The Effect of Anesthesia on Passive Ankle Dorsiflexion.

BACKGROUND: Equinus contractures can commonly be due to contractures of gastrocnemius muscle or combined contractures of the gastrocnemius-soleus Achilles tendon complex. The decision to release part or all of the gastrocnemius-soleus Achilles tendon complex is often assessed intraoperatively while the patient is under anesthesia. It remains unknown whether the administration of general anesthesia affects the measurement of passive ankle dorsiflexion. METHODS: The unaffected, nonoperative limb on 46 foot and ankle patients underwent a Silfverskiold test measuring passive ankle dorsiflexion preoperatively and intraoperatively after administration of general anesthesia using an instrumented force-angular displacement goniometer. To determine clinical significance, we surveyed experienced surgeons to estimate the perceived minimally detectable clinical accuracy for measuring passive ankle dorsiflexion. RESULTS: Forty-six subjects were included with mean age of 42 ± 14.8 years, mean body mass index of 26.2 ± 4.9, and 52% female. The mean change in dorsiflexion values from before anesthesia to after the administration of general anesthesia was 1.9 degrees with 10 lb of pressure with knee extended (E10), 2.3 degrees with 20 lb of pressure with knee extended (E20), 2.8 degrees with 10 lb of pressure with knee flexed (F10), and 2.3 degrees with 20 lb of pressure with knee flexed (F20) (all P < .001). Thirty-three of 45 (73%) surgeons responded to the survey; all thought their minimally detectable clinical accuracy was 5 degrees or greater. CONCLUSION: After the administration of general anesthesia, a small but likely not clinically detectable increase in passive ankle dorsiflexion occurs. The common clinical practice of making intraoperative treatment decisions regarding the presence of a gastrocnemius-soleus driven equinus contractures after general anesthesia without use of paralytic agents appears reasonable given the magnitude of the changes identified in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective cohort study.

The Benefit of an Umbrella Protocol: Reducing Challenges in Orthopedic Oncology Research.

Background: Orthopedic oncology research is hindered by the scarcity of musculoskeletal tumors and research administrative inefficiencies. This paper introduces observational research through an innovative institution-specific methodology-termed an umbrella protocol. This protocol outlines a comprehensive standard procedure to expedite ethical approval for future aligned studies, reducing administrative barriers to research. Methods: We developed an umbrella protocol at an academic center, involving meticulous methodological identification and coordination with the institutional review board (IRB) to adhere to local guidelines. The protocol encompasses identifying investigators, research objectives, study goals, and data and safety monitoring frameworks necessary for typical standards. Results: Implementation of the umbrella protocol took 110 days to achieve exemption status, following multiple discussions with the IRB and extensive revisions. At the authors institution, this protocol significantly reduces protocol review times from an average of six-to-eight weeks to nearly instantaneous, facilitating a streamlined research process. Additionally, we established a dedicated orthopedic oncology patient registry to enhance future research endeavors. Conclusions: The adoption of umbrella protocols represents a pioneering strategy in orthopedic oncology. This approach mitigates research administrative burdens and broadens research scope in the field. It underscores the necessity of IRB collaboration, methodological precision, and stringent data management. The article also reflects on the ethical implications and potential biases introduced by emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, advocating for diligent ethical oversight. The establishment of an umbrella protocol marks a significant step towards more efficient research methodologies, ultimately aiming to improve patient care and outcomes for individuals with rare musculoskeletal conditions.

Emerging innovations and advancements in the treatment of extremity and truncal soft tissue sarcomas.

In this special edition update on soft tissue sarcomas (STS), we cover classifications, emerging technologies, prognostic tools, radiation schemas, and treatment disparities in extremity and truncal STS. We discuss the importance of enhancing local control and reducing complications, including the role of innovative imaging, surgical guidance, and hypofractionated radiation. We review advancements in systemic and immunotherapeutic treatments and introduce disparities seen in this vulnerable population that must be considered to improve overall patient care.

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.

Revision Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Demonstrates a High Patient Satisfaction and Good Functional Outcomes.

Purpose: To clinically evaluate a subset of patients who underwent a revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis for a clinically failed proximal biceps tenodesis. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of patients with at least 2-year follow-up who had undergone a revision biceps tenodesis after clinical failure of a proximal biceps tenodesis between January 2008 and February 2020 by a single surgeon. Patients who underwent concomitant procedures, such as revision cuff repair, were excluded. Patients with a minimum of 2 years duration status postrevision subpectoral tenodesis were contacted for informed consent and outcome data, which included Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale for pain, and subjective reporting of arm weakness and satisfaction. Results: Fourteen patients were initially identified as meeting inclusion criteria with a minimum 2-year follow-up achieved for 11 of 14 patients (78.5% follow-up). The mean follow-up time was 8.1 years (range, 2.7-14.8 years). After the primary biceps tenodesis, a mean of 8.0 ± 9.6 months passed before the revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis was performed. The average postoperative active forward elevation and adducted external rotation were 159 ± 7° and 47 ± 17°, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (range) follow-up American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 79 ± 23 (30-100), Simple Shoulder Test was 11 ± 2 (7-12), and visual analog scale for pain was 2.6 ± 2.8 (0-9). All 11 patients reported being satisfied with their operation and would elect to have the operation again. Conclusions: Revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis is a viable procedure for addressing patients with persistent pain following initial proximal biceps tenodesis. Although some persistent pain is common, revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis demonstrates a high patient satisfaction and good functional outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Comparing outcomes of central ingrowth peg vs. noningrowth pegged glenoid components during revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: One innovation to reduce glenoid loosening in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is a large, central ingrowth peg. However, when bone ingrowth fails to occur, there is often increased bone loss surrounding the central peg which may increase complexity of subsequent revisions. Our goal was to compare outcomes between central ingrowth pegs and noningrowth pegged glenoid components during revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: In a comparative retrospective case series, all patients who underwent TSA-to-reverse TSA revision between 2014 and 2022 were reviewed. Demographic varibles as well as clinical and radiographic outcomes were collected. Ingrowth central peg and noningrowth pegged glenoid groups were compared using t-test, Mann-Whitney U, Chi-Square, or Fisher's exact tests where indicated. Results: Overall, 49 patients were included: 27 underwent revision from noningrowth and 22 from central ingrowth components. Females more commonly had noningrowth components (74% vs. 45%, P = .04) and preoperative external rotation was higher in central ingrowth components (P = .02). Time to revision was significantly earlier in central ingrowth components (2.4 vs. 7.5 years, P = .01). Structural glenoid allografting was required more with noningrowth components (30% vs. 5%, P = .03) and time to revision in patients ultimately requiring allograft reconstruction was significantly later (9.96 vs. 3.68 years, P = .03). Conclusion: Central ingrowth pegs on glenoid components were associated with decreased need for structural allograft reconstruction during revision; however, time to revision was earlier in these components. Further research should focus on whether glenoid failure is due to glenoid component design, time to revision, or both.