Scrutinizing the use of contrasted chest CTs in extremity sarcoma staging and surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, the American College of Radiology (ACR) has recommended staging for lung metastasis via chest computed tomography (CT) without contrast for extremity sarcoma staging and surveillance. The purpose of this study was to determine our institutional compliance with this recommendation. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with sarcoma in the extremities who received CT imaging of the chest for pulmonary staging and surveillance at our institution from 2005 to 2023. A total of 1916 CT studies were included for analysis. We scrutinized ordering patterns before and after 2015 based on the ACR-published metastasis staging and screening guidelines. An institutional and patient cost analysis was performed between CT modalities. RESULTS: The prevalence of CT scans ordered and performed with contrast was greater than those without contrast both prior and post-ACR 2015 guidelines. Furthermore, 79.2% of patient's final surveillance CTs after 2015 were performed with contrast. A cost analysis was performed and demonstrated an additional $297 704 in patient and institutional costs. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, upon review of CT chest imaging for pulmonary staging and surveillance in patients with extremity sarcoma the use of contrast has been routinely utilized despite a lack of evidence for its necessity and contrary to ACR guidelines.

Trends in the Main Residency Match From 2007 to 2020.

Background The United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 was recently changed from a numerically scored grading system to a pass/fail grading system. Until late 2024, there will be no formal studies about the impact that the grading change will have on the match process. To thoroughly assess the impact that this change will have on the overall match process, it is important to look at what the trends in applicants' objective measures have been in the years before the change. We aim to systematically evaluate the rates of change and mean trend of objective metrics found in residency applications in the main residency match.  Methods Objective medical student data of matched and unmatched applicants were queried from the National Matching Program's Charting Outcomes in the Match Reports for the 2007 to 2020 application cycles. Data were used to create linear regression analyses and statistical tests were performed to evaluate trends over time. Results For matched applicants, there were statistically significant positive trends for the mean number of contiguous ranks (m=0.33, p<0.01), having another non-doctoral graduate degree (m=0.67, p<0.01), membership to Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) honor society (m=0.22, p<0.01), mean USMLE Step 1 score (m=1.01, p<0.01), mean USMLE Step 2 score (m=1.68, p<0.01), mean number of research experiences (m=0.12, p<0.01), and mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications (m=0.34, p<0.01). Additionally, there was a statistically significant negative trend for the percentage who graduated from a top 40 National Institutes of Health-funded medical school (m=-0.41, p<0.01). For unmatched applicants, there were statistically significant positive trends for having another non-doctoral graduate degree (m=0.83, p<0.01), mean USMLE Step 1 score (m=1.26, p<0.01), mean USMLE Step 2 score (m=2.27, p<0.01), mean number of research experiences (m=0.13, p<0.01), and mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications (m=0.33, p<0.01). Conclusion Our study shows that there have been statistically significant increases in almost all objective measures in the residency application. Recent changes to the abstracts, presentations, and publications on the Step 1 scoring system will force almost all residency programs to overhaul their application process and potentially increase reliance on Step 2, research, and other nonobjective factors. For students early in their medical education, emphasis on Step 2 and research will yield increased chances of matching into residency in the future.

Osteoporosis Treatment and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) treatment for patients with osteoporosis presents a unique challenge for spine surgeons, particularly with ensuring adequate fixation and correction during surgery and due to the risk of treatment failure and complications thereafter. Osteoporosis is characterized by low bone mineral density (BMD) which may increase the risk for fractures. Approximately 12.6% of all adults over 50 years old in the United States are affected by osteoporosis, and the prevalence is predicted to increase with the aging population.1 ASD patients experience substantially higher rates of osteoporosis compared to the general population.2,3 One study discovered an osteoporosis prevalence of nearly 33% in a cohort of ASD patients undergoing long spinal fusion at two academic medical centers, with slightly over one- third of those patients receiving osteoporosis pharmacotherapy prior to surgery.3 Similarly, patients with osteoporosis experience ASD at higher rates than the general population, with one study finding that 9.5% of patients with osteoporosis suffer from ASD symptoms.3 Gupta et al. discovered that obtaining a DEXA scan of the forearm in addition to the hip allowed physicians to detect an additional 17% incidence of osteoporosis in ASD patients, suggesting that osteoporosis may be missed when there is only one DEXA scan available.4In addition to being potentially underdiagnosed and undertreated, ASD patients with osteoporosis experience higher rates of post-surgical complications. Pseudarthrosis, or nonunion after spinal fusion, is a painful and potentially debilitating complication following ASD surgery that ultimately requires additional surgical correction. Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), which is defined as proximal junctional sagittal Cobb angle ≥ 10° and at least 10° greater than the preoperative measurement, is another complication of ASD surgery.5 Though this condition may be clinically silent and manifest purely as a radiographic diagnosis, it is often a precursor to proximal junctional failure (PJF), a more severe form of PJK that ultimately increases the risk for intractable pain, neurological deficit, and revision surgery.6 ASD patients with osteoporosis experience significantly higher rates of pseudarthrosis, PJK, PJF, and postoperative fractures, as well as other forms of instrumentation failure requiring additional surgical treatment.7-11 This ultimately increases the pain, emotional burden, and morbidity experienced by patients. There is currently conflicting data regarding the impact of perioperative osteoporosis pharmacotherapy on outcomes in ASD patients. Bisphosphonates are considered first-line treatment for osteoporosis, though alternatives such as teriparatide, denosumab, and calcitonin may be used as well.12 Multiple studies have found that preoperative bisphosphonate treatment did not affect lumbar fusion nonunion rates.13,14 In contrast, a meta-analysis of randomized control trials found that postoperative bisphosphonates had no effect on lumbar fusion rates but did significantly reduce the risk of vertebral compression fracture (VCF) and pedicle screw loosening at 12-month follow-up.15 Prophylactic teriparatide treatment has been associated with improved BMD and lower incidence of PJK type-2 in osteoporosis patients who underwent ASD surgery.16 Evidence for perioperative treatment of teriparatide as a preventative step to increase fusion rates and reduce PJK and PJF is strongest.17 However, the percentage of ASD patients who are actually being treated perioperatively with these medications requires further evaluation, and a comparison of outcomes with osteoporosis and non-osteoporosis counterparts has yet to be explored. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and treatment of osteoporosis among patients undergoing long spinal fusion for ASD, as well as compare the impact of osteoporosis treatment on surgical and radiographic outcomes following fusion surgery. Additionally, we sought to examine the differences in radiographic outcomes of osteoporotic patients receiving various pharmacologic regimens such as monotherapy vs combination therapy.

Upper Instrumented Vertebrae, Number of Levels Fused, and Plate Morphology Do Not Affect Severity of Chronic Dysphagia After Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Disordered swallowing, or dysphagia, is the most common complication after anterior cervical spine (ACS) surgery. Many operative factors are associated with development of dysphagia. The aim of this study was to explore how number of levels instrumented, specific levels fused, and plate morphology affect chronic dysphagia after ACS surgery. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to a tertiary center for otolaryngology evaluation for chronic dysphagia after ACS surgery between 2012 and 2017 were enrolled. Basic demographic data were obtained. Plain radiographs were reviewed for number of levels fused, upper instrumented vertebrae, and plate morphology. Plate morphology was categorized as a closed, small window, large window, or no profile plate. The 10-item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) was used to assess dysphagia severity. RESULTS: Of 171 patients referred for dysphagia, 126 met inclusion criteria; 54% were female, with a mean age of 63 years (range, 32-88 years). Mean EAT-10 score was 18.5 ± 10.1. Mean time from spine surgery to videofluoroscopic swallow study for dysphagia was 58.3 months. Mean number of levels fused was 2.2 ± 0.9. There were no significant differences in EAT-10 scores in single-level versus multilevel fusion (19.0 vs. 18.4, P = 0.76) as well as with regard to upper instrumented vertebrae or plate morphology. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of patients with chronic dysphagia following ACS surgery, the severity of dysphagia as measured by the EAT-10 was not affected by upper instrumented vertebrae, number of levels fused, or plate morphology.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on pharmacologic treatment of patients newly diagnosed with osteoporosis.

PURPOSE: This study determined whether initiation of pharmacologic treatment was delayed for newly diagnosed osteoporosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: 1,189 patients ≥50 years with newly diagnosed osteoporosis using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening at a single academic institution were included. Patients with previous osteoporosis were excluded. Patients diagnosed between March 1, 2018-January 31, 2020 (pre-pandemic cohort, n = 576) were compared to those diagnosed between March 1, 2020-January 31, 2022 (pandemic cohort, n = 613). Age, sex, race, ethnicity, ordering providers (primary vs specialty), and pharmacological agents were evaluated. Primary outcomes included proportion of patients prescribed therapy within 3 and 6-months of diagnosis, and mean time from diagnosis to treatment initiation. RESULTS: The pre-pandemic cohort had more White patients (74.3 vs 68.4%, p = .02) and no differences between remaining demographic variables. Only 40.5% of newly diagnosed patients initiated pharmacologic therapy within 6 months. Patients treated at 3-months (31.8 vs 35.4%, p = 0.19) and 6-months (37.8 vs 42.9, p = 0.08) were comparable between cohorts (47.2 vs 50.2% p = 0.30). Mean time from diagnosis to treatment initiation was similar (46 vs 45 days, p = 0.72). There were no treatment differences based on gender, race, or ethnicity or between ordering providers (65.1 vs 57.4% primary care, p = 0.08). Bisphosphonates were most often prescribed in both cohorts (89% vs 82.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study assessing COVID-19's impact on pharmacologic treatment of newly diagnosed osteoporosis. 40.5% of newly diagnosed patients were treated pharmacologically within six months of diagnosis, and the pandemic did not significantly affect treatment rates.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Metastatic Disease of the Spine.

INTRODUCTION: Some patients, particularly those who are socioeconomically deprived, are diagnosed with primary and/or metastatic cancer only after presenting to the emergency department. Our objective was to determine sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing surgery for metastatic spine disease at our institution. METHODS: This retrospective case series included patients 18 years and older who presented to the emergency department with metastatic spine disease requiring surgery. Demographics and survival data were collected. Sociodemographic characteristics were estimated using the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) for the state of California. Univariate log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess differences in survival for predictors of interest. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2021, 64 patients underwent surgery for metastatic disease of the spine. The mean age was 61.0 ± 12.5 years, with 60.9% being male (n = 39). In this cohort, 89.1% of patients were non-Hispanic (n = 57), 71.9% were White (n = 46), and 62.5% were insured by Medicare/Medicaid (n = 40). The mean SDI and ADI were 61.5 ± 28.0 and 7.7 ± 2.2, respectively. 28.1% of patients (n = 18) were diagnosed with primary cancer for the first time while 39.1% of patients (n = 25) were diagnosed with metastatic cancer for the first time. During index hospitalization, 37.5% of patients (n = 24) received palliative care consult. The 3-month, 6-month, and all-time mortality rates were 26.7% (n = 17), 39.5% (n = 23), and 50% (n = 32), respectively, with 10.9% of patients (n = 7) dying during their admission. Payor plan was significant at 3 months ( P = 0.02), and palliative consultation was significant at 3 months ( P = 0.007) and 6 months ( P = 0.03). No notable association was observed with SDI and ADI in quantiles or as continuous variables. DISCUSSION: In this study, 28.1% of patients were diagnosed with cancer for the first time. Three-month and 6-month mortality rates for patients undergoing surgery were 26.7% and 39.5%, respectively. Furthermore, mortality was markedly associated with palliative care consultation and insurance status, but not with SDI and ADI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series, Level III evidence.