Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Megaprosthetic Reconstructions: Drug and Dosing May Matter More than Duration.

In orthopedic oncology, the implant of a megaprosthetic device is standard of care after large-scale tumor resection involving segmental removal of bone. Infection remains the leading cause of implant failure, often resulting in major morbidity. Perioperative antibiotic practices for megaprosthetic reconstructions are not standardized and are based on guidelines for conventional joint arthroplasties. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of current prophylactic strategies for megaprosthetic reconstructions. We conducted a retrospective review of megaprosthetic reconstructions performed at Duke University from 2001 to 2021. Logistic regression with GEE was used to assess whether a prolonged course of postoperative antibiotics is associated with infection risk. We assessed the microbial profile and corresponding susceptibilities of megaprosthetic infections through record review. Additionally, we designed a pharmacokinetic subgroup analysis using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to quantify antibiotic concentrations in surgical tissue. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to correlate tissue concentrations with infection risk. Out of 184 cases, 23 (12.5%) developed infection within 1 year. Extended postoperative antibiotics were not significantly associated with infection risk (P = 0.23). Among 18 culture-positive cases, 4 (22.2%) were caused by cefazolin-susceptible organisms. Median bone and muscle concentrations of cefazolin among cases that developed postoperative infection (0.065 ng/mL and 0.2 ng/mL, respectively) were significantly lower than those of cases that did not (0.42 ng/mL and 1.95 ng/mL, P < 0.01 and P = 0.03). This study is the first to comprehensively assess aspects of perioperative prophylaxis for megaprosthetic reconstructions. Extending postoperative antibiotics did not reduce infection risk. We detected a high frequency of cefazolin nonsusceptible organisms among postoperative infections. Additionally, intraoperative antibiotic tissue concentrations may be predictive of later infection. Future studies ought to examine optimal drug choices and dosing strategies.

Comparing Surgical Treatments for Spondylolysis: Review on Current Research.

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVE: To compare the various surgical methods of repairing spondylolysis defects in regard to improving pain, restoration of function, radiographic improvement, and complication rate. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spondylolysis is a defect in the pars interarticularis of the vertebral arch, typically in the lumbar vertebra. Treatment can be nonoperative and/or surgical. There are various types of surgical repair including spinal compression, fusion, and direct pars repair. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the English literature was performed utilizing Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria included papers or abstracts that evaluated the surgical techniques. Exclusion criteria included non-English-language papers or abstracts with inadequate information about outcomes. RESULTS: Postoperative pain levels and patient function were consistently improved, regardless of surgical technique chosen. Positive clinical outcomes after surgery were seen more often in patients under age 20 and those who underwent minimally invasive repairs. Positive radiographic improvements were reported broadly, although some reported higher rates of nonunion with spinal compression. Complication rates were low throughout and minimally invasive techniques reported decreased blood loss and shorter hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS: Present surgical options appear largely comparable in terms of their ability to provide meaningful treatment for spondylolysis where conservative treatments have failed or otherwise remain unattempted.

Systematic Review of Outcomes Following 10-Year Mark of Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for all English language studies of all levels of evidence pertaining to Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT), in accordance with Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We aim to summarize the 10-year clinical outcomes of SPORT and its numerous follow-up studies for degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The SPORT was a landmark randomized control trial including approximately 2500 patients at 13 clinics across the country. SPORT compared surgical and nonoperative management of the three most common spinal pathologies. METHODS: Keywords used in the literature search included SPORT, spine patient outcomes research trial, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis failed to show a significant difference between patients treated surgically as compared to those treated nonoperatively. However, as-treated analysis revealed statically greater improvements at 6 weeks, 2 years, and 4 years in patients treated surgically. Secondary outcomes such as low back pain, leg pain, stenosis bothersome scales, overall satisfaction with current symptoms, and self-rated progress were also significantly improved in surgical patients. Regardless of the initial grade of listhesis, disk height, or mobility, patients who had surgical treatment improved more in terms of Oswestry Disability Index, bodily pain, physical function, and low back pain bothersomeness scales. Risk of reoperation increased with age, having two or three moderate or severe stenotic levels, pain predominantly localized to the back, no physical therapy, the absence of neurogenic claudication, and greater leg pain scores. Risk of reoperation was not significantly affected by type of surgery performed, smoking, diabetes, obesity, longer duration of symptoms, or workman's compensation. CONCLUSION: Although intent-to-treat analysis failed to show significant differences in patients treated surgically, results of the as-treated analysis determined statically greater improvements in those patients with spondylolisthesis who were treated surgically as compared to those treated nonoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Systematic Review of Outcomes Following 10-Year Mark of Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial for Intervertebral Disc Herniation.

MINI: We summarized the 10-year outcomes of Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial for intervertebral disc herniation through a systematic review. The observational cohort 2-year analysis and the as-treated analysis of the randomized control trial at 4 and 8 years showed statistically greater improvements in those patients who were treated surgically. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for English-language studies of all levels of evidence pertaining to SPORT, in accordance with Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We aim to summarize the 10-year clinical outcomes of SPORT and its numerous follow-up studies for intervertebral disc herniation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) was a landmark study. SPORT compared surgical and nonoperative management of the three most common spinal pathologies. METHODS: Keywords utilized included: SPORT, spine patient outcomes research trial, disc herniation, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: The observational cohort analysis revealed statically greater improvement in primary outcomes at 3 months and 2 years in patients who had surgery, while analysis of the randomized control trial cohort failed to show a significant difference based on the intent-to-treat principle due to significant patient crossover. However, 4 year and 8 year as-treated analysis showed statistically greater improvements in those patients who were treated surgically. SPORT's subgroup analysis evaluated important factors when considering the treatment of IDH, including patient characteristics, level of herniation, duration of symptoms, recurrence of pain, presence of retrolistheiss, patient functional status, effects of previous treatment with epidural steroid injections and opioid medication, outcomes after incidental durotomy, MRI reader reliability, reoperation rates, and risk factors for reoperation. The clinical impact of SPORT was also investigated and included comparison of SPORT patients to NSQIP patients to determine generalizability, outcome differences in SPORT's surgical center sites, patient preferences, patient expectations, level of education, and effects of watching an evidence-based video. CONCLUSION: Ten years after its inception, SPORT has made strides in standardization and optimization of treatment for spinal pathologies. SPORT has provided clinicians with insight about outcomes of surgical and nonoperative treatment of IDH. Results showed significantly greater improvements in patients treated surgically. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for English-language studies of all levels of evidence pertaining to SPORT, in accordance with Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We aim to summarize the 10-year clinical outcomes of SPORT and its numerous follow-up studies for intervertebral disc herniation. The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) was a landmark study. SPORT compared surgical and nonoperative management of the three most common spinal pathologies. Keywords utilized included: SPORT, spine patient outcomes research trial, disc herniation, and surgical outcomes. The observational cohort analysis revealed statically greater improvement in primary outcomes at 3 months and 2 years in patients who had surgery, while analysis of the randomized control trial cohort failed to show a significant difference based on the intent-to-treat principle due to significant patient crossover. However, 4 year and 8 year as-treated analysis showed statistically greater improvements in those patients who were treated surgically. SPORT's subgroup analysis evaluated important factors when considering the treatment of IDH, including patient characteristics, level of herniation, duration of symptoms, recurrence of pain, presence of retrolistheiss, patient functional status, effects of previous treatment with epidural steroid injections and opioid medication, outcomes after incidental durotomy, MRI reader reliability, reoperation rates, and risk factors for reoperation. The clinical impact of SPORT was also investigated and included comparison of SPORT patients to NSQIP patients to determine generalizability, outcome differences in SPORT's surgical center sites, patient preferences, patient expectations, level of education, and effects of watching an evidence-based video. Ten years after its inception, SPORT has made strides in standardization and optimization of treatment for spinal pathologies. SPORT has provided clinicians with insight about outcomes of surgical and nonoperative treatment of IDH. Results showed significantly greater improvements in patients treated surgically. Level of Evidence: 3.

Systematic Review of Outcomes Following 10-year Mark of Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) for Spinal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for all English-language studies of all levels of evidence pertaining to SPORT, in accordance with Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analayses (PRISMA) guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We aim to summarize the 10-year clinical outcomes of SPORT and its numerous follow-up studies for spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) was a landmark randomized control trial including approximately 2,500 patients at 13 clinics across the country. SPORT compared surgical and nonoperative management of the three most common spinal pathologies. METHODS: Keywords utilized in the literature search included: SPORT, spine patient outcomes research trial, spinal stenosis, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Surgical intervention showed significantly greater improvement in pain and physical function scales from 6 weeks through 4 years. However, between 4 and 8 years, the difference between the two groups diminished, and the benefits in both groups stabilized. Secondary factors investigated showed that smoking was a confounding variable for treatment benefits and a positive sedimentation sign correlated with a greater surgical treatment effect. Obese patients were found to have higher rates of infection and reoperation and less improvement from baseline function. Risk factors for reoperation included duration of pretreatment symptoms for longer than 12 months, increased age, multiple levels of stenosis, predominant back pain, no physical therapy, greater leg pain, the use of antidepressants and no neurogenic claudication upon enrollment. CONCLUSION: Ten years after its inception, SPORT has made strides in standardization and optimization of treatment for spinal pathologies. SPORT has provided clinicians with insight about outcomes of surgical and nonoperative treatment of spinal stenosis. Results showed significantly greater improvement through 4 year follow up in those patients that received surgical treatment, however the difference between the surgical and nonsurgical groups diminished at 8 year follow up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

LigaSure Use Decreases Intraoperative Blood Loss Volume and Blood Transfusion Volume in Sarcoma Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The LigaSure system has been successfully used in thoracic and abdominal surgery. However, to date, its use in the resection of sarcomas has not been systematically studied. We aimed to determine whether the use of the LigaSure system reduces blood loss and blood transfusion volumes in sarcoma surgery. METHODS: One hundred forty-two consecutive patients who underwent sarcoma surgeries between July 2010 and October 2016 were included. Conventional electrocautery alone (n = 91) and with LigaSure (n = 51) were compared. Case-matched samples (n = 46) from each group were additionally compared. RESULTS: The use of the LigaSure system resulted in a significant decrease in mean intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.02) and blood transfusion volume (P = 0.04). Likewise, a significant decrease in both mean and median intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.003; P < 0.0001) was seen with LigaSure in the case-matched analysis. In the soft-tissue sarcoma subgroup, a significant decrease was observed in mean hemoglobin reduction (P = 0.03) and mean intraoperative blood loss with LigaSure (P = 0.04). No adverse perioperative complications attributed to the LigaSure system were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The LigaSure vessel sealing and dividing system is a safe and effective hemostatic tool for deep dissection in bone and soft-tissue sarcoma surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.