Perioperative Management of Traditional and Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Hip Fracture Patients.

Hip fractures are an increasingly common injury in the senior population and almost always require surgical fixation or prosthetic replacement. These surgeries, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, are considered high-risk for bleeding, especially in a population fraught with comorbidities and often presenting on anticoagulation medications. Direct oral anticoagulants represent a class of drugs that have been becoming more popular in use in this population, with many benefits over the historically used Warfarin. There are recommendations for preoperative discontinuation and postoperative resumption of these medications, which can be more readily managed for elective surgeries. However, there is a paucity of literature detailing best practice guidelines for the perioperative management of direct oral anticoagulants when a patient presents with a hip fracture. This review article summary of the periprocedural management of DOACs for hip surgery was developed by examining the American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, Perioperative Guidelines on Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Agents written by anesthesiologists, various retrospective studies, and drug labels for pharmacokinetic data. These recommendations should be used as a guideline, along with the collaboration of multidisciplinary hospital teams during inpatient admission, to manage these complex patients.

Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Is Commonly Performed Using a Palmaris Graft and Provides Favorable Patient Outcomes With Variable Return-to-Play and Postoperative Complication Rates: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to provide an updated evaluation of postoperative clinical outcomes, return to play (RTP), and postoperative complications after primary ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) in throwing and nonthrowing athletes at minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: A literature search was performed on November 25, 2023, by querying the Embase, PubMed, and Scopus online databases using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The inclusion criteria consisted of Level I to IV human clinical studies reporting postoperative outcomes and/or complications after primary UCLR with minimum 2-year follow-up. The exclusion criteria consisted of non-English-language studies; biomechanical, animal, and cadaveric studies; review articles; letters to the editor; and studies not reporting postoperative outcomes or complications. Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. The incidence of reported complications among the included studies was extracted. Clinical outcome scores included the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Shoulder & Elbow (KJOC) score, Andrews-Timmerman (AT) score, and satisfaction score. RTP data were also extracted. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies published from 2006 to 2023, consisting of 2,452 patients (2,420 male patients) with a mean age of 21.7 years (mean range, 12-65 years) and mean follow-up period of 50.5 months (mean range, 24-151.2 months), were included. The mean Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score was 16 (range, 13-20). A total of 46% of patients (1,138 of 2,452) underwent concomitant ulnar nerve transposition. Palmaris graft was the most frequently used method (66.6%; n = 1,799), followed by hamstring graft (26.0%, n = 703). At the final follow-up, mean postoperative KJOC scores ranged from 72.0 to 88.0; mean AT scores, from 83.6 to 98.3; and mean satisfaction scores, from 86.1 to 98.3. The overall RTP rate ranged from 62.5% to 100% at a mean range of 9.5 to 18.5 months. The total incidence of complications ranged from 0% to 31.8%, with 0% to 7.4% of patients undergoing revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: UCLR was commonly performed using a palmaris graft, with concomitant ulnar nerve transposition reported in 46% of patients. At a mean follow-up of 50.5 months, mean postoperative KJOC scores ranged from 72 to 98.3, AT scores ranged from 83.6 to 98.3, and satisfaction scores ranged from 86.1 to 98.3, with variable RTP rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.

Isolated Primary Latarjet Procedures for Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in High Rates of Graft Resorption and Glenohumeral Degenerative Changes With Low Rates of Failure at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence of postoperative complications after an isolated primary Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability at a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with 2020 PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed databases were queried from database inception through September 2022. The literature search was limited to human clinical studies reporting on postoperative complications and adverse events after a primary Latarjet procedure with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Risk of bias was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies, consisting of 1,797 patients (n = 1,816 shoulders), with a mean age of 24 years were identified. The overall postoperative complication rate ranged from 0% to 25.7%, with the most common complication being persistent shoulder pain (range: 0%-25.7%). Radiological changes included graft resorption (range: 7.5%-100%) and glenohumeral degenerative changes (range: 0%-52.5%). Recurrent instability following surgery was documented in 0% to 35% of shoulders, while the incidence of bone block fractures ranged from 0% to 6% of cases. Postoperative nonunion, infection, and hematomas had a reported incidence rate ranging from 0% to 16.7%, 0% to 2.6%, and 0% to 4.4%, respectively. Overall, 0% to 7.5% of surgeries were reported failures, and 0% to 11.1% of shoulders required reoperation, with a revision rate ranging from 0% to 7.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of complications following the primary Latarjet procedure for shoulder instability was variable, ranging from 0% to 25.7%. High rates of graft resorption, degenerative changes, and nonunion were present while failure and revision rates remained low at a minimum 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Medicare procedural costs in ambulatory surgery centers versus hospital outpatient departments for spine surgeries.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of outpatient spine surgery, with reports of equivalent to improved patient outcomes compared with inpatient procedures. This has resulted in the increased use of outpatient surgery over time. However, there remains a paucity of literature evaluating the difference in costs between ambulatory surgery center (ASC)- and hospital outpatient department (HOPD)-based procedures for Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Publicly available data from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were accessed via the Medicare Procedure Price Lookup tool. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify spine-specific procedures approved for the outpatient setting by CMS. Procedures were grouped into decompression (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar), fusion/instrumentation (cervical, lumbar, and sacroiliac), and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty cohorts, as well as an overall cohort. Data regarding total costs, facility fees, surgeon reimbursement, Medicare payments, and patient copayments were extracted for each procedure. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and standard deviations. Differences between ASC- and HOPD-associated costs were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Twenty-one individual CPT codes approved by Medicare for the ASC and/or HOPD setting were identified. Decompression procedures were associated with a significantly lower total cost ($4183 ± $411.07 vs $7583.67 ± $410.89, p < 0.001), facility fees ($2998 ± $0 vs $6397 ± $0, p < 0.001), Medicare payments ($3345.75 ± $328.80 vs $6064.75 ± $328.80, p < 0.001), and patient payments ($835.58 ± $82.13 vs $1515.58 ± $82.13, p < 0.001) in ASCs compared with HOPDs. Fusion/instrumentation procedures had significantly lower facility fees ($10,436.6 ± $2347.51 vs $14,161 ± $2147.07, p = 0.044) and Medicare payments ($9501.2 ± $1732.42 vs $13,757 ± $2037.58, p = 0.009) in ASCs, as well as a trend toward lower total costs ($11,876.8 ± $2165.22 vs $15,601.2 ± $2016.06, p = 0.076). Patient payments in the HOPD setting were significantly lower in the fusion/instrumentation cohort ($1843.6 ± $73.42 vs $2374.4 ± $433.48, p = 0.009). In the kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty cohort, there was no statistically significant difference between ASCs and HOPDs, despite lower overall costs in the ASC for all variables. Surgeon fees were the same regardless of setting for all procedures (p > 0.99). When combining decompression, fusion/instrumentation, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty CPT codes into a single cohort, ASC setting was associated with significant cost savings in total cost, facility fees, Medicare payments, and patient payments. CONCLUSIONS: In general, performing spine surgeries in ASCs is associated with cost savings compared with HOPDs. This was demonstrated for decompression and fusion/instrumentation, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty Medicare-approved outpatient procedures.

Narrative review: erector spinae block in spine surgery.

Background: Lumbar spine surgery is an ever-increasing procedure with multiple analgesia techniques utilized for postoperative pain control. More recently, erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks have been used to limit the use of opioids after surgery. The authors aimed to review the current literature on ESP blocks and its potential use in the outpatient setting. Methods: Several randomized controlled trials were evaluated that compared erector spinae block to traditional anesthesia where the primary outcome of postoperative opioid use was assessed. Randomized control trials comparative studies were also evaluated to assess erector spinae block effect on outpatient procedures. Secondary outcomes include, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, patient length of stay, and post-operative complications. Key Content and Findings: Erector spinae block was found in general to lower postoperative opioid use compared to traditional anesthesia. In addition, the authors found improved patient satisfaction and less postoperative pain in the erector spinae cohort. Post-operative complications were lower in the erector spinae block group compared to traditional anesthesia, especially in regards to vomiting and nausea. Conclusions: While these studies do possess their limitations due to the low number of randomized control studies on erector spinae block, early data does suggest that erector spinae block appears to be superior to that of traditional anesthesia for those undergoing spine surgery.

Aldoxorubicin for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma.

Intoduction: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) encompass a group of rare tumors arising from mesenchymal tissue. Traditionally, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, with doxorubicin, is the main treatment for advanced STS. Areas covered: Aldoxorubicin is a doxorubicin derivative containing a carboxylic hydrazone and serves as a prodrug of doxorubicin. It covalently binds to albumin in the blood until reaching the acidic tumor environment, which dissolves the hydrazone linker, thus releasing doxorubicin into the tissue. In this review paper, we analyze the pharmacokinetics, current phase I, phase II, and phase III trials, as well as adverse effect profile of aldoxorubicin in patients with advanced STS. Expert opinion: Aldoxorubicin represents a promising drug for treatment of sarcomas. The drug has minimal cardiac toxicity, which represents a significant advantage to doxorubicin. Preliminary phase 3 study results demonstrate PFS advantage in patients with leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma. However, more studies are needed to establish the role of aldoxorubicin in sarcoma treatment.