Malpractice Litigation Involving Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between chiropractic spinal manipulation and medical malpractice using a legal database. METHODS: The legal database VerdictSearch was queried using the terms "chiropractor" OR "spinal manipulation" under the classification of "Medical Malpractice" between 1988 and 2018. Cases with chiropractors as defendants were identified. Relevant medicolegal characteristics were obtained, including legal outcome (plaintiff/defense verdict, settlement), payment amount, nature of plaintiff claim, and type and location of alleged injury. RESULTS: Forty-eight cases involving chiropractic management in the United States were reported. Of these, 93.8% (n = 45) featured allegations involving spinal manipulation. The defense (practitioner) was victorious in 70.8% (n = 34) of cases, with a plaintiff (patient) victory in 20.8% (n = 10) (mean payment $658,487 ± $697,045) and settlement in 8.3% (n = 4) (mean payment $596,667 ± $402,534). Overaggressive manipulation was the most frequent allegation (33.3%; 16 cases). A majority of cases alleged neurological injury of the spine as the reason for litigation (66.7%, 32 cases) with 87.5% (28/32) requiring surgery. C5-C6 disc herniation was the most frequently alleged injury (32.4%, 11/34, 83.3% requiring surgery) followed by C6-C7 herniation (26.5%, 9/34, 88.9% requiring surgery). Claims also alleged 7 cases of stroke (14.6%) and 2 rib fractures (4.2%) from manipulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Litigation claims following chiropractic care predominately alleged neurological injury with consequent surgical management. Plaintiffs primarily alleged overaggressive treatment, though a majority of trials ended in defensive verdicts. Ongoing analysis of malpractice provides a unique lens through which to view this complicated topic.

Risk of Postoperative Complications and Revision Surgery Following Robot-assisted Posterior Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Study. OBJECTIVE: This investigation examined matched cohorts of lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) patients undergoing robot-assisted and conventional LSF to compare risk of revision, 30-day readmission, 30-day complications, and postoperative opioid utilization. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient outcomes and complication rates associated with robot-assisted LSF compared to conventional fusion techniques are incompletely understood. METHODS: The PearlDiver Research Program (www.pearldiverinc.com) was used to identify patients undergoing primary LSF between 2011 and 2017. Patients receiving robot-assisted or conventional LSF were matched using key demographic and comorbidity variables. Indication for revision was also studied. Risk of revision, 30-day readmission, 30-day complications, and postoperative opioid utilization at 1 and 6 months was compared between the cohorts using multivariable logistic regression additionally controlling for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: The percent of LSFs that were robot-assisted rose by 169% from 2011 to 2017, increasing linearly each year (p = 0.0007). Matching resulted in 2528 patients in each cohort for analysis. Robot-assisted LSF patients experienced higher risk of revision (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.35, P ≤ 0.0001), 30-day readmission (aOR = 1.39, P = 0.0002), and total 30-day complications (aOR = 1.50, P < 0.0001), specifically respiratory (aOR = 1.56, P = 0.0006), surgical site infection (aOR = 1.56, P = 0.0061), and implant-related complications (aOR = 1.74, P = 0.0038). The risk of revision due to infection after robot-assisted LSF was an estimated 4.5-fold higher (aOR = 4.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95-12.04, P = 0.0011). Furthermore, robot-assisted LSF had increased risk of revision due to instrument failure (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.58, P = 0.0300), and pseudarthrosis (aOR = 2.24, 95%CI = 1.32-3.95, P = 0.0037). A higher percentage of revisions were due to infection in robot-assisted LSF (19.0%) than in conventional LSF (9.2%) (P = 0.0408). CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted posterior LSF is independently associated with increased risk of revision surgery, infection, instrumentation complications, and postoperative opioid utilization compared to conventional fusion techniques. Further research is needed to investigate long-term postoperative outcomes following robot-assisted LSF. Spine surgeons should be cautious when considering immediate adoption of this emerging surgical technology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Surgical Treatment of Patients With Dual Hip and Spinal Degenerative Disease: Effect of Surgical Sequence of Spinal Fusion and Total Hip Arthroplasty on Postoperative Complications.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To determine how lumbar spinal fusion-total hip arthroplasty (LSF-THA) operative sequence would affect THA outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outcomes following THA in patients with a history of lumbar spinal degenerative disease and fusion are incompletely understood. METHODS: The PearlDiver Research Program (http://www.pearldiverinc.com) was used to identify patients undergoing primary THA. Patients were divided into four cohorts: 1) Primary THA without spine pathology, 2) remote LSF prior to hip pathology and THA, and patients with concurrent hip and spinal pathology that had 3) THA following LSF, and 4) THA prior to LSF. Postoperative complications and opioid use were assessed with multivariable logistic regression to determine the effect of spinal degenerative disease and operative sequence. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2017, 85,595 patients underwent primary THA, of whom 93.6% had THA without lumbar spine degenerative disease, 0.7% had a history of remote LSF, and those with concurrent hip and spine pathology, 1.6% had THA prior to LSF, and 2.4% had THA following LSF. Patients with hip and lumbar spine pathology who underwent THA prior to LSF had significantly higher rates of dislocation (aOR = 2.46, P < 0.0001), infection (aOR = 2.65, P < 0.0001), revision surgery (aOR = 1.91, P < 0.0001), and postoperative opioid use at 1 month (aOR: 1.63, P < 0.001), 3 months (aOR = 1.80, P < 0.001), 6 months (aOR: 2.69, P < 0.001), and 12 months (aOR = 3.28, P < 0.001) compared with those treated with THA following LSF. CONCLUSION: Patients with degenerative hip and lumbar spine pathology who undergo THA prior to LSF have a significantly increased risk of postoperative dislocation, infection, revision surgery, and prolonged opioid use compared with THA after LSF. Surgeons should consider the surgical sequence of THA and LSF on outcomes for patients with this dual pathology. Shared decision making between patients, spine surgeons, and arthroplasty surgeons is necessary to optimize outcomes in patients with concomitant hip and spine pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Spine Surgery Outcomes in Workers' Compensation Patients.

Occupational spine injuries place a substantial burden on employees, employers, and the workers' compensation system. Both temporary and permanent spinal conditions contribute substantially to disability and lost wages. Numerous investigations have revealed that workers' compensation status is a negative risk factor for outcomes after spine injuries and spine surgery. However, positive patient outcomes and return to work are possible in spine-related workers' compensation cases with proper patient selection, appropriate surgical indications, and realistic postoperative expectations. Quality improvement measures aimed at optimizing outcomes and minimizing permanent disability are crucial to mitigating the burden of disability claims.

Traumatic cervical epidural hematoma due to fusion mass fracture following elective rod removal.

Many studies have examined complications associated with spinal instrumentation, however, few have analyzed complications associated with removal. In this case report, we outline the course of a patient who presented with cervical epidural hematoma secondary to fusion mass fracture five years after removal of spinal hardware.

An Anatomic Evaluation of Arthroscopic Access to the Radial Head.

PURPOSE: To determine the area of the radial head accessible for visualization and screw placement from the standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals used in elbow arthroscopy. METHODS: Five cadaveric elbows were arthroscopically evaluated using standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals. Markers (pins) were placed into the accessible portions of the radial head at maximal pronation and supination. Specimens were then evaluated by computed tomography, and the arc of the radial head accessible from each portal was determined. RESULTS: A continuous 220.04° ± 37.58° arc of the radial head was accessible from the combination of the anterolateral and anteromedial portals. From the anteromedial portal, the arc obtained measured 147.96° ± 21.81°, and from the anterolateral portal, the arc obtained measured 156.02° ± 33.32°. Using the radial styloid as a marker for 0°, the mean total arc ranged from 92.3° ± 34.06° dorsal to 127.74° ± 23.65° volar relative to the radial styloid. CONCLUSIONS: Standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals used for elbow arthroscopy allow access to an average 220° area of the radial head. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study defines the area of the radial head that can be contacted using commonly used, safe, and simple portals.

Higher complications and no improvement in mortality in the ACGME resident duty-hour restriction era: an analysis of more than 107,000 neurosurgical trauma patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident duty-hour restrictions were implemented in July 2003 based on the supposition that resident fatigue contributes to medical errors. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of duty-hour restrictions on outcome in neurotrauma patients. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was analyzed for a time period with no restrictions (years 1999-2002) compared with a period with restrictions (years 2005-2008) for (1) mortality and (2) complications. We analyzed both teaching and nonteaching hospitals to account for potential differences attributed to non-resident-related factors. RESULTS: There were 107,006 teaching hospital and 115,604 nonteaching hospital admissions for neurotrauma. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated significantly more complications in the time period with restrictions in teaching hospitals. In nonteaching hospitals, there was no difference in complications. In both teaching and nonteaching hospitals, there was no difference in mortality between the 2 time periods. For teaching and nonteaching hospitals, there was no difference in hospital length of stay, but hospital charges were significantly higher in the period with restrictions. The occurrence of a complication was significantly associated with longer hospital length of stay and higher hospital charges in both time periods in both teaching and nonteaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident duty-hour restrictions was associated with increased complications and no change in mortality for neurotrauma patients in teaching hospitals. In nonteaching hospitals, there was no change in complications and mortality. The occurrence of a complication was associated with longer length of stay and higher hospital charges in both time periods in both teaching and nonteaching hospitals.

Incidence of ventricular shunt placement for hydrocephalus with clipping versus coiling for ruptured and unruptured cerebral aneurysms in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database: 2002 to 2007.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the incidence of ventricular shunt placement for hydrocephalus after clipping versus coiling of cerebral aneurysms. OBJECTIVE: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to compare, on a national level, the incidence of ventricular shunt placement after clipping versus coiling of ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. METHODS: Hospitalizations for clipping and coiling of ruptured and unruptured aneurysms from 2002 to 2007 were collected from the NIS by cross-matching International Classification of Diseases-9 codes for diagnoses of subarachnoid hemorrhage or unruptured cerebral aneurysm with procedure codes for clipping or coiling. The incidence of ventricular shunt placement for hydrocephalus after clipping and coiling was compared using generalized linear models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for patient- and hospital-specific factors and correlation between admissions. RESULTS: Of 10,899 ruptured aneurysm patients (6593 clipping, 4306 coiling), clipping had a similar incidence of ventricular shunt placement (9.3%) compared to coiling (10.5%) (odds ratio = 0.984; 95% confidence interval = 0.85, -1.14; P value = 0.833 after adjustment for patient-specific and hospital-specific factors). Likewise, of 9686 unruptured aneurysm patients (4483 clipping, 5203 coiling), clipping had similar incidence of ventricular shunt placement (0.4%) compared to coiling (0.5%) (odds ratio = 0.763; 95% confidence interval = 0.37, -1.58; P value = 0.465 after adjustment for patient-specific and hospital-specific factors). Predictors of shunt placement in ruptured aneurysm patients were age, comorbidity score, admission type, payer, and hospital aneurysm volume. Predictors of shunt placement in unruptured aneurysm patients were comorbidity score and admission type. CONCLUSIONS: In an observational study, clipping and coiling of ruptured and unruptured cerebral aneurysms are associated with similar incidences of ventricular shunt placement for hydrocephalus.