Effect of revision sacroiliac joint fusion on unresolved pain and disability: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The sacroiliac (SI) joint is recognized as a source of low back pain in 15-30% of patients. Though randomized controlled trials have shown clinical improvement following SI joint fusion in 83.1% of patients, revision rates of 2.9% within 2 years have been reported. There is a paucity of literature reviewing this small yet significant population of patients requiring revision surgery. METHODS: Following IRB approval, retrospective review of patients, who underwent a revision SI joint fusion from 2009 to 2021 was completed. Patient-reported outcomes were measured before and at each clinic visit after surgery with visual analoge scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient characteristics (chronic opiate use and prior lumbar fusion) and surgical factors (operative approach, type/number of implants and use of bone graft) were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with Paired t and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression determined if patients met the minimally clinical important differences (MCID) for VAS-back pain and ODI scores at 1 year. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients (77% female) with an average age of 49.1 (SD ± 11.1) years met inclusion criteria. Forty-four had single sided revisions and eight bilateral revisions. At 1 year follow-up there was no significant improvement in VAS-Back (p = 0.06) or ODI (p = 0.06). Patients with chronic opioid use were 8.5 times less likely to achieve the MDC for ODI scores (OR 0.118, p = 0.029). There was no difference in outcomes when comparing the different surgical approaches (p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates patients undergoing revision surgery have moderate improvement in low back pain, however, few have complete resolution of their symptoms. Specific patient factors, such as chronic opiate use and female sex may decrease the expected improvement in patient-reported outcomes following surgery. Failure to obtain relief may be due to incorrect indications, lack of biologic fusion and/or presence of co-pathologies. Further clinical examination and consistent long-term follow-up, clarify the role revision surgery plays in long-term patient outcomes.

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose: The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement. Methods: Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers. Results: During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome. Conclusions: Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

Reamed compared with unreamed nailing of tibial shaft fractures: Does the initial method of nail insertion influence outcome in patients requiring reoperations?

BACKGROUND: Patients with a tibial shaft fracture experiencing their first postoperative complication following treatment with intramedullary nails may be at greater risk of subsequent complications than the whole population. We aimed to determine whether the initial method of nail insertion influences outcome in patients with a tibial shaft fracture requiring multiple reoperations. METHODS: Using the Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Tibial Shaft Fractures trial data, we categorized patients as those not requiring reoperation, those requiring a single reoperation and those requiring multiple reoperations, and we compared them by nail insertion technique (reamed v. unreamed) and fracture type (open v. closed). We then determined the number of patients whose first reoperation was in response to infection, and we compared other clinical outcomes between the reamed and unreamed groups. RESULTS: Among 1226 patients included in this analysis, 175 (14.27%) experienced a single reoperation and 44 patients (3.59%) underwent multiple reoperations. Nail insertion techniques (reamed v. unreamed) did not play a role in the need to perform multiple reoperations. Seventy-five percent of patients requiring multiple reoperations had open tibial shaft fractures. An equal number of these were reamed and unreamed insertions. The majority of patients had their course complicated by infection and almost 50% of patients whose first reoperation was for infection required more than 2 reoperations for management. The rest required multiple procedures for nonunion or bone loss. CONCLUSION: Our findings corroborate those of other studies, in which open fracture type rather than nail insertion technique was found to be the cause of morbidity following intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, no. NCT00038129.

Development of machine-learning algorithms for 90-day and one-year mortality prediction in the elderly with femoral neck fractures based on the HEALTH and FAITH trials.

To develop prediction models using machine-learning (ML) algorithms for 90-day and one-year mortality prediction in femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients aged 50 years or older based on the Hip fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) and Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trials. This study included 2,388 patients from the HEALTH and FAITH trials, with 90-day and one-year mortality proportions of 3.0% (71/2,388) and 6.4% (153/2,388), respectively. The mean age was 75.9 years (SD 10.8) and 65.9% of patients (1,574/2,388) were female. The algorithms included patient and injury characteristics. Six algorithms were developed, internally validated and evaluated across discrimination (c-statistic; discriminative ability between those with risk of mortality and those without), calibration (observed outcome compared to the predicted probability), and the Brier score (composite of discrimination and calibration). The developed algorithms distinguished between patients at high and low risk for 90-day and one-year mortality. The penalized logistic regression algorithm had the best performance metrics for both 90-day (c-statistic 0.80, calibration slope 0.95, calibration intercept -0.06, and Brier score 0.039) and one-year (c-statistic 0.76, calibration slope 0.86, calibration intercept -0.20, and Brier score 0.074) mortality prediction in the hold-out set. Using high-quality data, the ML-based prediction models accurately predicted 90-day and one-year mortality in patients aged 50 years or older with a FNF. The final models must be externally validated to assess generalizability to other populations, and prospectively evaluated in the process of shared decision-making.

Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted percutaneous fixation versus open reduction internal fixation of lateral tibial plateau fractures.

PURPOSE: Treatment for tibial plateau fractures continues to evolve but maintains primary objectives of anatomic reduction of the joint line and a rapid recovery course. Arthroscopic-assisted percutaneous fixation (AAPF) has been introduced as an alternative to traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). The purpose of the study is to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with low-energy Schatzker type I-III tibial plateau fractures treated with AAPF versus ORIF. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed at a level 1 trauma centre to compare outcomes of 120 patients (57 AAPF, 63 ORIF) with low-energy lateral Schatzker type I-III tibial plateau fractures who underwent tibial plateau fixation between 2009 and 2018. Demographic information, injury characteristics, and surgical treatment were recorded. The main outcome measurements included reduction step-off, joint space narrowing, time to weight bearing, and implant removal. RESULTS: There was no difference in age, gender distribution, BMI, ASA, Schatzker classification distribution, initial displacement, blood loss, and reduction step-off between the two groups (p > 0.05). Shorter tourniquet time (74.1 ± 21.7 vs 100.0 ± 21.0 min; p < 0.001), shorter time to full weight bearing (47.8 ± 15.2 vs. 69.1 ± 17.2 days; p < 0.001), and lower rate of joint space narrowing (3.5% vs. 28.6% with more than 1 mm, p < 0.001) were associated with the AAPF cohort, with no difference in pain, knee range of motion, or implant removal rate between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: AAPF may be a viable alternative to ORIF for the management of low-energy tibial plateau fractures with outcomes not inferior compared to the traditional ORIF method.