Outcomes After Use of the Induced Membrane Technique for Fractures of the Upper Extremity.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review a series of cases in which the induced membrane technique was used for fractures with segmental bone loss in the upper extremity. We aimed to examine patient indications, outcomes based on union rates, and complications associated with this technique. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved database at our institution was used to identify patients based on either diagnosis or procedure codes commonly used during the induced membrane treatment. The database was queried between 2003 and 2020 and included patients with segmental bone defects from acute trauma, nonunions, and infections. Demographic data, mechanism of injury, size and extent of the bone defect, treatment indication and methods along with intraoperative and postoperative complications were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: We identified 23 patients who met our inclusion criteria, including 15 patients with traumatic segmental bone loss and 8 patients with chronic nonunions and/or infections. Fourteen cases involving the bones of the forearm, 8 cases involving the metacarpals and 3 cases involving the phalanges were identified. Radiographic union was ultimately demonstrated in 21/23 patients (91.3%) with a median time to union of 20 weeks (range 13-29 weeks). A total of 10 patients required unplanned reoperation, with 4 nonunions requiring repeat plating and grafting procedures, and 1 patient ultimately underwent amputation for persistent infection. CONCLUSIONS: The induced membrane technique represents an effective treatment option for acute traumatic bone loss as well as chronic fracture nonunions. The technique has potential challenges, as 10 patients (43.5%) in our series required unplanned reoperations with 4 patients (17.4%) requiring a repeat intervention for persistent nonunion. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Acute Traumatic Myelopathy: Rethinking Central Cord Syndrome.

Central cord syndrome (CCS) is an incomplete spinal cord injury that consists of both sensory and motor changes of the upper and lower extremities. CCS most commonly occurs after trauma to the cervical spine leading to acute neurological changes. Despite being the most common incomplete spinal cord injury with the best outcomes, optimal treatment remains controversial. Although clinical practice has shifted from primarily conservative management to early surgical intervention, many questions remain unanswered and treatment remains varied. One of the most limiting aspects of CCS remains the diagnosis itself. CCS, by definition, is a syndrome with a very specific pattern of neurological deficits. In practice and in the literature, CCS has been used to describe a spectrum of neurological conditions and traumatic morphologies. Establishing clarity will allow for more accurate decision making by clinicians involved in the care of these injuries. The authors emphasize that a more precise term for the clinical condition in question is acute traumatic myelopathy: an acute cervical cord injury in the setting of a stable spine with either congenital and/or degenerative stenosis.

Cauda Equina Syndrome.

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) involves compression of some or all of the lumbar and sacral peripheral nerve roots. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the exact diagnosis criteria in this patient population. Much of the pathophysiology has been studied regarding the onset of this condition; however, the long-term effects are not able to be accurately predicted at this time. Recent literature has associated timing to surgical decompression, severity of symptoms at time of onset, and involvement of bladder dysfunction as prognostic indicators of CES.

Establishing a common language for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to spine surgeons for lumbar radiculopathy often undergo initial conservative treatment including medications, therapy, and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Despite a growing number of spinal injections performed, there is a lack of available data regarding the occurrence of wrong-site injections. However, when examined, the discrepancies between ordering level and level of epidural steroid injection performed are immense. To aid with this issue, we propose that instead of ordering a lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections at a given level, it should be ordered to address a specific nerve root with laterality. This has the potential to reduce wrong-site procedures and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 60 patients at a private orthopaedic spine practice under the care of spine surgeons or physician assistants over a 1-year period. The progress note, injection order form, procedure note, and procedural fluoroscopy were reviewed. If there were inconsistencies between one or more of these steps, it was deemed a failure. Results were analyzed to assess for any differences in outcomes between the two groups. We calculated our sample size prior to the study and powered it at 90%; descriptive statistics, Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used where appropriate utilizing SAS v9.4. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (37/60, 61.6%) were considered a failure. There were no failures when ordering an S1 nerve root injection. We identified one wrong-site procedure and one wrong-level order that was identified and corrected by the interventionalist. CONCLUSIONS: There were multiple inconsistencies identified at various steps in the injection ordering process. This indicates a need to standardize the language used in this process to avoid wrong-site procedures. There were no inconsistencies in ordering an S1 injection, likely because this injection could only be ordered at the nerve root. It is also critical to utilize and save a localization film to ensure accuracy and accountability. We propose indicating the affected nerve root in all cases rather than the level of disc pathology would avoid confusion.