RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2010 to 2020. PURPOSE: To compare the short-term complication rates of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical laminoplasty (LP), and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) in a geriatric population. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The geriatric population in the United States has increased significantly. Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is caused by cervical spinal stenosis, and its prevalence increases with age. Therefore, the incidence of multilevel DCM requiring surgical intervention is likely to increase. ACDF, LP, and PCF are the most commonly used surgical techniques for treating multilevel DCM. However, there is uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical technique for the decompression of DCM in geriatric patients. METHODS: Patients aged 65 years who had undergone either multilevel ACDF, LP, or PCF for the treatment of DCM were analyzed. Additional analysis was performed by standardizing the data for the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification scores and preoperative functional status. RESULTS: A total of 23,129 patients were identified. Patients with ACDF were younger, more often female, and preoperatively healthier than those in the other two groups. The estimated postoperative mortality and morbidity, mean operation time, and length of hospital stay were the lowest for ACDF, second lowest for LP, and highest for PCF. The readmission and reoperation rates were comparable between ACDF and LP; however, both were significantly lower than PCF. CONCLUSIONS: PCF is associated with the highest risk of mortality, morbidity, unplanned reoperation, and unplanned readmission in the short-term postoperative period in patients aged 65 years. In contrast, ACDF carries the lowest risk. However, some disease-specific factors may require posterior treatment. For these cases, LP should be included in the preoperative discussion when determining the ideal surgical approach for geriatric patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pelvic ring injury outcome studies rely on radiographic assessment. To date, no study investigates the accuracy of radiographic measurement. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and interobserver reliability of pelvic ring displacement measurement in an injury model. We hypothesize that current radiographic measurement methods do not accurately quantify the three-dimensional pelvic ring displacement. METHODS: Ten orthopaedic traumatologists evaluated 12 pelvic ring injury model displacements using AP, inlet, and outlet radiographs and axial CT images. Observers completed a survey of demographic and treatment approach strategies. Radiographic displacement measurements in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes were analyzed for accuracy using. Absolute displacement measurements were categorized with Matta and Tornetta grading system for Fleiss Kappa inter-reliability correlation evaluation. RESULTS: The mean age of orthopaedic traumatologists was 47.5 years (range 36 to 59) with a mean 15.3 years (range 4 to 27) of pelvic fracture surgery experience. Radiographic measurement of isolated uniplanar of pelvic displacement in axial, sagittal, or coronal plane alone was more accurate than multiplanar pelvic displacements with more than one plane of displacement, 6.6 ± 5.7 mm error compared with 9.6 ± 6.3 mm error, respectively (P = 0.0035). Measurement accuracy was greater with isolated coronal plane (4 ± 3.5 mm error) compared with isolated axial plane (9.9 ± 7.1 mm error) or isolated sagittal plane displacement (6.7 ± 4 mm error). Interrater reliability for the radiographic displacement measurement by observers showed an overall poor agreement with 0.24. CONCLUSION: Radiographic displacement measurement in these modeled pelvic ring injuries has notable inaccuracy among various measurement methods. Coronal and sagittal plane radiographic displacement measurements are more accurate compared with axial plane measurement. The reporting of radiographic displacement measurement outcomes in clinical research studies should be critically evaluated, and standardization of pelvic ring injury displacement may not be achievable with radiography. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.