Incidence and Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Following Distal Radius Fractures: A TriNetX Analysis of 39,603 Patients.

Purpose: Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are among the most common fractures and occur among all age groups. Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a known sequela of DRFs, but its incidence is poorly understood. This study was undertaken to determine the incidence of CTS following a DRF, with the hypothesis being that CTS occurs more commonly after nonsurgical treatment of a DRF. Methods: The TriNetX US Collaborative Network was queried for all patients diagnosed with DRFs from January 2016 to December 2022. Cohorts were defined by inclusion and exclusion of the procedure Current Procedural Terminology codes into surgical and nonsurgical groups and subsequent ICD-10 diagnosis codes of CTS. Statistical analysis was performed to determine differences in management across the study period. Results: A total of 39,603 patients met inclusion with a diagnosis of a DRF. The incidence of CTS within one year of a DRF was 5.3%. Among all DRF cases, 10,279 (26%) patients underwent surgical treatment, whereas 29,324 (74%) patients underwent nonsurgical treatment. The incidence of CTS in the surgical group was 1194 (12%), whereas the incidence of CTS in the nonsurgical group was 915 (3%). Patients undergoing surgical treatment for a DRF had a 9% risk of developing CTS, whereas patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment had a 5% risk. Among all the patients having been diagnosed with CTS, 63% of those with an operatively treated DRF underwent surgical release, whereas 23% of those with a nonoperatively treated DRF underwent surgical release for CTS. Conclusions: Patients having undergone surgical treatment for DRF had a four times higher rate of developing CTS, compared with those having undergone nonsurgical treatment. Among patients who underwent surgical treatment of a DRF with the subsequent development of CTS, there was a nearly three times higher rate of surgical release of CTS. Type of study/level of evidence: Prognostic III.

Understanding the Orthopedic Conditions for Which Patients Are Seeking Medical Cannabis Certification.

BACKGROUND: Amid the ongoing national crisis of opioid misuse in the United States, medical cannabis (MC) has emerged as a potential alternative for chronic pain conditions. This study was performed to understand which orthopedic conditions patients are seeking MC certification for. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at the Department of Medical Cannabis, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA. It included consecutive patients with chronic musculoskeletal noncancer pain who were certified for MC, following the Pennsylvania state certification process. Data collected included demographic data, diagnoses, anatomic site of pain, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health scale. The outcome measures from the PROMIS global health scale were used to generate Global Physical Health (GPH) quality of life (QoL) T scores and Global Mental Health (GMH) QoL T scores. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients were available for analysis following initial MC certification, with 50 (64%) being female and 28 (36%) male. The average age was 63 years with 60% of patients in the 65+ age group. Ethnically, 73 (92%) identified as White, and 70 (90%) were not of Hispanic or Latino origin. The most common reason for seeking MC certification was low back pain (56%), followed by neck pain (21%) and then extremity complaints. The mean GPH QoL T score was 43.71 with a standard deviation of ± 9.86 (p-value = 0.001), while the mean GMH QoL T score was 46.85 with a standard deviation of 8.28 (p-value = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: MC cannabis certification was more often sought by women than men and most common for spinal complaints, specifically lower back followed by cervical spine concerns.. This cohort of patients had lower GPH QoL and GMH QoL T scores compared the US general population, representing a significant reduction in the overall physical and mental health.

One and a Half-Stage Revision With Prosthetic Articulating Spacer for Definitive Management of Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

This paper is a comprehensive review that describes indications, contraindications, clinical outcomes, and pearls and pitfalls of 1.5-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) utilizing a primary TKA femoral component, all-polyethylene tibial component, and hand-crafted antibiotic cement for the management of chronic periprosthetic joint infection. The 1.5-stage exchange TKA details placement of an articulating spacer for an indefinite period, prolonging revision until reinfection, deterioration of functional status, or construct failure. A 1.5-stage revision TKA technique is a viable option for treatment of chronic periprosthetic knee infections. The inherent advantages of decreased health-care costs, decreased morbidity and mortality, and improved emotional ease from having a single procedure is attractive, especially if reinfection rates are determined to be equivocal to 2-stage revision.

Management of Periprosthetic Acetabular Fractures: A Critical Analysis and Review of the Literature.

➢: Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are uncommon and infrequently the focus of studies. ➢: Acetabular fractures are occasionally recognized postoperatively when patients report unremitting groin pain weeks after surgery. ➢: The widespread use of cementless acetabular cups might lead to a higher number of fractures than are clinically detectable. ➢: Appropriate recognition, including mindfulness of preoperative patient and surgical risk factors, is critical to the successful management of acetabular complications.

Mepivacaine Versus Bupivacaine Spinal Anesthesia for Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mepivacaine is an intermediate acting amide local anesthetic that can be used for neuraxial anesthesia in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with a shorter duration of action (1.5-2 hours) compared to the more commonly used local anesthetic bupivacaine. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing bupivacaine and mepivacaine spinal anesthesia during elective TJA and the surgical outcomes of the time to full neurologic motor return, pain, mobility, length of stay (LOS), and complications including transient neurologic symptoms and urinary function. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase were screened for "arthroplasty, spinal anesthesia, bupivacaine, and mepivacaine," in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 159 studies were screened and 5 studies were evaluated. Data were compared regarding motor function return, mobility (distance ambulated), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), LOS, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Full-text screening yielded 5 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective cohort studies), with a total of 1,550 patients. Mepivacaine spinals had an earlier return to motor function (154 minutes vs 170 minutes, 95% CI: [-31.6, -0.9], P = .04), shorter LOS (25.95 hours vs 29.96 hours, 95% CI: [-6.8, -1.2], P = .01), and decreased urinary retention (7.15% vs 10.58%, 95% CI: [-6.3%, -0.6%], P = .02) with no differences in pain (VAS 3.57 vs 3.68, 95% CI: [-2.1, 1.9], P = .90) or distance ambulated (94.2 ft vs 89.1 ft, 95% CI: [-15, 25.2], P = .60) compared to bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The method of anesthesia administration has been an increasing area of focus for quicker and safer recovery to allow for early ambulation and facility discharge. The rapid recovery facilitated by mepivacaine may further enable outpatient TJA and enhance patient recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The Use of Megaprostheses in Nononcologic Lower-Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review.

¼: As the number of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures continues to rise, megaprostheses have found an emerging role in more complex revision arthroplasty cases that require additional reconstruction, stability, and restoration of function. ¼: Megaprosthesis options have evolved: in addition to cemented prostheses, cementless and even hybrid fixation designs optimize longevity. Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), distal femoral replacement (DFR), proximal tibial replacement (PTR), and total femoral replacement (TFR) are all limb salvage options in the setting of substantial bone loss, poor bone quality, and soft-tissue compromise. ¼: Dislocation is one of the most common complications after PFR, likely due to the loss of soft-tissue integrity, most notably the hip abductor musculature from the greater trochanter. The utilization of dual-mobility constructs, larger femoral heads, elevated acetabular liners, and constrained acetabular liners may reduce the risk of instability and improve overall hip function. ¼: Patients with megaprostheses may be more prone to periprosthetic joint infection and surgical site infection given multiple variables, such as the lengthy nature of the surgical procedure, prolonged wound exposure, extensive soft-tissue dissection and resection, poor soft-tissue coverage, and poorer host status. ¼: Despite advances in technology, complication and revision rates remain high after megaprosthesis reconstruction. Therefore, thorough attention to patient-specific factors must be considered for appropriate use of these constructs.

Patient Satisfaction with Orthopedic Telemedicine Health Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background:Telemedicine usage in orthopedic surgery has seen a dramatic increase as a result of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to examine patient perceptions with telemedicine at a large orthopedic practice.Materials and Methods:An anonymous online survey was distributed to all patients who received a telemedicine health visit at our institution for musculoskeletal complaints from March 17 to June 1, 2020. Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree, 1-5) and analyzed by average score and percent reaching top box.Results:A majority of patients (76.5%) were satisfied with their visit, and only 19.2% did not want telemedicine as a future option. Patients who presented for follow-up visits (4.11 vs. 3.94, p = 0.0053; 48% vs. 41%, p = 0.02) and utilized video (4.21 vs. 3.88, p < 0.001; 51% vs. 39%, p < 0.001) were more satisfied. Average satisfaction between older (>65 years) and younger patients was similar (4.06 vs. 4.06, p = 0.97), however, younger patients were more likely to reach top box (42% vs. 51%, p < 0.001). Confidence that the physician came to the correct diagnosis (r = 0.78, p < 0.001) and receiving the same information and care as an in-office visit (r = 0.60, p < 0.001) demonstrated the strongest correlation with satisfaction and desire for future telemedicine visits, respectively. Interestingly, 31.1% of patients would have sought treatment elsewhere had telemedicine not been an option.Conclusions:Overall, satisfaction rates are high for orthopedic patients undergoing telemedicine visits. Patients are more confident in telemedicine when presenting for a follow-up visit and with the use of video.