Comparing opioid utilization and costs for surgical management of single-level spondylolisthesis: A national claims database analysis.

Introduction: The rise in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) cases has led to a significant increase in fusion surgeries, which incur substantial hospitalization costs and often necessitate chronic opioid use for pain management. Recent evidence suggests that single-level low-grade DLS outcomes are comparable whether a fusion procedure or decompression alone is performed, sparking debate over the cost-effectiveness of these procedures, particularly with the advent of minimally invasive techniques reducing the morbidity of fusion. This study aims to compare chronic opioid utilization and associated costs between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Material and methods: Using data from the PearlDiver database, a retrospective database analysis was conducted. We analyzed records of Medicare and Medicaid patients undergoing lumbar fusion or decompression from 2010 to 2022. Patient cohorts were divided into decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DIF). Chronic opioid use, pain clinic visits, and total costs were compared between the two groups at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years post-surgery. Theory: Does DIF offer a more cost-effective approach to managing DLS in terms of chronic opioid use in single-level DLS patients. Results: The study revealed comparable chronic opioid use and pain clinic visits between DA and DIF groups at 90 days and 1 year. However, total costs associated with opioid prescriptions as well as surgical aftercare were significantly higher in the DIF group at 90 days (p < 0.05), 1 year (p < 0.05), and 2 years (p < 0.05) post-surgery compared to the DA group. Conclusions: This study highlights the higher costs associated with DIF up to 2 years post-surgery despite comparable symptom improvement when compared to DA and DIF at the 1-year interval. DA emerges as a more financially favorable option, challenging the notion of fusion's cost-offsetting benefits. While further investigation is needed to understand underlying cost drivers and optimize outcomes, our findings emphasize the necessity of integrating clinical and economic factors in the management of single-level DLS.

Clinical differences between periprosthetic and native distal femur fractures: a comparative observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF) is increasing as the number of total knee replacements becomes more common. This study compared the demographics, fracture characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of periprosthetic versus native distal femur fractures (NDFF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥ 18 who underwent surgical fixation of NDFF or PDFF from 2012 to 2020 at a level-1 trauma center. The main variables collected included demographics, AO/OTA fracture classification, fixation construct, concomitant fractures, polytrauma rates, bone density, and reduction quality. Primary outcomes were unexpected return to the operating room (UROR), hospital length of stay, and quality of reduction. T-tests, Fisher's exact tests, and multivariate analyses were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 209 patients were identified, including 70 PDFF and 139 NDFF. PDFF patients were elderly females (81%) with isolated (80%) and comminuted (85%) 33 A.3 (71%) fractures. NDFF patients included 53% females, were commonly middle-aged, and displayed comminuted (92%) 33 C.2 fractures. 48% of NDFF patients had concomitant fractures. Intramedullary nailing was the primary fixation for both groups, followed by nail-plate combination (37%) for PDFF and lateral locking plates (21%) for NDFF. NDFF patients experienced significantly longer hospital stays, higher UROR rates, and worse quality of reduction (p < 0.05). PDFF patients had a significantly greater prevalence of low bone density (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PDFF occur as isolated injuries with significant metaphyseal comminution in elderly females with low bone quality. NDFF commonly occurs in younger patients with less metaphyseal comminution and concomitant fractures. Intramedullary nailing was the most common treatment for both groups, although preference for nail-plate combination fixation is increasing. NDFF type 33 C fractures are at greater risk of UROR.

The Benefit of an Umbrella Protocol: Reducing Challenges in Orthopedic Oncology Research.

Background: Orthopedic oncology research is hindered by the scarcity of musculoskeletal tumors and research administrative inefficiencies. This paper introduces observational research through an innovative institution-specific methodology-termed an umbrella protocol. This protocol outlines a comprehensive standard procedure to expedite ethical approval for future aligned studies, reducing administrative barriers to research. Methods: We developed an umbrella protocol at an academic center, involving meticulous methodological identification and coordination with the institutional review board (IRB) to adhere to local guidelines. The protocol encompasses identifying investigators, research objectives, study goals, and data and safety monitoring frameworks necessary for typical standards. Results: Implementation of the umbrella protocol took 110 days to achieve exemption status, following multiple discussions with the IRB and extensive revisions. At the authors institution, this protocol significantly reduces protocol review times from an average of six-to-eight weeks to nearly instantaneous, facilitating a streamlined research process. Additionally, we established a dedicated orthopedic oncology patient registry to enhance future research endeavors. Conclusions: The adoption of umbrella protocols represents a pioneering strategy in orthopedic oncology. This approach mitigates research administrative burdens and broadens research scope in the field. It underscores the necessity of IRB collaboration, methodological precision, and stringent data management. The article also reflects on the ethical implications and potential biases introduced by emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, advocating for diligent ethical oversight. The establishment of an umbrella protocol marks a significant step towards more efficient research methodologies, ultimately aiming to improve patient care and outcomes for individuals with rare musculoskeletal conditions.

Temporary Stabilization of Tibia Fractures: Does External Fixation or Temporary Plate Fixation Result in Better Outcomes?

Background: Provisional stabilization of high-energy tibia fractures using temporary plate fixation (TPF) or external fixation (ex-fix) prior to definitive medullary nailing (MN) is a strategy common in damage control orthopaedics. There is a lack of comprehensive data evaluating outcomes between these methods. This study compares outcomes of patients stabilized with either TPF or ex-fix, and with early definitive MN only, assessing complications including nonunion and deep infection. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on adult patients with tibia fractures treated with MN followed until fracture union (≥3 months) at a single level-1 trauma center from 2014 to 2022. Medical records were evaluated for nonunion and deep infection. Demographics, injury characteristics, and fixation methods were recorded. Significance between patients who underwent TPF and ex-fix was compared with a matched cohort of early MN using Pearson's exact tests, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA, depending on the appropriate variable. Results: 81 patients were included; 27 were temporized with TPF (n = 12) or ex-fix (n = 15). 54 early MN cases defined the matched cohort. All groups had similar patient and fracture characteristics. The difference in rates of nonunion between groups was significant, with TPF, ex-fix, and early MN groups at 17, 40, and 11% respectively (p = 0.027). Early MN had lower rates of nonunion (11% vs. 40%, p = 0.017) and deep infection (13% vs. 40%, p = 0.028) compared to ex-fix. Conclusion: Temporary ex-fix followed by staged MN was associated with higher rates of nonunion and deep infection. There was no difference in complication rates between TPF and early definitive MN. These data suggest that ex-fix followed by MN of tibia fractures should be avoided in favor of early definitive MN when possible. If temporization is needed, TPF may be a better option than ex-fix. Level of Evidence: IV.