Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Anteriorly Placed Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage vs. Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Posterior Instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in anteriorly placed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TLIF and ALIF are surgical techniques that have become more prevalent in recent years. Although studies have compared the two, none have considered TLIFs with anteriorly placed cages, which may serve as a better comparison to ALIFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing TLIF or ALIF with posterior instrumentation from 2010-2020 at a tertiary care institution were retrospectively identified. TLIF cage position was assessed and those with anterior placement were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes. Radiographic outcomes included posterior disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). Statistical analysis was performed to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 351 patients, 108 had ALIF with posterior instrumentation and 207 had a TLIF. Preoperatively, TLIF patients had less LL (53.7° vs. 60.6°, P<0.001), SS (38.3° vs. 43.7°, P<0.001), and PI (60.1° vs. 66.1°, P<0.001), all of which remained significant at one-year and long-term follow-up (P<0.001). The TLIF group had less ∆DH (1.51° vs. 5.43°, P<0.001), ∆LL (1.8° vs. 2.97°, P=0.038), and ∆SL (0.18° vs. 4.40°, P<0.001) at one year postoperatively. At two to three years, ∆DH (P<0.001) and ∆SL (P=0.001) remained significant, but ∆LL (P=0.695) did not. Patients in the TLIF group had higher VAS-Back scores one year postoperatively (3.68 vs. 2.16, P=0.008) and experienced less improvement in ODI (-17.1 vs. -28.6, P=0.012) and VAS-Back (-2.67 vs. -4.50, P=0.008) compared to ALIF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ALIF with posterior instrumentation performed superiorly in radiographic outcomes and PROMs compared to anteriorly placed TLIFs. Anteriorly placed TLIF cages may not achieve the same results as those of ALIF cages.

The Microbiome of Osteoarthritic Hip and Knee Joints: A Prospective Multicenter Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies have made it possible to characterize the microbial profile in anatomical sites previously assumed to be sterile. We used this approach to explore the microbial composition within joints of osteoarthritic patients. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study recruited 113 patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty between 2017 and 2019. Demographics and prior intra-articular injections were noted. Matched synovial fluid, tissue, and swab specimens were obtained and shipped to a centralized laboratory for testing. Following DNA extraction, microbial 16S-rRNA sequencing was performed. RESULTS: Comparisons of paired specimens indicated that each was a comparable measure for microbiological sampling of the joint. Swab specimens were modestly different in bacterial composition from synovial fluid and tissue. The 5 most abundant genera were Escherichia, Cutibacterium, Staphylococcus, Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas. Although sample size varied, the hospital of origin explained a significant portion (18.5%) of the variance in the microbial composition of the joint, and corticosteroid injection within 6 months before arthroplasty was associated with elevated abundance of several lineages. CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed that prior intra-articular injection and the operative hospital environment may influence the microbial composition of the joint. Furthermore, the most common species observed in this study were not among the most common in previous skin microbiome studies, suggesting that the microbial profiles detected are not likely explained solely by skin contamination. Further research is needed to determine the relationship between the hospital and a "closed" microbiome environment. These findings contribute to establishing the baseline microbial signal and identifying contributing variables in the osteoarthritic joint, which will be valuable as a comparator in the contexts of infection and long-term arthroplasty success. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Surgical intervention for acute intestinal ischemia: experience in a community teaching hospital.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current management of acute mesenteric ischemia secondary to thrombotic or embolic occlusion of visceral vessels in a community teaching hospital. Between October 1997 and July 2000, a review of all hospital discharges revealed 83 patients with a discharge diagnosis of "acute vascular insufficiency-intestine." Among these 83 patients, 22 cases of acute mesenteric ischemia were confirmed. Management of these 22 patients was divided into 2 groups for analysis. In Group A, 14 patients were aggressively treated with visceral angiography (n=10), visceral artery bypass (n=8), visceral embolectomy (n=4), and bowel resection (n=7). In 8 of 14 of these patients, surgical intervention occurred in less than 24 hours from presentation. In Group B, 8 patients were managed with supportive care because of advanced age (mean age = 86 +/- 7 years), comorbid conditions, or patient and family preference. Postoperative morbidity in Group A consisted of cardiac events (n=3), pulmonary insufficiency (n=5), and prolonged gastrointestinal tract dysfunction (n=3). Twelve of 14 patients in Group A survived and were discharged, whereas only 2 of 8 patients in Group B survived and were discharged from the hospital. Although the literature suggests that there can be a significant delay in the diagnosis and treatment of acute mesenteric ischemia, the early recognition and aggressive treatment of acute mesenteric ischemia resulted in a good survival rate. Supportive management of very elderly and debilitated patients needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Although the outlook for such patients is dismal, survivors are possible as demonstrated by this series.

High-risk carotid endarterectomy: fact or fiction.

OBJECTIVE: It has been proposed that patients whose conditions do not meet North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial inclusion criteria or have anatomic risk factors constitute a "high-risk" group for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and might be candidates for primary carotid angioplasty stenting. Our objective was to review a consecutive series of isolated CEAs, identify the number of such patients at high risk, and determine whether their operations were associated with increased complication rate. METHODS: Consecutive isolated CEAs performed between June 1996 and June 2001 were reviewed. High-risk comorbidities included: age 80 years or more (n = 80), New York Heart Association class III/IV angina (n = 16), Canadian class III/IV heart failure (n = 4), myocardial infarct 6 months or less (n = 11), steroid-dependent or oxygen-dependent pulmonary disease (n = 4), and creatinine level of 3 or more (n = 13). Anatomic high risk was defined by: contralateral occlusion (n = 66), lesion above C(2) or requirement of digastric division (n = 53), reoperation (n = 29), and neck radiation (n = 3). Statistical analysis was with chi(2) analysis. RESULTS: Of 788 patients reviewed, 228 (29%) were classified as high risk by one or more of the previous criteria (63% comorbidity, 28% anatomy, 9% both). Presence of preoperative neurologic symptoms and postoperative results were similar across all patient groups. The total stroke and death rate was 1.1% for all the patients. Six patients had postoperative strokes (0.8%), and three patients died of myocardial infarcts (0.4%). The stroke and death rate was 1.3% in the high-risk group as compared with 1.1% in the normal-risk group (P =.51). CONCLUSION: The concept of the high-risk CEA must be critically reexamined. Although 29% of patients for CEA were high risk as defined by others, we found no evidence that this influenced the results after CEA. Patients with significant medical comorbidities, contralateral carotid occlusion, and high carotid lesions can undergo operation without increased complications. If a high-risk group exists, it is small and restricted to reoperation or radiated neck (4% in this series). With this possible exception, carotid angioplasty stenting should be restricted to randomized clinical trials.