Formal Radiologist Interpretations of Intraoperative Spine Radiographs Have Low Clinical Value.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical relevance, usefulness, and financial implications of intraoperative radiograph interpretation by radiologists in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to rising health care costs, spine surgery is under scrutiny to maximize value-based care. Formal radiographic analysis remains a potential source of unnecessary health care costs, especially for intraoperative radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all adult elective spine surgeries at a single institution between July 2020 and July 2021. Demographic and radiographic data were collected, including intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs. Financial data were obtained through the institution's price estimator. Radiographic characteristics included time from radiographic imaging to completion of radiologist interpretation report, completion of radiologist interpretation report before the conclusion of surgical procedure, clinical relevance, and clinical usefulness. Reports were considered clinically relevant if the spinal level of the procedure was described and clinically useful if completed before the conclusion of the procedure and deemed clinically relevant. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-one intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs from 360 patients revealed a median delay of 128 minutes between imaging and completion of the interpretive report. Only 38.9% of reports were completed before the conclusion of surgery. There were 79.4% deemed clinically relevant and only 33.5% were clinically useful. Localization reports were completed more frequently before the conclusion of surgery (67.2% vs. 34.4%) but with lower clinical relevance (90.1% vs. 98.5%) and clinical usefulness (60.3% vs. 33.6%) than post-instrumentation reports. Each patient was charged $32 to $34 for the interpretation fee, cumulating a minimum total cost of $15,392. CONCLUSIONS: Formal radiographic interpretation of intraoperative spine radiographs was of low clinical utility for spine surgeons. Institutions should consider optimizing radiology workflows to improve timeliness and clinical relevance or evaluate the necessity of reflexive consultation to radiology for intraoperative imaging interpretation to ensure that value-based care is maximized during spine surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

More anterior placement of femoral tunnel position in ACL-R is associated with postoperative meniscus tears.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between tunnel position in ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and postoperative meniscus tears. METHODS: This was a single institution, case-control study of 170 patients status-post ACL-R (2010-2019) separated into two matched groups (sex, age, BMI, graft type). Group 1-symptomatic, operative meniscus tears (both de novo and recurrent) after ACL-R. Group 2-no postoperative meniscus tears. Femoral and tibial tunnel positions were measured by 2 authors via lateral knee radiographs that were used to measure two ratios (a/t and b/h). Ratio a/t was defined as distance from the tunnel center to dorsal most subchondral contour of the lateral femoral condyle (a) divided by total sagittal diameter of the lateral condyle along Blumensaat's line (t). The ratio b/h was defined as distance between the tunnel and Blumensaat's line (b) divided by maximum intercondylar notch height (h). Wilcoxon sign-ranks paired test was used to compare measurements between groups (alpha set at p < 0.05). RESULTS: Group 1 had average follow up of 45 months and Group 2 had average follow up of 22 months. There were no significant demographic differences between Groups 1 and 2. Group 1-a/t was 32.0% (± 10.2), which was significantly more anterior than group 2, 29.3% (± 7.3; p < 0.05). There was no difference in average femoral tunnel ratio b/h or tibial tunnel placement between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A relationship exists between more anterior/less anatomic femoral tunnel position and the presence of recurrent or de novo, operative meniscus tears after ACL-R. Surgeons performing ACL-R should strive for recreation of native anatomy via proper tunnel placement to maximize postoperative outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes With or Without Prophylactic Carpal Tunnel Release After Distal Radius Fracture Stabilization.

Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are frequently complicated by acute carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), which, if unrecognized, can cause permanent median neuropathy. Some surgeons recommend "prophylactic" carpal tunnel release (CTR) during open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of DRF. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety data regarding prophylactic vs symptomatic CTR strategies during DRF fixation are lacking. We conducted a retrospective review of two management strategies for DRFs at our institution (2017 to 2019). Group 1 consisted of patients operated on by two surgeons performing ORIF and symptomatic CTR only for acute CTS. Group 2 consisted of patients operated on by a third surgeon performing ORIF and prophylactic CTR on all patients irrespective of median nerve symptoms. The PROs included QuickDASH Wrist and PROMIS physical/mental health preoperatively vs at final follow-up. Demographic information, complications, and return to the operating room were recorded. Group 1 (36 patients) and group 2 (76 patients) were demographically similar. The mechanism of injury was more severe in group 1 (P<.05), but preoperative PROs were similar between the two groups. Eight patients (22.2%) in group 1 had symptomatic CTR for acute CTS. Significant improvement occurred within both groups from preoperative to final follow-up for PROMIS physical function and QuickDASH Wrist scores (P<.05). Intergroup PROs were not significantly different at either time point. One patient in group 1 (2.8%) and 2 patients in group 2 (2.6%) returned to the operating room due to median nerve symptoms (P>.05). A prophylactic CTR strategy is not associated with improved PROs compared with a symptomatic strategy during ORIF of DRF. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(6):e362-e368.].

The L3 Flexion Angle Predicts Failure of Non-Operative Management in Patients with Tandem Spondylolithesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Determine impact of standard/novel spinopelvic parameters on global sagittal imbalance, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores, and clinical outcomes in patients with multi-level, tandem degenerative spondylolisthesis (TDS). METHODS: Single institution analysis; 49 patients with TDS. Demographics, PROMIS and ODI scores collected. Radiographic measurements-sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), PI-LL mismatch, sagittal L3 flexion angle (L3FA) and L3 sagittal distance (L3SD). Stepwise linear multivariate regression performed using full length cassettes to identify demographic and radiographic factors predictive of aberrant SVA (≥5 cm). Receiver operative curve (ROC) analysis used to identify cutoffs for lumbar radiographic values independently predictive of SVA ≥5 cm. Univariate comparisons of patient demographics, (HRQoL) scores and surgical indication were performed around this cutoff using two-way Student's t-tests and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with increased L3FA had worse ODI (P = .006) and increased rate of failing non-operative management (P = .02). L3FA (OR 1.4, 95% CI) independently predicted of SVA ≥5 cm (sensitivity and specifity of 93% and 92%). Patients with SVA ≥5 cm had lower LL (48.7 ± 19.5 vs 63.3 ± 6.9 mm, P < .021), higher L3SD (49.3 ± 12.9 vs 28.8 ± 9.2, P < .001) and L3FA (11.6 ± 7.9 vs -3.2 ± 6.1, P < .001) compared to patients with SVA ≤5 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Increased flexion of L3, which is easily measured by the novel lumbar parameter L3FA, predicts global sagittal imbalance in TDS patients. Increased L3FA is associated with worse performance on ODI, and failure of non-operative management in patients with TDS.

Should We Hire Our Current Fellow? Hiring Trends and Preferences in Spine Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into hiring trends/preferences in Academic Orthopaedic Spine Surgery after fellowship training. METHODS: Fellowship directors (FDs) listed by the North American Spine Society were surveyed regarding new faculty hiring preferences. Surveys were analyzed/stratified by response using the Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn multiple comparisons test, the Fisher exact test, and the Mann-Whitney U test for univariate comparisons. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 52 (61.5%) FDs responded. 32.3% of graduated fellows pursued academic medicine, which was preferred by FDs (3.59 ± 0.67; 1 to 5 scale). From 2015 to 2020, of the 2.25 ± 1.46 faculty members hired per program, 45.8% were former residents/fellows. Top listed hiring qualities were "strong recommendation from a trusted colleague" (84.4%), "prior personal experience, as a resident/fellow" (78.1%), and "amicable personality" (53.1%). Twelve (38%) answered "no", six (19%) "yes", and 14 (44%) "other", regarding if hiring former residents/fellows benefits the field of spine surgery. "Other" answers endorsing in-house hiring most commonly mentioned consistency/stability (28.6%) while those opposed most commonly mentioned lack of diversity of training/novel techniques (42.9%). When considering programmatic size, while the stated perception of FDs regarding in-house hiring at larger (>2 fellows) versus smaller (1 to 2 fellows) programs was equivalent, the mean percentage of in-house hires at larger programs (67.8% ± 35.8%) was significantly greater than that of smaller programs (33.3% ± 44.8%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In-house hiring in spine surgery appears to occur more commonly than perceived by program leadership, particularly at larger fellowship programs. Further study of hiring preferences and their impact on the field of spine surgery is warranted. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective Survey Study.

First-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: current concepts.

The management of first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations has been a topic of extensive study yet remains controversial. Development of a treatment plan requires an understanding of patient-specific considerations, including demographics, functional demands, and extent of pathology. Each of these can influence rates of recurrence and return to activity. The purpose of this review is to provide a framework for decision-making following a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation, with particular focus on the high-risk young and athletic population. A summary of surgical treatment options and their outcomes is outlined, along with future biomechanical and clinical perspectives.

Preoperative and Postoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Scores in Patients Treated for Benign Versus Malignant Soft Tissue Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assesses multiple aspects of patient well-being but has not been thoroughly studied amongst orthopedic oncology patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: How do preoperative/early postoperative PROMIS scores compare in patients with benign versus malignant soft tissue tumors (STTs) for (1) physical function, (2) pain interference, and (3) depression? Are the differences clinically relevant? What other patient/tumor factors impact PROMIS? METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 314 STT patients who underwent resection of a benign (n = 187) or malignant (n = 127) STT over a period of 4.25 years at a single institution. PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and depression scores were collected preoperatively and at two and six weeks postoperatively. Scores for each time point were compared between groups and to preoperative baselines. Backward-stepwise linear mixed-effects models were produced to identify independent predictors of change in each PROMIS domain. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was 4 points. RESULTS: The malignant cohort, but not the benign cohort, demonstrated clinically relevant worsening of physical function postoperatively. Malignant diagnosis (△ = -4.4, p < 0.001) and lower extremity tumors (△ = -4.5, p < 0.001) were identified as clinically relevant, independent predictors of worse physical function at all time points. No predictors of clinically relevant changes in pain interference or depression scores, including malignancy, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In STT patients, malignancy and lower extremity STT location are associated with clinically relevant worsening in physical function but do not significantly impact pain interference or depression in the early postoperative period. These findings may help establish the utility of PROMIS in an orthopedic oncology population.

Current trends in the anterior cruciate ligament part II: evaluation, surgical technique, prevention, and rehabilitation.

Clinical evaluation and management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is one of the most widely researched topics in orthopedic sports medicine, giving providers ample data on which to base their practices. The ACL is also the most commonly treated knee ligament. This study reports on current topics and research in clinical management of ACL injury, starting with evaluation, operative versus nonoperative management, and considerations in unique populations. Discussion of graft selection and associated procedures follows. Areas of uncertainty, rehabilitation, and prevention are the final topics before a reflection on the current state of ACL research and clinical management of ACL injury. Level of evidence V.

Use of L5-S1 transdiscal screws in the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis: a technical note.

Surgical treatment of L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis consists of a combination of decompression and fusion. One previously discussed mode of fusion is via transdiscal screws. Biomechanical studies of transdiscal screws have demonstrated greater rigidity than traditional pedicle screw fixation, which theoretically translates to a higher fusion rate. Furthermore, when compared to pedicle screw fixation, transdiscal screw fixation also demonstrates improved functional and radiographic outcomes. However, transdiscal screw placement can be technically difficult. At this time, a detailed surgical technique has yet to be reported in the literature. Our surgical technique for transdiscal screw placement using intraoperative C-arm at L5-S1 is described. We include considerations for preoperative planning including necessary imaging and appropriate patient selection. We also discuss intraoperative concerns such as setup, surgical approach, proper screw trajectory, and our method for achieving indirect decompression. The results of thirteen consecutive patients treated with transdiscal screw fixation are described. One patient had subcutaneous seroma requiring reoperation (7.7%), three patients had implant failure (23.1%), and one patient had nonunion (7.7%). Our results suggest that transdiscal screw fixation is a safe and acceptable alternative for stabilization and indirect decompression of L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis. Recent innovation in intraoperative navigation and robotic surgery may lessen the technical difficulty of transdiscal screw placement and make it even more effective.

Impact of Connector Placement and Design on Bending Stiffness of Spinal Constructs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability of multiple rod-connector construct designs using a mechanical 4-point bending testing frame. METHODS: A mechanical study was used to evaluate the bending stiffness of 3 connectors across 12 different configurations of rod-connector-rod constructs. Stability was evaluated in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Combinations of rods having 1 of 3 diameters (4.0 mm, 5.5 mm, and 6.0 mm) connected by 1 of 3 connector types (parallel open, snap-on, and hinged) were compared. Configurations with single connectors and with double connectors with variable spacing were also compared to simulate revision surgery conditions. RESULTS: Constructs consisting of 4.0-mm rods connected to 4.0-mm rods were significantly less stiff as the total number of connectors used in a series exceeded 2. When single-connector configurations were compared, parallel open rod connectors demonstrated greater stiffness in flexion-extension than hinged open connectors, whereas hinged open connectors demonstrated greater stiffness in lateral bending. Using double connectors increased stiffness of 4.0- to 4.0-mm rod configurations in flexion-extension and lateral bending, 4.0- to 6.0-mm rod configurations in flexion-extension, and 5.5- to 6.0-mm rod configurations in lateral bending. Spacing the double connectors significantly improved lateral bending stiffness of 4.0- to 4.0-mm and 5.5- to 6.0-mm rod configurations. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that the design, number, and placement of rod connectors have a significant impact on the bending stiffness of a surgical construct. Such mechanical data may influence construct design in primary and revision surgeries of the cervical spine and cervicothoracic junction.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Cervicothoracic Junction Fusion Constructs.

OBJECTIVE: We studied the effect of different cervicothoracic construct design variables on biomechanical stability in vitro. METHODS: Six fresh-frozen human cadaveric spines (C5-T4) were used. After intact analysis, each specimen was destabilized and reconstructed, with all groups having 4.0-mm pedicle screws placed at T1-T3. The 2 hook-rod constructs included interlaminar hooks at C6 and C7, with either 3.5-mm or 4.0-mm rods (C6-T3). The 2 screw-rod constructs tested included lateral mass screws at C6 and C7, with either 3.5-mm or 4.0-mm rods (C6-T3). The 2 screw-connector-rod constructs tested included lateral mass screws at C6 and C7, with either 3.5-mm or 4.0-mm rods; 1 rod spanned C6-C7 with a connector to a second rod of the same size spanning T1-T3. Global (C6-T3) and intervertebral (C6-C7, C7-T1, T1-T2, and T2-T3) ranges of motion were compared for each construct. RESULTS: In terms of global (C6-T3) stability, 3.5-mm versus 4.0-mm rod constructs were not significantly different, regardless of whether the construct was hook-rod, screw-rod, or screw-connector-rod. The hook-rod constructs provided less stability compared with the screw-rod and screw-connector-rod constructs in lateral bending (P < 0.04) and axial rotation (P < 0.001). The screw-rod constructs demonstrated a similar range of motion to that of the screw-connector-rod constructs, except for significantly less axial rotation at the C6-C7 level with 3.5-mm rods (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the rod diameter of a construct does not appear to significantly influence the biomechanical stability of subaxial constructs. The screw-rod construct resulted in certain biomechanical advantages compared with the screw-connector-rod construct, and both were significantly superior to the hook-rod construct.