Effect of revision sacroiliac joint fusion on unresolved pain and disability: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The sacroiliac (SI) joint is recognized as a source of low back pain in 15-30% of patients. Though randomized controlled trials have shown clinical improvement following SI joint fusion in 83.1% of patients, revision rates of 2.9% within 2 years have been reported. There is a paucity of literature reviewing this small yet significant population of patients requiring revision surgery. METHODS: Following IRB approval, retrospective review of patients, who underwent a revision SI joint fusion from 2009 to 2021 was completed. Patient-reported outcomes were measured before and at each clinic visit after surgery with visual analoge scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient characteristics (chronic opiate use and prior lumbar fusion) and surgical factors (operative approach, type/number of implants and use of bone graft) were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with Paired t and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression determined if patients met the minimally clinical important differences (MCID) for VAS-back pain and ODI scores at 1 year. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients (77% female) with an average age of 49.1 (SD ± 11.1) years met inclusion criteria. Forty-four had single sided revisions and eight bilateral revisions. At 1 year follow-up there was no significant improvement in VAS-Back (p = 0.06) or ODI (p = 0.06). Patients with chronic opioid use were 8.5 times less likely to achieve the MDC for ODI scores (OR 0.118, p = 0.029). There was no difference in outcomes when comparing the different surgical approaches (p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates patients undergoing revision surgery have moderate improvement in low back pain, however, few have complete resolution of their symptoms. Specific patient factors, such as chronic opiate use and female sex may decrease the expected improvement in patient-reported outcomes following surgery. Failure to obtain relief may be due to incorrect indications, lack of biologic fusion and/or presence of co-pathologies. Further clinical examination and consistent long-term follow-up, clarify the role revision surgery plays in long-term patient outcomes.

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose: The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement. Methods: Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers. Results: During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome. Conclusions: Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

Reamed compared with unreamed nailing of tibial shaft fractures: Does the initial method of nail insertion influence outcome in patients requiring reoperations?

BACKGROUND: Patients with a tibial shaft fracture experiencing their first postoperative complication following treatment with intramedullary nails may be at greater risk of subsequent complications than the whole population. We aimed to determine whether the initial method of nail insertion influences outcome in patients with a tibial shaft fracture requiring multiple reoperations. METHODS: Using the Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Tibial Shaft Fractures trial data, we categorized patients as those not requiring reoperation, those requiring a single reoperation and those requiring multiple reoperations, and we compared them by nail insertion technique (reamed v. unreamed) and fracture type (open v. closed). We then determined the number of patients whose first reoperation was in response to infection, and we compared other clinical outcomes between the reamed and unreamed groups. RESULTS: Among 1226 patients included in this analysis, 175 (14.27%) experienced a single reoperation and 44 patients (3.59%) underwent multiple reoperations. Nail insertion techniques (reamed v. unreamed) did not play a role in the need to perform multiple reoperations. Seventy-five percent of patients requiring multiple reoperations had open tibial shaft fractures. An equal number of these were reamed and unreamed insertions. The majority of patients had their course complicated by infection and almost 50% of patients whose first reoperation was for infection required more than 2 reoperations for management. The rest required multiple procedures for nonunion or bone loss. CONCLUSION: Our findings corroborate those of other studies, in which open fracture type rather than nail insertion technique was found to be the cause of morbidity following intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, no. NCT00038129.

Outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted lateral tibial plateau fixation: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate and summarize the current literature on outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted tibial plateau fixation (AATPF) when applied for only lateral tibial plateau fractures. METHODS: A comprehensive search of nine databases was conducted: ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library via Wiley, Embase and MEDLINE via Ovid, Global Index Medicus, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus via EBSCO, and Web of Science Core Collection. The study was performed in concordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies eligible for inclusions included Schatzker I-III lateral tibial plateau fractures with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. Data extraction was performed by two authors independently using a predesigned form. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies, 7 prospective and 10 retrospective, including 565 patients (age 15-82 years old) treated with AATPF were included in this review with follow-up ranging from 6 to 138 months. All 10 studies that used categorical functional outcomes demonstrated excellent/very good or good outcomes in > 90% of patients. When compared to patients managed with the traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), patients treated with AATPF had statistically significantly better range of motion mean difference [5.21° (95% CI - 2.50 to 12.92, p < 0.0001)], lower blood loss [66.19 mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 32.54-99.84 mL, p < 0.0001)], shorter hospital stay [- 1.41 days (95% CI - 3.39 to 0.58 days, p < 0.0001)], better Hospital Special Surgery score [11.31 (95% CI 6.49-16.12, p < 0.0001)], and higher Rasmussen radiographic score [1.26 (95% CI - 0.72 to 3.23, p < 0.0001)]. CONCLUSION: AATPF is a promising treatment of lateral tibial plateau fractures with some advantages over the traditional ORIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.