Nonoperative Management of Isolated Thoracolumbar Flexion Distraction Injuries: A Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management is an appealing option for purely transosseous thoracolumbar flexion-distraction injuries given the prospects of osseous healing and restoration of the posterior tension band complex. This study seeks to examine differences in outcomes following flexion-distraction injuries after operative and nonoperative management. METHODS: This study reviews all patients at a single Level 1 trauma center from 2004 to 2022 with AO Spine B1 thoracolumbar injuries treated operatively vs nonoperatively. Inclusion criteria were age greater than 16 years, computed tomography-confirmed transosseous flexion-distraction injuries, and at least 3 months of follow-up with available imaging. The primary outcome assessed was a change in local Cobb angles, with secondary outcomes consisting of complications, time to return to work, and need for subsequent operative fixation. RESULTS: Initial Cobb angles in the operative (n = 14) vs nonoperative group (n = 13) were -5° and -13°, respectively (P = 0.225), indicating kyphotic alignment in both cohorts. We noted a significant difference in Cobb angles between cohorts at first follow-up (2.6° and -13.9°, P = 0.015) and within the operative cohort from presentation to first follow-up (P = 0.029). At the second follow-up, there was no significant difference in Cobb angles between cohorts (3.6° and -12.6°, P = 0.07). No significant differences were noted in complication rates (P = 1), time to return to work (P = 0.193), or resolution of subjective back pain (P = 0.193). No crossover was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Nonoperative management of minimally displaced transosseous flexion-distraction injuries is a safe alternative to surgery. Patient factors, such as compliance with follow-up, and location of the injury should be factored into the surgeon's management recommendation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Overall, no significant differences in outcomes and complications were noted following nonoperative management of AO Spine B1 injuries, indicating the potential for these injuries to be managed conservatively.

Operative room time comparison between general and spinal anesthesia in total hip arthroplasty: an institutional study.

PURPOSE: A relatively high expense with any procedure is total operative time; two components being the time spent anesthetizing the patient and time spent transferring the patient out of the operating room (OR). Both times can be affected by the anesthetic method used. This study compares different operative time intervals for both spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA), in patients undergoing a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), to identify the most appropriate and cost-effective anesthetic method. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution for primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed in the year 2019. Primary THAs without complications performed by three orthopedic surgeons were selected. Anesthesia records for 200 patients were used to compare perioperative time intervals; 100 consecutive patients that received SA and 100 consecutive patients that received GA. RESULTS: The time spent transferring the patient out of the operating room was 8 min for GA and 5 min for SA (p < 0.001). Total operative time for GA was 90 min and 87 min for SA (p = 0.3330). Total pre-operative time averaged 26 min in SA compared to 25 min in GA (p = 0.5874). Non-operative total time (all time components of patient interaction excluding surgery start to surgery finish) was significantly shorter in SA with an average of 52 compared to 56 in GA (p = 0.0151). CONCLUSION: Time to transfer patient out of the OR and total non-operative time was significantly shorter in patients who received spinal anesthesia. These results and the complications of both general and spinal anesthesia should be taken into consideration when anesthetizing patients undergoing primary THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Association of Mortality and Charlson Comorbidity Index in Surgical Spinal Trauma Patients at a Level I Academic Center.

OBJECTIVES: The Charlson Comorbidity Index score (CCI) records the presence of comorbidities with various weights for a total score to estimate mortality within 1 year of hospital admission. Our study sought to assess the association of CCI with mortality rates of patients undergoing surgical intervention. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with surgical spinal trauma at a large academic level I trauma tertiary center from 2015 to 2018. Information collected included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, body mass index, Charlson comorbidities, injury severity score, the presence of spinal cord injury, and mortality. Mortality was measured at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were completed. The results were significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The highest proportion of 1-year mortality was in the patients with cervical (11.3%) and thoracolumbar injuries (7.4%) (P = 0.002). Patients with low CCI had low 1-year mortality (1.7%). Patients with high CCI had high 1-year mortality (13.8%) (P < 0.001). A significant association existed between CCI and mortality at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year (P < 0.001). Mortality was higher in patients with spinal cord injury (14/108; 13%) than in those without (11/232; 5%) (P = 0.021). No association existed between ISS and mortality (P = 0.26). DISCUSSION: The CCI was associated with a higher proportion of deaths at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year. This association may help predict this unfortunate complication and guide the surgical team in formulating treatment plans and counseling patients and families regarding mortality associated with these injuries and the risks of surgical intervention.

COVID-19 and Acute Cervical Spinal Cord Injury-Case Report of 2 Patients: Do We Need to Rethink Our Standard Treatment Strategy?

STUDY DESIGN: This was a case series. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to examine the high-risk population of COVID-positive patients with acute cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) in a large level 1 trauma and tertiary referral center. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are limited studies regarding the surgical management of patients with acute SCI in the setting of the recent coronavirus pandemic. METHODS: The authors describe the cases of 2 patients who died from COVID-related complications after acute cervical SCI. RESULTS: Patients with SCI are at increased risk of pulmonary complications. COVID-19 infection represents a double hit in this patient population, increasing potential morbidity and mortality in the perioperative time frame. Careful consideration must be made regarding the timing of potential surgical intervention in the treatment of acute SCI. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide database of COVID-positive patients with acute spinal cord injury should be collected and analyzed to better understand how to manage acute SCI in the COVID-19 era. The authors recommend preoperative discussion in patients with acute cervical SCI with COVID-19, specifically emphasizing the increased risk of respiratory complications and mortality.

Current Strategies in Prevention of Postoperative Infections in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVES: Postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most common acute complications in spine surgery and have a devastating impact on outcomes. They can lead to increased morbidity and mortality as well as greater economic burden. Hence, preventive strategies to reduce the rate of SSIs after spine surgery have become vitally important. The purpose of this article was to summarize and critically analyze the available evidence related to current strategies in the prevention of SSIs after spine surgery. METHODS: A literature search utilizing Medline database was performed. Relevant studies from all the evidence levels have been included. Recommendations to decrease the risk of SSIs have been provided based on the results from studies with the highest level of evidence. RESULTS: SSI prevention occurs at each phase of care including the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. Meticulous patient selection, tight glycemic control in diabetics, smoking cessation, and screening/eradication of Staphylococcus aureus are some of the main preoperative patient-related preventive strategies. Currently used intraoperative measures include alcohol-based skin preparation, topical vancomycin powder, and betadine irrigation of the surgical site before closure. Postoperative infection prophylaxis can be performed by administration of silver-impregnated or vacuum dressings, extended intravenous antibiotics, and supplemental oxygen therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although preventive strategies are already in use alone or in combination, further high-level research is required to prove their efficacy in reducing the rate of SSIs in spine surgery before evidence-based standard infection prophylaxis guidelines can be built.