A novel intraoperative method to project osteotomy lines for accurate resection of primary bone sarcomas.

Background: Accurate reproduction of a preoperative plan is critical in wide resection of bone sarcomas. Recent advances in computer navigation and 3D-custom jigs have increased resection accuracy, although with certain practical drawbacks. Methods: We developed a novel "projector method" that projects the preoperative osteotomy lines onto the bone. A sawbone study was conducted to evaluate accuracy in reproducing preoperative resection plans. An additional cadaver experiment was conducted to evaluate feasibility in a more realistic operating room setting. Results: Based on the results of experiments conducted on sawbones, the proposed light projector method was more accurate at depicting desired osteotomy lines than a traditional manual method, reducing the corner deviation from 2.53 mm to 0.35 mm, angular deviation from 2.10° to 0.31°, and point deviation from 4.66 mm to 0.48 mm (p < 0.001). Results of the cadaver experiment were consistent with those of sawbone experiments. Conclusions: The new projector method can accurately assist surgeons in visualizing the preoperative plan of osteotomy lines accurately in surgery.

A novel method of light projection and modular jigs to improve accuracy in bone sarcoma resection.

We developed a novel method using a combined light-registration/light-projection system along with an off-the-shelf, instant-assembly modular jig construct that could help surgeons improve bone resection accuracy during sarcoma surgery without many of the associated drawbacks of 3D printed custom jigs or computer navigation. In the novel method, the surgeon uses a light projection system to precisely align the assembled modular jig construct on the bone. In a distal femur resection model, 36 sawbones were evenly divided into 3 groups: manual-resection (MR), conventional 3D-printed custom jig resection (3DCJ), and the novel projector/modular jig (PMJ) resection. In addition to sawbones, a single cadaver experiment was also conducted to confirm feasibility of the PMJ method in a realistic operative setting. The PMJ method improved resection accuracy when compared to MR and 3DCJ, respectively: 0.98 mm versus 7.48 mm (p < 0.001) and 3.72 mm (p < 0.001) in mean corner position error; 1.66 mm versus 9.70 mm (p < 0.001) and 4.32 mm (p = 0.060) in mean maximum deviation error; 0.79°-4.78° (p < 0.001) and 1.26° (p > 0.999) in mean depth angle error. The PMJ method reduced the mean front angle error from 1.72° to 1.07° (p = 0.507) when compared to MR but was slightly worse compared to 0.61° (p = 0.013) in 3DCJ. The PMJ method never showed an error greater than 3 mm, while the maximum error of other two control groups were almost 14 mm. Similar accuracy was found with the PMJ method on the cadaver. A novel method using a light projector with modular jigs can achieve high levels of bone resection accuracy, but without many of the associated drawbacks of 3D printed jigs or computer navigation technology.

Differences in Infection Rates by Surgical Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Patient Sex: A Systematic Review.

Background: There exists conflicting data that patient sex may influence complication and revision rates when undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), specifically when comparing different surgical approaches. Differences in body fat or muscular distribution are proposed mechanisms, but these are poorly understood and not well described in current literature. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception of the database through September 15, 2020. Studies were included if they included patients undergoing primary elective unilateral THA, delineated infections by surgical approach, and delineated infections by patient sex. Basic science, cadaveric, and animal studies were excluded as were case reports. Two authors screened abstracts and then extracted data from the full text article. Results: Three studies, including 1,694 patients undergoing 1,811 THA were included. 80 infections were included. No study reported a statistically significant difference in infection risk by patient sex or surgical approach, though there was substantial heterogeneity in study design, approach, and analysis. Conclusion: Limited data suggests no relationship between sexes across surgical approaches for infection rates. However, poor reporting and small sample sizes preclude definitive conclusions from being drawn. Future studies should emphasize reporting differences in outcomes by patient sex to better elucidate differences, if any, in adverse outcomes between sexes following THA across surgical approaches. Level of Evidence: IV.

Characterizing Hand Infections in an Underserved Population: The Role of Diabetic Status in Antibiotic Choice and Infection Location.

Introduction Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in underserved communities are at greater risk for hand infections. We aimed to describe the features of hand infections presenting to an urban hospital via laboratories, microbiology, and antibiotic choice with respect to diabetic status. Materials and Methods Patients presenting with any hand infection were reviewed and stratified by DM status and infection location. Labs, culture results, antibiotic regimens, and significant predictors of laboratories or infection location were analyzed. Results Fifty-three patients were included: DM ( n = 24), no-DM ( n = 24), and unknown status ( n = 5). Culture rates were comparable between all groups. Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was significantly higher in DM (76.19 vs. 51.33); mean white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were comparable. Diabetics had higher odds of increased ESR (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03). Diabetics received vancomycin/piperacillin/tazobactam (VAN/PTZ) significantly more often (52% vs. 8%). Providers treated DM with VAN/PTZ or any VAN-containing regimen more often than with any other regimen. Proximal infections had significantly higher mean CRP (136.9 vs. 50.5) and WBC (5.19 vs. 3.9) and higher CRP (OR = 1.02). Conclusion This study highlights the need for systematic criteria to better risk- stratify patients for appropriate antibiotic treatment. It may not be appropriate to treat both groups differently, as overly aggressive antibiotic selection may contribute to drug-resistance development.