RESUMO
Background Osteosarcoma (OSC) is the most common primary bone tumor and is often managed surgically. Few prior investigations have assessed differences in OSC survival by specific surgical techniques at a national registry level. We sought to compare survival based on surgical subtypes for OSC patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Methodology We searched the SEER database for malignant OSCs diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 which were surgically managed. Separate survival comparisons were made for one and five years for wide excision (local tumor destruction or resection versus partial resection) and radical excision (radical resection with limb-sparing versus limb amputation with or without girdle resection). Results A total of 4,303 patients were included, of whom 3,587 were surgically managed. There were no survival differences between local destruction and partial resection (hazard ratio = 0.826, p = 0.303). However, younger age, lower staging, and management without radiation were associated with improved survival. The radical excision comparison showed limb amputation was associated with worse survival than limb-sparing surgery (hazard ratio = 1.531, p < 0.001). Younger age, female sex, lower stage, receipt of chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant plus adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with improved survival while Black and American Indian or Alaska Native were associated with worse survival. Conclusions Our findings show that patients managed with limb-sparing radical resection survived significantly compared to limb amputation. There were no differences in survival for wide excision surgeries. The use of a combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy also yields improved survival. OSC survival may be optimized with limb-sparing surgery with a combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Use of a patient body mass index (BMI) eligibility threshold for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is controversial. A strict BMI criterion may reduce surgical complication rates, but over-restrict access to effective osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. Factors that influence orthopaedic surgeons' use of BMI thresholds are unknown. We aimed to identify and explore orthopaedic surgeons' perspectives regarding patient BMI eligibility thresholds for TJA. METHODS: A cross-sectional, online qualitative survey was distributed to orthopaedic surgeons who conduct hip and/or knee TJA in the United States. Survey questions were open-ended, and responses were collected anonymously. Survey data were coded and analyzed in an iterative, systematic process to identify predominant themes. RESULTS: Forty-five surveys were completed. Respondents were 54.3 ± 12.4 years old (range, 34 to 75 years), practiced in 22 states, and had 21.2 ± 13.3 years (range, 2 to 44 years) of surgical experience. Twelve factors influencing BMI threshold use by orthopaedic surgeons were identified: (1) evidence interpretation, (2) personal experiences, (3) difficulty of surgery, (4) professional ramifications, (5) ethics and biases, (6) health-system policies and performance metrics, (7) surgical capacity and resources, (8) patient body fat distribution, (9) patient self-advocacy, (10) control of decision-making in the clinical encounter, (11) expectations for demonstrated weight loss, and (12) research and innovation gaps. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel, complex factors underlie BMI threshold use for TJA eligibility. Addressing identified factors at the patient, surgeon, and health-system levels should be considered to optimally balance complication avoidance with improving access to life-enhancing surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study may influence how orthopaedic surgeons think about their own practices and how they approach patients and consider surgical eligibility.