Generic versus disease-specific adverse event reporting: a comparison of the NSQIP and SAVES databases for the identification of acute care adverse events in adult spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The accurate identification and reporting of adverse events (AEs) is crucial for quality improvement. A myriad of AE systems are utilized. There is a lack of understanding of the differences between prospective versus retrospective, disease-specific versus generic, and point-of-care versus chart-abstracted systems. The objective of this study was to compare the benefits and limitations between the prospective, disease-specific, point-of-care Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and the retrospective, generic, and chart-abstracted National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) for the identification and reporting of AEs in adult patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHODS: The authors conducted an observational ambidirectional cohort study of adult patients undergoing spine surgery other than for trauma between 2011 and 2019 in a quaternary spine center. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes in the NSQIP database and matched using unique medical record numbers to their corresponding record in SAVES. The incidence of AEs and per-patient AEs as recorded in NSQIP and SAVES was the primary outcome of interest. Comparable AEs were identified by matching NSQIP AEs to equivalent ones in SAVES. Chi-square tests were used to test for significant differences in the incidence of overall and comparable AEs between the databases. RESULTS: There were 2198 patients identified in NSQIP, of whom 2033 also had complete records in SAVES. SAVES identified 5342 individual AEs in 1484 patients (73%) compared with 1291 individual AEs in 807 patients (39.7%) with the NSQIP database (p < 0.001). SAVES identified 250 intraoperative and 422 postoperative spine-specific AEs that NSQIP did not record. NSQIP captured a greater number of AEs beyond 30 days, including prolonged length of stay > 30 days, unplanned readmission, unplanned reoperation, and death later than 30 days after surgery compared with SAVES. CONCLUSIONS: SAVES captures a greater incidence of peri- and intraoperative spine-specific AEs than NSQIP, while NSQIP identifies a greater number of AEs beyond 30 days. While a prospective, disease-specific, point-of-care AE system such as SAVES is specific for guiding quality improvement in spine surgery, it incurs greater time and financial costs. Conversely, a retrospective, generic, and chart-abstracted system such as NSQIP provides equivocal cross-institutional comparability with reduced time and financial costs. Specific contextual and aim-specific needs should guide the choice and implementation of an AE system.

A Size-Based Criteria for Flap Reconstruction After Thigh-Adductor, Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Resection.

BACKGROUND: Resection of soft-tissue sarcomas from the adductor compartment is associated with significant complications. Free/pedicled flaps often are used for wound closure, but their effect on healing is unclear. We compared wound complications, oncologic, and functional outcomes for patients undergoing flap reconstruction or primary closure following resection of adductor sarcomas. METHODS: A total of 177 patients underwent resection of an adductor sarcoma with primary closure (PrC) or free/pedicled flap reconstruction (FR). Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared, as well as wound complications, oncologic, and functional outcomes (TESS/MSTS87/MSTS93). To examine the relative benefit of flap reconstruction, number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 143 patients underwent PrC and 34 had FR, 68% of which were pedicled. There were few differences in demographic, tumor, or treatment characteristics. No significant difference was found in the rate of wound complications. Length of stay was significantly longer in FR (18 days vs. PrC 8 days; p < 0.01). Oncologic and functional outcomes were similar over 5 years follow-up. Uncomplicated wound healing occurred more often in FR compared with PrC for tumors with ≥15 cm (NNT = 8.4) or volumes ≥ 800 ml (NNT = 8.4). Tumors ≤ 336 ml do not benefit from a flap, whereas those > 600 ml are 1.5 times more likely to heal uneventfully after flap closure. CONCLUSIONS: Although flap use prolonged hospitalization, it decreased wound healing complications for larger tumors, and in all sized tumors, it demonstrated similar functional and oncologic outcomes to primary closure. Our size-based treatment criteria can help to identify patients with large adductor sarcomas who could benefit from flap reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: (Retrospective cohort study).

Histopathology of long head of biceps tendon removed during tenodesis demonstrates degenerative histopathology and not inflammatory changes.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to describe and quantitatively analyze the histopathology of proximal long head biceps (LHB) tendinopathy in patients who have undergone LHB tenodesis. The hypothesis is that severe histopathologic changes of the LHB tendon (LHBT) will most likely be reflected with improved postoperative clinical outcomes. METHODS: The study included patients with isolated LHB tendinopathy or LHB tendinopathy associated with concomitant shoulder pathologies. All had failed conservative treatment (12 months) and had a positive pain response (> 50% reduction) pre-operatively after LHB tendon injection with local anesthetic. All underwent biceps tenodesis procedure between 2008 and 2014. Tendon specimens were collected and histologically analyzed with the semi-quantitative Bonar scoring system. Minimum follow-up time was 1 year. A subset of patients was retrospectively reviewed postoperatively and evaluated employing visual analogue score (VAS), short form survey (SF-12), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score, Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and postoperative return to work status. RESULTS: Forty-five biceps tendon specimens were obtained from 44 patients (mean age 50 ± 9.6 years). Histopathological analyses demonstrated advanced degenerative changes with myxoid degeneration and marked collagen disorganization. Minimal inflammation was identified. There were no regional differences in histopathological changes. Clinical outcomes did not correlate significantly with severity of histopathologic changes. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that LHBT specimens in patients undergoing tenodesis demonstrate with the use of the Bonar score histopathologic changes of chronic degeneration and not inflammation. The correct histopathologic terminology for this process is LHB tendinosis. The histopathological changes appear uniform throughout the entire length of the LHBT which may inform the nature of the procedure performed.

Synovial sarcoma of the elbow presenting with painful stiffness: a case report.

Elbow stiffness is a challenging problem for the upper extremity surgeon to treat. It can significantly impact the patient's function in activities of daily living. While the most common etiologies are post-traumatic or secondary to arthritis, a large variety of etiologies should be considered with atypical presentations. It is important that the upper-extremity surgeon have a systematic approach to the diagnosis and management of elbow contracture in order to ensure malignant processes are considered. We present an unusual case of a young patient with atraumatic, non-arthritic elbow stiffness whose underlying diagnosis was a synovial sarcoma, as well as a review of the literature and differential for elbow stiffness. Level of evidence: IV.