2.90; p<0.001) greater mean SRM. Conclusion: Results of our study suggest an association between the SRM at the hip and the risk of SSI in elderly patients with surgically treated hip fractures. SRM may be a helpful tool for evaluating the risk of SSI in elderly hip fracture patients.