Patient in Mayfield Head Pins Requiring Prone Bronchoscopy for Mucus Plug Obstruction: A Case Report.

Mucus plug obstruction is a common complication in prone patients associated with loss of ventilation and hemodynamic instability. This case presents a 62-year-old female with chronic bronchitis who underwent posterior cervical fusion for a type III dens fracture with extension into the pars articularis and pedicles. Glycopyrrolate was administered to assist with fiberoptic intubation. After successful intubation, bronchoscopy revealed copious endotracheal secretions requiring preoperative therapeutic removal. Despite extensive removal of thick endotracheal secretions preoperatively, obstructive mucus plugging developed intraoperatively with complete loss of end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) while the patient was in Mayfield head pins. With limited airway access, suctioning and prone flexible bronchoscopy were performed, successfully restoring ETCO2. This experience underscores the need for heightened awareness and preparedness for mucus plug obstruction in chronic bronchitis patients undergoing prone cervical spine surgeries.

Analysis of the Most Popular Online Ankle Fracture-Related Patient Education Materials.

Background: Given the increasing accessibility of Internet access, it is critical to ensure that the informational material available online for patient education is both accurate and readable to promote a greater degree of health literacy. This study sought to investigate the quality and readability of the most popular online resources for ankle fractures. Methods: After conducting a Google search using 6 terms related to ankle fractures, we collected the first 20 nonsponsored results for each term. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI) instruments. Quality was evaluated using custom created Ankle Fracture Index (AFI). Results: A total of 46 of 120 articles met the inclusion criteria. The mean FKGL, FRE, and GFI scores were 8.4 ± 0.5, 57.5 ± 3.2, and 10.5 ± 0.5, respectively. The average AFI score was 15.4 ± 1.4, corresponding to an "acceptable" quality rating. Almost 70% of articles (n = 32) were written at or below the recommended eighth-grade reading level. Most articles discussed the need for imaging in diagnosis and treatment planning while neglecting to discuss the risks of surgery or potential future operations. Conclusion: We found that online patient-facing materials on ankle fractures demonstrated an eighth-grade average reading grade level and an acceptable quality on content analysis. Further work should surround increasing information regarding risk factors, complications for surgery, and long-term recovery while ensuring that readability levels remain below at least the eighth-grade level.

Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDF) are among the most common cervical spine operations, with over 137,000 surgeries performed annually. Understanding reasons underlying malpractice pertaining to ACDF may inform physicians of practices to improve delivery of patient care and mitigate malpractice. The aim of our study was to analyze the causes and outcomes for lawsuits pertaining to ACDF. Methods: The Westlaw Edge and Verdict Search databases were queried for malpractice claims utilizing the keywords "anterior cervical discectomy and fusion" and "ACDF". Inclusion criteria was based on relevance of case grievance(s) to ACDF. Data collected included date of case hearing, plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, verdict ruling, location of filed claim, monetary award, and sustained injuries. Results: Fifty cases were included in this study after excluding 1933 cases. Of the 50 cases, 34 (68%) resulted in a defendant outcome, 8 (16%) resulted in a plaintiff outcome, and 8 (16%) resulted in settlement. Plaintiff verdicts resulted in an average monetary payment of $9.70 million, while settlements resulted in an average payment of $2.06 million. Reasons for litigation were divided into 10 categories, most commonly improper postoperative management (20%), hardware failure (18%), intraoperative error (14%), off-label use of implants (14%), and insufficient informed consent (12%). Conclusions: Malpractice claims due to ACDF are associated with higher frequencies of plaintiff verdicts and higher monetary costs compared to other spinal surgery procedures. There does not appear to be supporting evidence that spinal cord neuromonitoring is mandatory for ACDF procedures from a medicolegal standpoint.

Removal of a Bent Tibial Intramedullary Nail Through Osteotomy and Partial Sectioning: A Case Report.

CASE: An 18-year-old male patient presented with a closed fracture of the left tibia and fibula and a bent intramedullary nail after a repeat motorcycle accident. The patient was 5 weeks postoperative from intramedullary nailing of a closed left tibia fracture. The site of angulation of the tibial nail was noted to be more proximal than the fracture site. Partial sectioning of the nail through an osteotomy permitted the removal of the nail and revision tibial nailing. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported use of an osteotomy and partial sectioning during the extraction of a bent tibial intramedullary nail.

Epidemiology of Rugby-Related Injuries Presenting to the Emergency Department: A 10-Year Review.

Background Rugby is a popular contact sport played with little to no protective clothing. There exist few comprehensive studies investigating emergency department (ED) visit patterns for rugby-related injuries.We hypothesize that male athletes remain the most common patient demographic to present to the ED with rugby-related injuries and that the number of patients diagnosed with soft tissue injuries such as sprains and strains decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methodology The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database was examined for rugby injuries from January 2012 through December 2021. Cases were stratified by sex, age, and injury type to monitor epidemiological patterns. This is a descriptive epidemiology study. Level of evidence III. Results A total of 2,896 individuals with rugby-related ED visits were identified. ED patients were most common among males (73.9%), Caucasians (45.3%), and in the 15-19-year-old age range (44.9%). Injuries most commonly affected the upper body, specifically the head (23.1%), face (13.8%), and shoulder (12.4%) with fractures and sprains comprising 22.3% and 18.5% of ED diagnoses, respectively. Concussions were the most frequent injury to any one body part (11.2%). During the COVID-19 pandemic, ED patients with rugby-related injuries were significantly more likely to be males presenting with lacerations or hemorrhages. ED visits for sprains and strains significantly decreased in the peri-COVID-19 period. Conclusions Annual ED visits due to rugby injuries are declining. The head and neck are the most common sites of injuries. Decreased presentation to the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic may raise concern for the potential for untreated injuries. Physicians should anticipate the presence of chronic sports-related injuries when evaluating future patients.

Analysis of the Reasons for Medical Malpractice Litigation Due to Facet Injections.

Introduction As the use of facet joint injections (FJI) increases, practitioners performing FJI may be at increased risk of legal liability. Malpractice claim analysis is performed by several specialties as it provides valuable insight into patient values and methods to mitigate the risk of malpractice litigation pertaining to a specific procedure or treatment. Malpractice analysis regarding FJI may provide clinicians with a better understanding of the reasons that lead to malpractice due to FJI, thereby allowing practitioners to improve the quality of care delivered to patients whilst mitigating the incidence of malpractice. The aim of our study was to analyze the reasons for malpractice litigation due to FJI by querying Westlaw and VerdictSearch, two well-established legal databases widely used in medicolegal research. Methods We queried the Westlaw Edge and VerdictSearch legal databases utilizing the terms "facet injection" and "spine". Our database queries yielded 1026 results on Westlaw Edge and 545 results on VerdictSearch. Cases were reviewed and categorized by two independent reviewers based on the grievance(s) levied by the plaintiff. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. Inclusion criteria for case relevance were defined as a basis of litigation resting on malpractice claims filed between the years 2000-2022 directly pertaining to FJI. Additional data collected included the date of the case hearing, verdict ruling, location of filed claim, payment or settlement amount, and sustained injuries. Results Of all 1571 cases reviewed, 1568 cases were excluded due to a basis of litigation unrelated to FJI. Of the three cases pertaining to FJI, the first case involved an alleged procedural error on the part of the anesthesiologist, whereby the anesthesiologist misplaced the needle during FJI, resulting in quadriplegia due to a cervical spine infarction. The plaintiff also contended that the pre-procedural timeout was improperly conducted as the practitioner utilized iohexol as the injected contrast material despite the patient's well-documented allergy to iohexol. The jury deemed both the practitioner and hospital negligent, and a plaintiff verdict was issued. The second case was filed under a basis of litigation alleging delayed diagnosis and treatment on the part of an emergency medicine physician. The court acquitted the physician, and a defense verdict was issued. The third case was filed under a basis of litigation of alleged deviation from the standard of care on the part of the anesthesiologist, whereby the anesthesiologist performing the FJI did not use fluoroscopy. The court affirmed fluoroscopy is not dictated as the standard of care for FJI and issued a defendant verdict. Conclusion This study provides insight into the risk of medical malpractice suits brought on by facet joint injection. Our findings suggest that despite the high prevalence of facet joint injections performed annually, there is limited legal liability associated with the procedure. Nevertheless, there are certain reasons a malpractice claim may be filed due to facet injection, including gross procedural error resulting in patient paralysis, delay in treatment or diagnosis, and deviation from the established standard of care. As such, treatment decisions regarding facet joint injection should not be influenced by medicolegal concerns and remain predicated on patient care needs and standard of care.