Spinal fusion surgery use among adults with low back pain enrolled in a digital musculoskeletal program: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 12-month spinal fusion surgery rates in the setting of low back pain among digital musculoskeletal (MSK) program participants versus a comparison cohort who only received usual care. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with propensity score matched comparison cohort using commercial medical claims data representing over 100 million commercially insured lives. METHODS: All study subjects experienced low back pain between January 2020 and December 2021. Digital MSK participants enrolled in the digital MSK low back program between January 2020 and December 2021. Non-participants had low back pain related physical therapy (PT) between January 2020 and December 2021. Digital MSK participants were matched to non-participants with similar demographics, comorbidities and baseline MSK-related medical care use. Spinal fusion surgery rates at 12 months post participation were compared. RESULTS: Compared to non-participants, digital MSK participants had lower rates of spinal fusion surgery in the post-period (0.7% versus 1.6%; p < 0.001). Additionally, in the augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) model, digital MSK participants were found to have decreased odds of undergoing spinal fusion surgery (adjusted odds ratio: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that participation in a digital MSK program is associated with a lower rate of spinal fusion surgery.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Structural Allograft is Associated With Lower Postoperative Health Care Utilization and Reoperations Compared With Cage Implants.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Implants represent a large component of surgical cost, with several available options for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Rising ACDF volume highlights the need for accurate cost characterization among implant configurations to inform efficient utilization. METHODS: A cohort study of patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level ACDF in 2017 was conducted using the MarketScan national insurance databases, which contain deidentified clinical and financial data. Implant configurations included plate with cage, standalone cage, and plate with structural allograft. Patients who switched insurance providers within 2 years after surgery or underwent concurrent posterior cervical surgery, cervical disk arthroplasty, or cervical corpectomy were excluded. A combined plate/cage and standalone cage group was compared with the allograft group followed by the comparison of the plate/cage and standalone cage groups. In total, 30-day, 90-day, and 2-year aggregate costs; component costs of physical therapy, injections, medications, psychological treatment, and subsequent spine surgery; and reoperation rates were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1723 patients identified, 360 (20.9%) underwent surgery with plate/cage, 184 (10.7%) with standalone cage, and 1179 (68.4%) with allograft. Aggregate costs were lower in the allograft group compared with the combined cage group at 90 days ($36 428 vs $39 875, P = .04) and 2 years ($64 951 vs $74 965, P = .005) postoperatively. There were no significant differences in aggregate costs between the plate/cage and standalone cage groups. The 2-year reoperation rate was higher in the combined cage compared with the allograft group (23.9% vs 10.9%, P < .001) and was also higher in the standalone cage compared with the plate/cage group (32.0% vs 19.7%, P = .002). CONCLUSION: Compared with alternative ACDF constructs, allograft is associated with lower postoperative costs and reoperation rates. Although costs are similar, reoperation rates are lower with plate/cage constructs compared with those of standalone cages. Surgeons should consider these financial and clinical differences when selecting implant configurations.

Health Care Costs Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion or Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To describe the postoperative costs associated with both anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in the two-year period following surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDA has become an increasingly common alternative to ACDF for the treatment of cervical disc disorders. Although a number of studies have compared clinical outcomes between both procedures, much less is known about the postoperative economic burden of each procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By analyzing a commercial insurance claims database (Marketscan, Merative), patients who underwent one-level or two-level ACDF and CDA procedures between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 were identified and included in the study. The primary outcome was the cost of payments for postoperative management in the two-year period following ACDF or CDA. Identified postoperative interventions included in the study were: (i) physical therapy, (ii) pain medication, (iii) injections, (iv) psychological treatment, and (iv) subsequent spine surgeries. RESULTS: Totally, 2304 patients (age: 49.0±9.4 yr; male, 50.1%) were included in the study. In all, 1723 (74.8%) patients underwent ACDF, while 581 (25.2%) underwent CDA. The cost of surgery was similar between both groups (ACDF: $26,819±23,449; CDA: $25,954±20,620; P =0.429). Thirty-day, 90-day, and two-year global costs were all lower for patients who underwent CDA compared with ACDF ($31,024 vs. $34,411, $33,064 vs. $37,517, and $55,723 vs. $68,113, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lower two-year health care costs were found for patients undergoing CDA compared with ACDF. Further work is necessary to determine the drivers of these findings and the associated longer-term outcomes.

Cauda Equina Syndrome: Cost Burden After Spinal Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare neurologic condition with potentially devastating consequences. The objective of this study was to compare the 2-year postoperative cost-associated treatments after posterior spinal decompression between patients with and without CES. METHODS: By analyzing a commercial insurance claims database, patients who underwent posterior spinal decompression with a concurrent diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis, radiculopathy, or disk herniation in 2017 were identified and included in the study. The primary outcome was the cost of payments for identified treatments in the 2-year period after surgery. Treatments included were (1) physical therapy (PT), (2) pain medication, (3) injections, (4) bladder management, (5) bowel management, (6) sexual dysfunction treatment, and (7) psychological treatment. RESULTS: In total, 3,140 patients (age, 55.3 ± 12.0 years; male, 62.2%) were included in the study. The average total cost of treatments identified was $2,996 ± 6,368 per patient. The overall cost of identified procedures was $2,969 ± 6,356 in non-CES patients, compared with $4,535 ± 6,898 in patients with CES ( P = 0.079). Among identified treatments, only PT and bladder management costs were significantly higher for patients with CES (PT: +115%, P < 0.001; bladder management: +697%, P < 0.001). The difference in overall cost was significant between patients (non-CES: $1,824 ± 3,667; CES: $3,022 ± 4,679; P = 0.020) in the first year. No difference was found in the second year. DISCUSSION: A short-term difference was observed in costs occurring in the first postoperative year. Cost of treatments was similar between patients apart from PT and bladder management.

Drivers of Cost in Primary Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: Allocating cost is challenging with traditional hospital accounting. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is an efficient method to accurately assign cost. We sought to characterize the variation in direct total hospital cost (THC) among both lumbar fusion approaches and surgeons. METHODS: Patients were treated with single-level anterior interbody (ALIF), lateral interbody (LLIF), transforaminal interbody (TLIF), instrumented posterolateral (PLF) or in-situ fusion (ISF) for degenerative disease. Process maps were developed for preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative care. THC was composed of implant, medication, other supply, and personnel costs. Linear regression and descriptive statistics were used to analyze THC variation. RESULTS: A total of 696 patients underwent surgery by 8 surgeons. Approximately 50% of THC variation was associated with procedure choice while patient characteristics explained 10%. Implants (including biologics) accounted for 45% of cost. With reference to PLF, THC ranged from 0.6x (ISF) to 1.7x (LLIF). Implant cost ranged from 2.5x reference (LLIF) to 0.1x (ISF). There was a 1.7x difference between the highest THC surgeon and the lowest. The fusion type with the highest THC variation was TLIF. The surgeon with the highest TLIF THC was 1.5x more expensive than the surgeon with the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon-based choices have the greatest effect on THC variation and represent the largest opportunities for cost savings. Primary single-level lumbar fusion THC is driven primarily by fusion type. Implants, including biologics, account for nearly half this cost. Future work should incorporate outcomes data to characterize the differential value conferred by higher THC fusions.

Surgical Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Stenosis Is Associated with Lower 2-Year Mortality and Total Cost Compared with Nonsurgical Treatment: A Risk-Adjusted, Paired Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery has demonstrated cost-effectiveness in reducing pain and restoring function, but the impact of spine surgery relative to nonsurgical care on longer-term outcomes has been less well described. Our objective was to compare single-level surgical treatment for lumbar stenosis, with or without spondylolisthesis, and nonsurgical treatment with respect to patient mortality, resource utilization, and health-care payments over the first 2 years following initial treatment. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Medicare National Database Fee for Service Files from 2011 to 2017 was performed. A 2-year prediction of mortality risk (risk stratification index, RSI) was used as a measure of patient baseline health. Patients (88%) were matched by RSI and demographics. Mortality, spine-related health-care utilization, and 2-year total Medicare payments for patients undergoing surgical treatment were compared with matched patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment. RESULTS: We identified 61,534 patients with stenosis alone and 83,813 with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Surgical treatment was associated with 28% lower 2-year mortality compared with matched patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment. Total Medicare payments were significantly lower for patients with stenosis alone undergoing laminectomy alone and for patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis undergoing laminectomy with or without fusion compared with patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment. There was no significant difference in mortality when fusion or laminectomy was compared with combined fusion and laminectomy. However, laminectomy alone was associated with significantly lower 2-year payments when treating stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment for stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis within the Medicare population was associated with significantly lower mortality and total medical payments at 2 years compared with nonsurgical treatment, although residual confounding could have contributed to these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical Significance of Lateral Pedicle Screw Malposition in Lumbar Spine Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine whether lateral pedicle screw breach affects fusion rates and patient-reported outcomes in lumbar fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although lateral pedicle screw malposition is considered relatively benign, few studies have focused specifically on clinical outcomes or fusion rates associated with lateral screw malposition. METHODS: Twelve-month postoperative computed tomography scans were reviewed for lateral breach, severity of breach, and fusion status. Patients with lateral breach were compared with patients with no breach. Outcome measures included Numerical Pain Rating Scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and SF-36 physical function (SF-36 PF). Multivariable linear and logistic regression and were adjusted for age, procedure, level, and/or baseline pain score. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (31%) demonstrated 1 or more lateral breaches as compared with 99 patients without breach. After adjusting for baseline scores and fusion level, patients with 2 or more screw breaches experienced SF-36 PF score improvements that were 3.43 points less ( P =0.016) than patients with no lateral breach. After adjusting for baseline Numerical Pain Rating Scale, there was also a significant decrease in the odds of achieving minimally clinical important difference in back pain relief in these patients. There was no observed effect of lateral breach on the odds of successful fusion. CONCLUSIONS: The current study did not observe an association between laterally malpositioned pedicle screws and nonunion. However, results are consistent with a negative effect on SF-36 PF scores and self-reported back pain at 12 months.

Pedicle Screw-Associated Violation of the Adjacent Unfused Facet Joint: Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective randomized trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcome scores and fusion rates in patients with and without pedicle screw-associated facet joint violation (FJV) after a single-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: Clinical outcomes data and computed tomography (CT) imaging were reviewed for 157 patients participating in a multicenter prospective trial. Post-operative CT scans at 12-months follow-up were examined for fusion status and FJV. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg and low back pain. Chi-square test of independence was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures. Two-sample t-test was used to identify differences in mean patient outcome scores. Logistic regression models were performed to determine association between FJV and fusion rates. RESULTS: Of the 157 patients included, there were 18 (11.5%) with FJV (Group A) and 139 (88.5%) without FJV (Group B). Patients with FJV experienced less improvement in ODI (P = .004) and VAS back pain scores (P = .04) vs patients without FJV. There was no difference in mean VAS leg pain (P = .4997). The rate of fusion at 12-months for patients with FJV (27.8%) was lower compared to those without FJV (71.2%) (P = .0002). Patients with FJV were 76% less likely to have a successful fusion at 12-months. CONCLUSION: Pedicle screw-associated violation of the adjacent unfused facet joint during single-level lumbar fusion is associated with less improvement in back pain, back pain-associated disability, and a lower fusion rate at 1-year after surgery.

Potential significance of facet joint fusion or posteromedial fusion observed on CT imaging following attempted posterolateral or posterior interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Radiologic evidence of successful lumbar fusion has traditionally been based on bridging bone spanning the intertransverse processes (posterolateral fusion or PLF) or disc space (interbody fusion, or IBF). Often, postoperative computed tomography (CT) of unsuccessful PLF and IBF demonstrates bridging bone across the facet joints or connecting the medial transverse process to the ipsilateral superior articular facet of the caudal vertebra. The significance of this finding in terms of implant stability and clinical outcomes has not previously been reported. PURPOSE: To determine rates of facet joint fusion (FJF)/posteromedial fusion (PMF) following single-level PLF surgery, with or without interbody. A secondary goal was to determine comparative outcomes associated with isolated FJF/PMF versus PLF and IBF. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective CT-based review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Two hundred-three patients underwent single-level PLF surgery with local autograft bone or PLF+IBF with local autograft bone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Fusion was assessed at 6-months and 12-months postoperatively using strict CT criteria. Patient reported outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36. METHODS: Thin-cut CTs were examined to determine whether successful fusion had occurred in seven different anatomic locations. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in mean outcome scores and other continuous measures between groups at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures. RESULTS: Two hundred-three patients and 157 patients completed 6- and 12 month follow-up, respectively. At 12 months, 35.1% of PLF patients demonstrated successful unilateral/bilateral PLF. Including unilateral or bilateral FJF/PMF, the fusion rate was 73.4%. Among PLF+IBF patients, 38.1% demonstrated successful IBF/PLF. Including unilateral or bilateral FJF/PMF, the fusion rate was 55.6%. All fusion groups demonstrated significant improvement in back pain and leg pain scores as well as ODI and SF-36 PF at 6- and 12 months compared with pre-op. No significant difference in any outcome measure, rates of implant loosening or reoperation was observed between successful PLF/IBF and FJF/PMF groups. CONCLUSIONS: FJF/PMF is often observed on postoperative CT evaluation following surgery originally performed to achieve PLF or IBF. Short-term follow-up suggests no significant difference in implant loosening rates or patient reported outcomes when FJF/PMF is observed versus PLF or IBF in such patients. Long-term clinical outcomes of FJF/PMF versus PLF or IBF remain unknown. These findings apply solely to single-level instrumented spinal fusion surgery utilizing pedicle screws with or without IBF.

Comparing rates of early pedicle screw loosening in posterolateral lumbar fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Addition of interbody fusion via a transforaminal approach (TLIF) has become a popular surgical option for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions. Although technically more complicated than posterolateral fusion surgery (PLF), it has been suggested that TLIF provides superior immediate stability and protects against early pedicle screw loosening. This theory has never been formally examined in a clinical study. PURPOSE: To determine the impact of TLIF on early pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion rates compared with PLF using pedicle screws alone in the treatment of single level lumbar degenerative conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective computed tomography (CT) based review. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred ninety-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF with local autograft bone or PLF alone with local autograft bone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic fusion rates and screw loosening were measured at 6 and 12 months using strict CT criteria. Patient self-reported outcome measures included Visual Analog Scale for low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index. METHODS: Postoperative thin-cut CTs were examined for pedicle screw loosening and radiographic fusion status. Early screw loosening rates were determined using 6-month postoperative CT, whereas radiographic fusion rates were determined using 12-month postoperative CT. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in mean outcome scores and other continuous measures between groups at baseline and follow-up. Chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups on categorical measures. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent TLIF+PLF (Group A) and 115 patients underwent PLF alone (Group B). At 6-month follow-up, loosening was observed in 49 of 792 total screws (6.19%). Of Group A, 7.23% of patients demonstrated loosening of one or more screws compared with 18.3% of Group B (Chi-Square value 4.98; p=.0256). Six-month radiographic fusion rates were 36.1% in Group A versus 44.3% in Group B. Twelve-month radiographic fusion rates increased to 58.6% in Group A versus 73.1% in Group B. Among Group A patients not yet fused at 6 months, screw loosening was associated with a 0% rate of radiographic fusion at 12 months versus 41.2% without screw loosening. Rates for Group B were 6.25% and 70.3%, respectively. Patient age was a significant independent predictor of loosening (p=.0336). CONCLUSIONS: TLIF appears to have a protective effect, reducing rates of early screw loosening by approximately 60% versus PLF. However, this effect appears independent of actual overall radiographic fusion rates which may be approximately 20% lower with TLIF at 12 months. TLIF may have advantages in patients where early loosening is a particular concern, for example, in the setting of increased patient age.

Brachial plexus palsy following proximal humerus fracture in patients who are skeletally immature.

From 1998 to 2006, 578 patients who were skeletally immature with proximal humerus fractures were treated at our institution. During that time period, 4 patients (0.7%) had associated brachial plexus and major peripheral nerve palsies. Average age at the time of injury was 12.3 years (range 10-14 years). Two fractures were physeal and 2 were metaphyseal. In all patients, the distal fracture fragment was displaced into the axilla, with resultant adduction and valgus malalignment at the time of injury. Two patients were treated with closed reduction and sling and swathe immobilization. One patient was treated with closed reduction and percutaneous pinning of the fracture. One patient was treated with sling immobilization without fracture reduction. All went on to bony healing with acceptable bony alignment. All patients were evaluated with serial physical examinations and radiographs to assess for neurologic recovery and bony healing. Average clinical and radiographic follow-up was 7.1 months (5-9 months). All patients demonstrated complete neurologic recovery by 5-9 months postinjury. All had neuropathic pain for at least 6 months after injury. No persistent neuropathic pain or functional limitations were seen at follow-up. Although rare, brachial plexus injury may accompany displaced proximal humeral fractures in patients who are skeletally immature. With careful attention to principles of fracture care, complete neurologic recovery may be expected within 9 months.

Academic ranking score: a publication-based reproducible metric of thought leadership in urology.

BACKGROUND: Hospital rankings have become integral to the marketing strategies of many health care systems. Methodology used in compiling these lists appears highly flawed. OBJECTIVE: To improve on current hospital ranking systems and to develop a more meaningful measure of a urology department's contribution to the field, we developed an academic ranking score (ARS) based on publicly available data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An active faculty list was assembled for each department. A list of all publications from each department from 2005 to 2010 was then compiled. Only publications with faculty members as first or last author were considered. The ARS was then derived by identifying the number of publications within an institution, normalized by the impact factor of the peer-reviewed journal in which the publication appeared. MEASUREMENTS: The 2010 U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) urology list was reranked based on ARS and compared with the USNWR rank list. ARS was also calculated for several leading European urologic centers. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 6437 urologic publications were indexed to calculate the ARS. Two of the top three programs in the USNWR rankings dropped out of the top 10. The top 10 academically ranked programs increased or decreased an average of >5 positions (range: 0-17). No correlation was seen between programs ranked in the top 10 by USNWR and our objective ARS method (Spearman ρ: -0.1; p=0.75). Because ARS only includes first- or last-author publications for faculty with clinical duties, ARS likely excludes basic science contributions and contributions from nonclinical faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Ranking of urology departments through quantification of each program's recent academic contribution, as captured by the ARS, differs substantially from rankings developed by USNWR. Integration of such objective measures into an overall urology program ranking system would replace current subjective opinions marred by historical biases with up-to-date merit-based assessments.

The effect of iliac crest autograft on the outcome of fusion in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis: a subgroup analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

BACKGROUND: There is considerable controversy about the long-term morbidity associated with the use of posterior autologous iliac crest bone graft for lumbar spine fusion procedures compared with the use of bone-graft substitutes. The hypothesis of this study was that there is no long-term difference in outcome for patients who had posterior lumbar fusion with or without iliac crest autograft. METHODS: The study population includes patients enrolled in the degenerative spondylolisthesis cohort of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial who underwent lumbar spinal fusion. Patients were divided according to whether they had or had not received posterior autologous iliac crest bone graft. RESULTS: There were 108 patients who had fusion with iliac crest autograft and 246 who had fusion without iliac crest autograft. There were no baseline differences between groups in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, or baseline clinical scores. At baseline, the group that received iliac crest bone graft had an increased percentage of patients who had multilevel fusions (32% versus 21%; p=0.033) and L5-S1 surgery (37% versus 26%; p=0.031) compared with the group without iliac crest autograft. Operative time was higher in the iliac crest bone-graft group (233.4 versus 200.9 minutes; p<0.001), and there was a trend toward increased blood loss (686.9 versus 582.3; p=0.057). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications, including infection or reoperation rates, between the groups. On the basis of the numbers available, no significant differences were detected between the groups treated with or without iliac crest bone graft with regard to the scores on Short Form-36, Oswestry Disability Index, Stenosis Bothersomeness Index, and Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale or the percent of patient satisfaction with symptoms averaged over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome scores associated with the use of posterior iliac crest bone graft for lumbar spinal fusion were not significantly lower than those after fusion without iliac crest autograft. Conversely, iliac crest bone-grafting was not associated with an increase in the complication rates or rates of reoperation. On the basis of these results, surgeons may choose to use iliac crest bone graft on a case-by-case basis for lumbar spinal fusion.

Pain and disability related to osteoarthrosis of the trapeziometacarpal joint.

We investigated the relationship between trapeziometacarpal arthrosis, pain, and upper extremity specific disability by surveying patients from a prior prevalence study. The 456 adult (age 18 or greater) patients from a prior prevalence study were mailed a questionnaire consisting of the full DASH outcome measure as well as additional questions to identify sources of pain other than the thumb, pain in the thumb and whether the patient has received treatment for thumb arthritis. A response rate of 27% was achieved (122 responses). Thumb pain correlated with pain elsewhere in the arm (r = 0.354, p < 0.001), but not with higher grades of arthrosis. The average DASH score was 9.9 [range 0-60.0]. Higher grades of arthrosis (p = 0.013), pain in the thumb (r = 0.602, p < 0.001) and pain elsewhere in the arm (r = 0.665, p < 0.001) were found to be predictors of a higher DASH score. Arthrosis grade explained only 3% of the variation of DASH scores in linear regression modeling, but was included in the best multivariable model-along with thumb pain and pain elsewhere in the arm-which explained 52% of the variation in DASH scores. Higher grades of trapeziometacarpal arthrosis do not correlate with complaints of thumb pain and have a significant, but very limited affect on arm-specific disability, compared to pain elsewhere in the arm.

Compartment syndrome associated with distal radial fracture and ipsilateral elbow injury.

BACKGROUND: Forearm compartment syndrome is an uncommon sequela of distal radial fractures. This investigation tested the hypothesis that the risk of forearm compartment syndrome associated with an unstable, operatively treated fracture of the distal end of the radius is higher with a concomitant injury of the ipsilateral elbow. METHODS: All patients who sustained an unstable fracture of the distal end of the radius and/or injury to the elbow (a fracture of the proximal end of the radius and/or ulna, simple elbow dislocation, elbow fracture-dislocation, or distal humeral fracture) and were operatively treated at two level-I trauma centers over a five-year period were identified from a comprehensive database. The prevalence of compartment syndrome in a cohort with an isolated distal radial fracture and a cohort with a simultaneous distal radial fracture and elbow injury were compared. RESULTS: Nine (15%) of fifty-nine patients who sustained a simultaneous ipsilateral distal radial fracture and elbow injury had forearm compartment syndrome develop compared with three (0.3%) of 869 patients with an isolated unstable distal radial fracture (p < 0.001, relative risk = 50). The average time from presentation to the development of compartment syndrome and subsequent fasciotomy was twenty-seven hours. Three of the nine patients with injuries to both the elbow and the wrist had a compartment syndrome develop after initial operative treatment of the injuries, requiring a return to the operating room for fasciotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Forearm compartment syndrome is a frequent complication of simultaneous unstable injuries to the elbow and the distal end of the radius. Heightened vigilance for compartment syndrome is paramount in patients with this combination of injuries.

The business case for patient safety.

Recent trends have focused attention on improving patient safety in the United States healthcare system. Lapses in patient safety create undue, often preventable, morbidity. These include adverse drug events, adverse surgical events and nosocomial infections. From an organizational perspective, these events are both inefficient and expensive. Many safe practices and quality enhancing improvements, such as computer provider order entry, proper infection surveillance, telemedicine intensive care, and registered nurse staffing are in fact cost-effective. However, in order to fully achieve higher quality, better adverse event reporting and a culture of safety must first be developed. Increased provider recognition, models of success, public awareness and consumer demand are propelling improvements. As we will outline in this review of the current literature, the business case for patient safety is a compelling one, offering substantial economic incentives for achieving the necessary goal of improved patient outcomes.

Healthcare technology and technology assessment.

New technology is one of the primary drivers for increased healthcare costs in the United States. Both physician and industry play important roles in the development, adoption, utilization and choice of new technologies. The Federal Drug Administration regulates new drugs and new medical devices, but healthcare technology assessment remains limited. Healthcare technology assessment originated in federal agencies; today it is decentralized with increasing private sector efforts. Innovation is left to free market forces, including direct to consumer marketing and consumer choice. But to be fair to the consumer, he/she must have free knowledge of all the risks and benefits of a new technology in order to make an informed choice. Physicians, institutions and industry need to work together by providing proven, safe, clinically effective and cost effective new technologies, which require valid pre-market clinical trials and post-market continued surveillance with national and international registries allowing full transparency of new products to the consumer--the patient.

Low complication rate of LISS for femur fractures adjacent to stable hip or knee arthroplasty.

UNLABELLED: Fractures of the femur after a knee or hip arthroplasty historically have been plagued with high complication rates. The Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) has theoretical advantages of improved biomechanics and limited insult to the bone's vascular supply. We theorized that the LISS would have a lower complication rate than historical controls for these fractures. Patients who were treated with a LISS at two Level I trauma centers from July 2001 to July 2003 were prospectively followed up. The inclusion criteria were an acute fracture of the femur treated with a LISS in a patient with a stable ipsilateral total knee prosthesis and/or hip pros- thesis. There were 24 patients in the study group. The injury mechanism was a low-energy fall for all patients. All patients were females with an average age of 79.5 years (range. 64-93 years). Ten patients had ipsilateral hip arthroplasties, nine patients had ipsilateral total knee arthroplasties, and five patients had knee and hip arthroplasties. Followup was at an average of 48 weeks (range, 17-101 weeks). Eighteen of the 19 fractures in the surviving patients with followup healed uneventfully for a complication rate of 5.2%. One fracture was complicated by hardware pullout and was revised to a longer LISS that healed uneventfully. We think our data show that our patients had a low complication rate compared with that of historical controls, and we suggest that the LISS may be an appropriate treatment alternative for femur fractures associated with stable hip or knee prostheses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level IV.