ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Wide margin resection for pelvic tumors via internal hemipelvectomy is among the most technically challenging procedures in orthopedic oncology. As such, surgeon experience and technique invariably affect patient outcomes. The aim of this clinical study was to assess how an individual surgeon's experiences and advancements in technology and techniques in the treatment of internal hemipelvectomy have impacted patient outcomes at our institution. METHODS: This study retrospectively examined a single tertiary academic institution's consecutive longitudinal experience with internal hemipelvectomy for primary sarcoma or pelvic metastases over a 26-year period between the years 1994 and 2020. Outcomes were assessed using two separate techniques. The first stratified patients into cohorts based on the date of surgery with three distinct "eras" ("early," "middle," and "modern"), which reflect the implementation of new techniques, including three-dimensional (3D) computer navigation and cutting guide technology into our clinical practice. The second method of cohort selection grouped patients based on each surgeon's case experience with internal hemipelvectomy ("inexperienced," "developing," and "experienced"). Primary endpoints included margin status, complication profiles, and long-term oncologic outcomes. Whole group multivariate analysis was used to evaluate variables predicting blood loss, operative time, tumor-free survival, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients who underwent internal hemipelvectomy were identified. Of these patients, 24 had surgery between 1994 and 2007 (early), 28 between 2007 and 2015 (middle), and 20 between 2016 and 2020 (modern). Twenty-eight patients had surgery while the surgeon was still inexperienced, 24 while developing, and 20 when experienced. Evaluation by era demonstrated that a greater proportion of patients were indicated for surgery for oligometastatic disease in the modern era (0% vs. 14.3% vs. 35%, p = 0.022). Fewer modern cases utilized freehand resection (100% vs. 75% vs. 55%, p = 0.012), while instead opting for more frequent utilization of computer navigation (0% vs. 25% vs. 20%, p = 0.012), and customized 3D-printed cutting guides (0% vs. 0% vs. 25%, p = 0.002). Similarly, there was a decline in the rate of massive blood loss observed (72.2% vs. 30.8% vs. 35%, p = 0.016), and interdisciplinary collaboration with a general surgeon for pelvic dissection became more common (4.2% vs. 32.1% vs. 85%, p < 0.001). Local recurrence was less prevalent in patients treated in middle and modern eras (50% vs. 15.4% vs. 25%, p = 0.045). When stratifying by case experience, surgeries performed by experienced surgeons were less frequently complicated by massive blood loss (66.7% vs. 40% vs. 20%, p = 0.007) and more often involved a general surgeon for pelvic dissection (17.9% vs. 37.5% vs. 65%, p = 0.004). Whole group multivariate analysis demonstrated that the use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) predicted lower intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.040). However, surgeon experience had no significant effect on operative time (p = 0.125), tumor-free survival (p = 0.501), or overall patient survival (p = 0.735). CONCLUSION: While our institution continues to utilize neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies following current guideline-based care, we have noticed changing trends from early to modern periods. With the advent of new technologies, we have seen a decline in freehand resections for hemipelvectomy procedures, and a transition to utilizing more 3D navigation and customized 3D cutting guides. Furthermore, we have employed the use of an interdisciplinary team approach more regularly for these complicated cases. Although our results do not demonstrate a significant change in perioperative outcomes over the years, our institution's willingness to treat more complex cases likely obscures the benefits of surgeon experience and recent technological advances for patient outcomes.
Subject(s)
Bone Neoplasms , Hemipelvectomy , Humans , Treatment Outcome , Learning Curve , Retrospective Studies , Pelvis/pathology , Bone Neoplasms/surgery , Bone Neoplasms/pathologyABSTRACT
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) Hybrid Remnant Preservation Reconstruction (HRPR) with traditional anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and determine differences in patient-reported outcomes, range of motion (ROM), and complications after 12 months. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ACLR by a single surgeon from December 2020 to January 2022 was conducted. Patients undergoing ACL-HRPR were compared with control patients undergoing traditional ACLR with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. Preoperative and postoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System scores, International Knee Documentation Committee, and patient acceptable symptom state were recorded over 12 months. Any complications occurring 12 months postoperatively were collected. Results: The final analysis included 104 patients, with 39 undergoing ACL-HRPR compared with 65 ACLR controls. Patients who received HRPR were on average 19.46 ± 5.01 years old, with 51.28% being female, whereas control patients were, on average, 21.92 ± 7.71 years old with 50.77% being female. Total ROM was equivalent between groups, with complete terminal extension at 12 months. No significant differences were found for patient acceptable symptom state; Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function, -Pain Interference, or -Depression; or International Knee Documentation Committee at 6 months and 12 months postoperatively. Total ROM was similar between the HRPR and control groups. No differences were found for timed 6-meter hop test, hop for distance, or KT-1000 side-to-side differences. Over the 12-month period, complication rates were similar between groups (10% vs 12% P = .75) were similar. Conclusions: ACL HRPR is associated with equivalent patient-reported outcomes, full ROM, and no differences in complications rates after 1 year compared with control patients in the present retrospective study. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
ABSTRACT
Background: Many patients use the internet to learn about their orthopaedic conditions and find answers to their common questions. However, the sources and quality of information available to patients regarding meniscal surgery have not been fully evaluated. Purpose: To determine the most frequently searched questions associated with meniscal surgery based on question type and topic, as well as to assess the website source type and quality. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: The following search terms were entered into a web search (www.google.com) using a clean-install browser: "meniscal tear,""meniscus repair,""meniscectomy,""knee scope,""meniscus surgery," and "knee arthroscopy." The Rothwell classification system was used to categorize questions and sort them into 1 of 13 topics relevant to meniscal surgery. Websites were also categorized by source into groups. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria (medians and interquartile ranges [IQRs]) were used to measure website quality. Results: A total of 337 unique questions associated with 234 websites were extracted and categorized. The most popular questions were "What is the fastest way to recover from meniscus surgery?" and "What happens if a meniscus tear is left untreated?" Academic websites were associated more commonly with diagnosis questions (41.9%, P < .01). Commercial websites were associated more commonly with cost (71.4%, P = .03) and management (47.6%, P = .02). Government websites addressed a higher proportion of questions regarding timeline of recovery (22.2%, P < .01). Websites associated with medical practices were associated more commonly with risks/complications (43.8%, P = .01) while websites associated with single surgeons were associated more commonly with pain (19.4%, P = .03). Commercial and academic websites had the highest median JAMA benchmark scores (4 [IQR, 3-4] and 3 [IQR, 2-4], respectively) while websites associated with a single surgeon or categorized as "other" had the lowest scores (1 [IQR 1-2] and 1 [IQR 1-1.5], respectively). Conclusion: Our study found that the most common questions regarding meniscal surgery were associated with diagnosis of meniscal injury, followed by activities and restrictions after meniscal surgery. Academic websites were associated significantly with diagnosis questions. The highest quality websites were commercial and academic websites.