Decreased Posterior Tibial Slope and Its Association With Pediatric Posterior Cruciate Ligament Injury.

BACKGROUND: Recent adult studies have demonstrated that decreased posterior tibial slope angle (PTSA) may be a risk factor for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury. However, there is no study investigating this phenomenon in a pediatric population. Understanding risk factors for PCL injuries among a pediatric population is important given the recent rise in athletic competition/specialization and sports-related injuries. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare PTSA between pediatric patients sustaining a primary PCL tear compared with age- and sex-matched controls. It was hypothesized that pediatric patients sustaining a PCL tear would have a decreased PTSA compared with controls, with decreased PTSA being associated with higher odds of PCL injury. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The records of all patients sustaining a PCL injury between 2006 and 2021 at a level 1 pediatric trauma center were reviewed. Patients aged ≤18 years with magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed PCL tear were included. Excluded were patients with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament tears, previous PCL reconstruction, or previous coronal plane realignment. A control cohort, with their ligament shown as intact on magnetic resonance imaging scans, was matched based on age and sex. PTSA was measured on lateral radiographs of the injured knee or tibia. The mean PTSA was compared between cohorts, and odds ratios were calculated based on the normal slope range (7°-10°) described in the literature, an upper range (>10°), and a lower range (<7°). Inter- and intrarater reliability were determined via calculation of an intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of the 98 patients who sustained a PCL injury in this study period, 59 (60%) met inclusion criteria, and 59 healthy knee controls were matched. There were no differences between the cohorts for age (P = .90), sex (P > .99), or body mass index (P = .74). The PCL cohort had a lower mean ± SD PTSA compared with the control group (5.9°± 2.7° vs 7.3°± 4.3°; P = .03). PTSA <7° was associated with a 2.8 (95% CI, 1.3-6.0; P = .01) times risk of PCL tear. Conversely, PTSA >10° was associated with a 0.27 (95% CI, 0.09-0.81; P = .02) times risk of PCL tear. These PTSA measurements demonstrated acceptable intrarater and interrater reliability. CONCLUSION: PTSA <7° was associated with an increased odds of PCL injury, whereas a slope >10° was associated with a decreased odds of PCL injury in a pediatric population. These findings corroborate similar outcomes in adult studies; however, further studies are needed to elucidate PTSA as a risk factor for PCL injury.

Change in Posterior Tibial Slope Angle After Displaced Pediatric Tibial Tubercle Fracture: A Model for Growth Modulation in the ACL-Deficient Knee.

Background: Increased posterior tibial slope angle (PTSA) has been shown to be an important risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. PTSA modulation is not utilized routinely to reduce risk of primary rupture or graft failure. Displaced tibial tubercle (TT) fractures in the skeletally immature are associated with potential growth arrest and may be used as a model to study PTSA changes in this setting. Purpose/Hypothesis: To quantify the change in PTSA (ΔPTSA) after operative treatment of displaced TT fractures in skeletally immature patients. It was hypothesized that there would be a progressive decrease in PTSA after TT injury and that rate of ΔPTSA would be highest during peak growth velocity. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Included were 22 patients (n = 23 knees; mean chronological and bone age at injury, 14 years; 86% male) who underwent surgery for displaced TT fracture. PTSA was measured on lateral radiographs at time of surgery and subsequent follow-up, and bone age at the time of injury was determined using radiographic standards. The rate of ΔPTSA for individual patient, total cohort, and sex-based subgroup trends were determined via linear regression (degrees per month; positive value indicates relatively anterior). Individual patient regression coefficients were averaged into bone age cohorts. Results: Average follow-up was 17 months (range, 6-52 months). The mean PTSA was -12°± 2.4° at the time of injury, and the mean ΔPTSA for the cohort was 0.30°± 0.31° per month (range, -0.27° to 0.97° per month). Linear regression demonstrated a significant relationship between months postfixation and PTSA, demonstrating a ΔPTSA of 0.31° per month (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24° to 0.38°; P < .001). The highest ΔPTSA was seen at bone age 14 years (mean, 0.58°± 0.44° per month). The mean absolute change in PTSA from injury to final follow-up was 4.1° (range, -3.4° to 21°). Conclusion: Our data suggested that PTSA becomes more anterior after operatively treated pediatric TT fractures and that ΔPTSA may be influenced by bone age. This concept may be useful in considering surgical modulation of excessive PTSA in the pediatric ACL-deficient knee.

Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Adolescent Patients May Result in Acceptable Graft Failure Rate in Nonpivoting Sports Athletes.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that pediatric patients have an increased risk of failure with allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR); however, there is no study investigating whether allograft ACLR may be safe in older adolescent patients who are not returning to competitive pivoting sports (ie, low risk). The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes for low-risk older adolescents selected for allograft ACLR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients younger than 18 years who received a bone-patellar-tendon-bone allograft or autograft ACLR by a single orthopaedic surgeon from 2012 to 2020. Patients were offered allograft ACLR if they did not intend to return to pivoting sports for 1 year. The autograft cohort was matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and follow-up. Patients were excluded for skeletal immaturity, multiligamentous injury, prior ipsilateral ACLR, or concomitant realignment procedure. Patients were contacted to obtain patient-reported outcomes at ≥2 years follow-up, including single assessment numerical evaluation, surgery satisfaction, pain scores, Tegner Activity Scale, and the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 68 allografts, 40 (59%) met inclusion and 28 (70%) were contacted. Among the 456 autografts, 40 (8.7%) were matched and 26 (65%) were contacted. Two allograft patients (2/40; 5%) failed at a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 36 (12, 60) months. There were 0/40 failures in the autograft cohort and 13/456 (2.9%) among the overall autografts; neither were significantly different from the allograft failure rate (both P > 0.05). Two (5.0%) patients in the autograft cohort required manipulation under anesthesia and arthroscopic lysis of adhesions. There were no significant differences between cohorts for single assessment numerical evaluation, Lysholm, Tegner, pain, and satisfaction scores (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although ACL allograft failure rates remain nearly two times higher than autograft failure rates in older adolescents, our study suggests that careful patient selection can potentially bring this failure rate down to an acceptable level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; retrospective matched cohort study.

Trends in LDL-C following coronary angiography involving assessment by fractional flow reserve in obstructive vs non-obstructive coronary artery disease.

Background: We sought to determine whether management of LDL-C following invasive angiography and assessment by fractional flow reserve (FFR) differs between those with obstructive vs non-obstructive CAD. Methods: Retrospective study of 721 patients undergoing coronary angiography involving assessment by FFR between 2013 and 2020 at a single academic center. Groups with obstructive vs non-obstructive CAD by index angiographic and FFR findings were compared over 1 year of follow-up. Results: Based on index angiographic and FFR findings, 421 (58%) patients had obstructive CAD vs 300 (42%) with non-obstructive CAD, mean (±SD) age 66±11 years, 217 (30%) women, and 594 (82%) white. There was no difference in baseline LDL-C. At 3-months follow-up, LDL-C was lower than baseline in both groups, with no between group difference. In contrast, at 6-months, median (Q1, Q3) LDL-C was significantly higher in non-obstructive vs obstructive CAD (LDL-C 73 (60, 93) vs 63 (48, 77) mg/dL, respectively (p = 0.003), (p = 0.001 in multivariable linear regression)). At 12-months, LDL-C remained higher in non-obstructive vs obstructive CAD (LDL-C 73 (49, 86) vs 64 (48, 79) mg/dL, respectively, although not statistically significant (p = 0.104)). The rate of high-intensity statin use was lower among those with non-obstructive CAD vs obstructive CAD at all time points (p < 0.05). Conclusions: After coronary angiography involving FFR, there is intensification of LDL-C lowering at 3-months follow-up in both obstructive and non-obstructive CAD. However, by 6-months follow-up LDL-C is significantly higher among those with non-obstructive CAD vs obstructive CAD. Following coronary angiography involving FFR, patients with non-obstructive CAD may benefit from greater attention to LDL-C lowering to reduce residual ASCVD risk.

TransCarotid Artery Revascularization Can Be Safely Performed in Patients Undergoing Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has been effectively performed to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis (CS). Prior studies established that TCAR can be safely performed in high-risk patients such as octogenarians, patients with prior carotid endarterectomy (CEA), contralateral occlusion, and heavily calcified lesions. Hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of exhibiting cardiovascular complications. This study aims to investigate how dialysis may affect TCAR outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) dataset was queried for patients undergoing TCAR from November 2016 to November 2021. Patients were divided into dialysis and nondialysis groups. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of in-hospital stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, prolonged length of stay (more than 1 day) (PLOS), MI, and stroke or death. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess in-hospital outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival and log-rank test were used to assess 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 22,619 patients underwent TCAR during the study period. Of these, 327 patients were undergoing dialysis. On univariable analysis, dialysis patients were associated with a higher risk of mortality compared to nondialysis patients (1.2% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.030). However, after adjusting for potential confounders, this difference did not persist (odd ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] (0.8-4.9), P = 0.136). Dialysis patients were more likely to experience PLOS (OR: 1.6, 95% CI (1.2-2), P < 0.001). There was no difference between dialysis and nondialysis patients in the risk of stroke or death, stroke, stroke or TIA, MI, and stroke or death, or MI on univariable and multivariable analyses. At 1 year, the overall survival for dialysis versus nondialysis patients was 81.5% vs. 95.5%, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to date of dialysis patients who have undergone TCAR. We have shown that there was no difference in the risk of stroke, death, and MI between dialysis and nondialysis patients. Therefore, TCAR can be safely offered to patients undergoing dialysis. Future studies with larger number of patients are warranted to confirm these results.

Stethoscope hygiene: A legal consideration for cardiologists practicing in a new era of infection control (COVID-19).

The stethoscope is a tool cherished by the field of cardiology and ubiquitous throughout medicine. However, little consideration has been given to its safe usage regarding its potential for pathogenic contamination despite thorough evidence that stethoscopes can harbor pathogens that can be transmitted to patients upon contact. The COVID-19 (SARS-COV-2) pandemic has led to increased infection control vigilance, including toward the stethoscope, as evidenced by a recent increase in literature highlighting stethoscope hygiene/contamination. A consequence of this increase in awareness is that stethoscopes may be implicated in medical malpractice lawsuits as a potential cause of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). While there is limited evidence demonstrating a direct connection between stethoscope contamination and HAIs, malpractice lawsuits often do not require direct causative evidence. Regardless, efforts should be made to bolster stethoscope hygiene to not only mitigate patient harm, but also prevent providers from potential medical-legal conflicts. The continued relevance and utility of the stethoscope as a rapid, cost-effective diagnostic tool needs to be appropriately balanced with increased hygiene performance. Providers should anticipate increased scientific evidence and patient awareness regarding stethoscope contamination in the post-COVID-19 era.

Stethoscope hygiene: A call to action. Recommendations to update the CDC guidelines.

Healthcare-acquired infections are a tremendous challenge to the US medical system. Stethoscopes touch many patients, but current guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not support disinfection between each patient. Stethoscopes are rarely disinfected between patients by healthcare providers. When cultured, even after disinfection, stethoscopes have high rates of pathogen contamination, identical to that of unwashed hands. The consequence of these practices may bode poorly in the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Alternatively, the CDC recommends the use of disposable stethoscopes. However, these instruments have poor acoustic properties, and misdiagnoses have been documented. They may also serve as pathogen vectors among staff sharing them. Disposable aseptic stethoscope diaphragm barriers can provide increased safety without sacrificing stethoscope function. We recommend that the CDC consider the research regarding stethoscope hygiene and effective solutions to contemporize this guidance and elevate stethoscope hygiene to that of the hands, by requiring stethoscope disinfection or change of disposable barrier between every patient encounter.

Aseptic Stethoscope Barriers Prevent C difficile Transmission In Vitro.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile-contaminated stethoscope diaphragms remained aseptic by the placement of an aseptic diaphragm barrier. METHODS: On November 1, 2019, fresh cultures of C difficile were diluted to 107 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL and used to inoculate 16 stethoscope diaphragms; 8 had an aseptic diaphragm barrier applied and 8 served as nonbarrier controls. Contaminated stethoscopes were anaerobically incubated, then swabbed at 15 and 30 minutes, 2 and 4 hours, and 1, 2, 3, and 7 days after inoculation and subsequently plated onto blood, chocolate, and cycloserine-cefoxitin fructose agar. Plates were incubated for 48 hours and on November 9, 2019, the resulting colonies were manually counted. Statistical analyses (RStudio, version 1.0.153) used analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference. RESULTS: Overall, mean colony count was 33 CFU on stethoscopes without barriers vs zero on those with barriers (P≤.05). Growth was greatest at 48 hours, with colony counts as high as 160 CFU. The presence of the barrier resulted in no growth in 100% of stethoscope diaphragms for up to 1 week. CONCLUSION: We found that stethoscope diaphragm barriers provide an aseptic patient contact point, thus reducing the potential for transmission of C difficile during the physical examination. In critical care environments, in which many hospitals use acoustically inferior disposable stethoscopes, the option of a disposable aseptic stethoscope barrier may allow high-quality auscultation while reducing the potential for pathogen transmission.

Persistent Value of the Stethoscope in the Age of COVID-19.

The stethoscope has long been at the center of patient care, as well as a symbol of the physician-patient relationship. While advancements in other diagnostic modalities have allowed for more efficient and accurate diagnosis, the stethoscope has evolved in parallel to address the needs of the modern era of medicine. These advancements include sound visualization, ambient noise reduction/cancellation, Bluetooth (Bluetooth SIG Inc, Kirkland, Wash) transmission, and computer algorithm diagnostic support. However, despite these advancements, the ever-changing climate of infection prevention, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, has led many to question the stethoscope as a vector for infectious diseases. Stethoscopes have been reported to harbor bacteria with contamination levels comparable with a physician's hand. Although disinfection is recommended, stethoscope hygiene compliance remains low. In addition, disinfectants may not be completely effective in eliminating microorganisms. Despite these risks, the growing technological integration with the stethoscope continues to make it a highly valuable tool. Rather than casting our valuable tool and symbol of medicine aside, we must create and implement an effective method of stethoscope hygiene to keep patients safe.

Observation of stethoscope sanitation practices in an emergency department setting.

BACKGROUND: Stethoscopes harbor pathogens that can be transferred to patients when proper sanitary measures are not taken. Our aim was to assess medical provider stethoscope cleaning and hand hygiene in an emergency department setting. METHODS: The frequency and methods of stethoscope cleaning during and after provider-patient encounters were observed anonymously in an emergency department of the VA San Diego Healthcare System. RESULTS: Among the total of 426 encounters, 115 (26.9%) involved the use of a personal stethoscope. In 15 of these 115 encounters (13.0%), the provider placed a glove over the stethoscope before patient contact. In 13 of these 115 encounters (11.3%), the provider cleaned the stethoscope with an alcohol swab after patient interaction. Stethoscope hygiene with water and a hand towel before patient interaction was observed in 5 of these 115 encounters (4.3%). Hand sanitizer use or handwashing was observed in 213 of the 426 encounters (50.0%) before patient interaction. Gloves were used before patient interaction in 206 of these 426 encounters (48.4%). Hand sanitizer or handwashing was used in 332 of the 426 encounters (77.9%) after patient interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of stethoscope and hand hygiene performance were lower than expected. Further investigation of stethoscope contamination and the associated risk of nosocomial infection are needed. Perhaps clearer guidelines on proper stethoscope cleaning would reduce this risk.