Initial learning curve after switching to uniportal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniations.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate the learning curve for elective endoscopic discectomy performed by a single surgeon who made a complete switch to uniportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniations in an ambulatory surgery center and determine the minimum case number required to safely overcome the initial learning curve. METHODS: Electronic medical records (EMR) of the first 90 patients receiving endoscopic discectomy by the senior author in an ambulatory surgery center were reviewed. Cases were divided by approach, transforaminal (46) versus interlaminar (44). Patient-reported outcome measures (visual-analog-score (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI)) were recorded preoperatively and at 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month appointments. Operative times, complications, time to discharge from PACU, postoperative narcotic use, return to work, and reoperations were compiled. RESULTS: Median operative time decreased approximately 50% for the first 50 patients then plateaued for both approaches (mean: 65 min). No difference in reoperation rate observed during the learning curve. Mean time to reoperation was 10 weeks, with 7(7.8%) reoperations. The interlaminar and transforaminal median operative times were 52 versus 73 min, respectively (p = 0.03). Median time to discharge from PACU was 80 min for interlaminar approaches and 60 min for transforaminal (p < 0.001). Mean VAS and ODI scores 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively were statistically and clinically improved from preoperatively. The duration of postoperative narcotic use and narcotics need significantly decreased during the learning curve as the senior author realized that narcotics were not needed. No differences were apparent between groups in other metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic discectomy was shown to be safe and effective for symptomatic disc herniations in an ambulatory setting. Median operative time decreases by half over the first 50 patients in our learning curve, while reoperation rates remained similar without the need for hospital transfer or conversion to an open procedure in an ambulatory setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective cohort.

Correlates of Refusal of Surgery in the Treatment of Non-metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the most important therapeutic intervention for eligible patients with pancreatic cancer; however, a majority of patients never receive surgery for a variety of reasons, including patient refusal. Utilizing the National Cancer Database, we investigated the associated sociodemographic and clinical factors for those patients who refused surgery, and the impact of this decision on overall survival (OS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed adult patients with non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas diagnosed from 2004 to 2013. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to identify factors predictive of refusing surgery, and Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis was performed to investigate the effect on OS. RESULTS: A total of 48,902 patients were identified: 47,107 received surgery (96.3%) and 1795 were offered surgery but refused (3.7%). Factors associated with refusing surgery include both sociodemographic factors [age > 50 years, female sex, Black race, non-private insurance, treatment at a non-academic institution or non-metro facility, Carlson Comorbidity Index of 2 + (p ≤ 0.01)], and clinical factors [advanced clinical T (tumor) category and tumor size > 20 cm (p ≤ 0.01)]. Patients who refused surgery and received no treatment at all experienced a median survival of 5.1 months, while those who refused surgery but received chemoradiotherapy experienced a median survival of 11.2 months. As an index for comparison, those who received surgery had a median survival of 20.5 months. CONCLUSION: Refusing surgery is an understudied phenomenon associated with several sociodemographic and clinical factors. The expected prognosis for patients who refuse surgery is presented.

Troubleshooting Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Performing a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary nodal staging in patients with invasive breast cancer and clinically negative nodes. The procedure provides valuable staging information with few complications when performed by experienced surgeons. However, variation in proficiency exists for this procedure, and a great amount of experience is required to master the technique, especially when faced with challenging cases. The purpose of this paper was to provide a troubleshooting guide for commonly encountered technical difficulties in SLNB, and offer potential solutions so that surgeons can improve their own technical performance from the collective knowledge of experienced specialists in the field. METHODS: Information was obtained from a convenience sample of six experienced breast cancer specialists, each actively involved in training surgeons and residents/fellows in SLNB. Each surgeon responded to a structured interview in order to provide salient points of the SLNB procedure. RESULTS: Four of the key opinion surgical specialists provided their perspective using technetium-99 m sulfur colloid, and two shared their experience using blue dye only. Distinct categories of commonly encountered problem scenarios were presented and agreed upon by the panel of surgeons. The responses to each of these scenarios were collected and organized into a troubleshooting guide. DISCUSSION: We present a compilation of 'tips' organized as a troubleshooting guide to be used to guide surgeons of varying levels of experience when encountering technical difficulties with SLNB.

Quantifying value loss due to presenteeism and absenteeism in workers' compensation spinal patients.

Background: Recent studies suggest that better outcomes in work productivity following spine surgery eventually offset the higher cost of treatment. By analyzing preoperative and postoperative changes in work productivity, studies can determine if surgery is cost-effective and give patients valuable information about treatment. Prior studies reviewing outcomes in work performance after spine surgery have largely excluded patients on workers' compensation from the overall cost analysis. Methods: A retrospective review of 92 eligible patients was conducted. Evaluation of the EHR identified presenteeism and absenteeism from designated work restrictions. Statistical analyses were conducted using JMP Pro 17. Results: About 84 (83%) spinal surgery cases were able to return to work, 60 (59%) were able to return to work with no restrictions, 26 (26%) received permanent work restrictions, and 12 (12%) were still undergoing treatment. 86 (85%) experienced presenteeism and 99 (98%) experienced absenteeism. Of the cases that were able to return to work without permanent work restrictions, the mean presenteeism length postoperatively was 287.4 days (median 191 days) and the mean absenteeism length postoperatively was 232.5 days (median 142 days). 72 patients were identified as having sedentary or nonsedentary labor. After excluding outliers, the average return-to-work length was 988.62 days for patients with sedentary employment types and 952.15 days for patients with nonsedentary employment types (p=.116). Conclusion: Following spinal surgery, our worker's compensation patient population's return-to-work rate was at an average of 232.5 days (median of 142 days) for 83% of patients included in this study. This exhibited worse outcomes than a previous study's measurement excluding worker's compensation patients. Presenteeism length within our population contributed more to decreased work productivity postoperatively than absenteeism length. Our results found no significant difference in return-to-work length between patients with sedentary and nonsedentary employment types.

Evaluation of Pain Catastrophizing Scale for surgical referral to pain psychology in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Background: Chronic pain is an issue that affects over 100 million Americans daily. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) has been found to be beneficial for patients with chronic pain by focusing provider efforts on teaching coping mechanisms for pain instead of eliminating the pain entirely. Current studies demonstrate that ACT significantly improves post-operative chronic pain scores and outcomes. Methods: The 200 patients chosen via random generator were collected and presented to (institution) orthopedic spine surgeons along with additional information such as the patients' history of present illness, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, PROMIS-CAT Pain Interference scores, and status of opiate usage. Surgeons were blinded to the PCS cutoff scores. The (institution) orthopedic spine surgeons then identified which patients they would indicate for ACT and their reasoning. Pre-determined PCS score cut-offs were separately used to determine if a patient was indicated for ACT. Results: The effectiveness of this screening tool was based on the frequency at which the surgeons and PCS scores were complimentary. A department epidemiologist assisted in the analysis of the data with the use of a ROC curve. ROC Curve demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.7784 with a Sensitivity of 0.68 and a Specificity of 0.79. The cut point according to Youden's index is 35. The data showed that the PCS is moderately accurate in its ability to distinguish coinciding patients that the [institution] orthopedic spine surgeons referred for ACT. The adjusted cut-point indicates that patients above a PCS of 35 would be referred to ACT by the orthopedic spine surgeons while those below a PCS score of 35 would not be referred. Conclusions: Using the PCS, a referral with the department pain psychologist would occur by [institution] orthopedic spinal surgeons for patients that are deemed at-risk with a score of at least 35. The goal following this study is to perform future investigations regarding PCS and ACT with patients regarding chronic opioid use and postoperative outcomes. Patients who would be referred for help with chronic pain would be compared to PCS-referred patients and non-referred patients. Pre-operative ACT would be compared to patient outcomes post-operatively. The future aim is to use the cut-offs established in this study for experimental design to evaluate if PCS-referred patients have better pain management post-operatively as compared to the control and previously referred patients. Level of Evidence: Level III diagnostic study.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Gender-Specific Influences of Orthopedic Subspecialty Selection.

Background: Per the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 6.5% of practicing orthopedic surgeons are female and a majority subspecialize in pediatrics, hand, and foot and ankle surgery. The study purpose is to evaluate influences of orthopedic subspecialty selection, specifically factors such as perceived strength, lifestyle, and mentorship influence on subspecialty decisions and to identify if gender plays a role in these perceptions. Methods: An IRB approved cross-sectional study was conducted via email distribution of a REDCapTM survey to U.S. licensed orthopedic surgeons. Data regarding demographics, professional degree, training and current practice location, and perceptions regarding orthopedic surgery was obtained using Likert rating scales. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics with two-tailed student's t-tests (α=0.05). Results: The survey yielded 282 responses (182 females and 100 males). Overall, the distribution of residents (28%), fellows (6%), and attendings (66%) correlates well with the prevalence of each respective physician category in the field of orthopedic surgery. The study demonstrated no difference in subspecialty choice based on mentorship, work-life-balance, career advancement, subspecialty culture, salary potential, family planning, or schedule. However, a statistically significant difference exists regarding stereotypes, perceived strength required, and perception of discrimination from pursuing a specific orthopedic subspecialty. 27% of females and 10% of males reported discouragement from any subspecialty (p<0.05). Adult reconstructive and oncology were most frequently discouraged. Women reported not choosing a subspecialty because of perceived physical demands more often than men (p<0.001). Women reported an increased use of adaptive strategies in the operating room (p<0.001). Women were also more likely to report feeling discouraged from pursuing a subspecialty due to their gender (p<0.001). Both men and women reported mentorship as the most influential factor in subspecialty selection. Conclusion: Women and men reported different factors were important in their decision of subspecialty. Women were more likely to be discouraged from a subspecialty and experience discrimination based on their perceived strength compared to male peers. Residents, fellows, and attending surgeons valued mentorship as the most influential in their subspeciality choice. This study suggests intrinsic and extrinsic influences that may differentially affect male and female orthopedic surgeons when they choose a subspecialty. Level of Evidence: III.

A phase II trial of gemcitabine and erlotinib followed by ChemoProton therapy plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in pancreatic cancer. EGFR expression plays a potentially important role in modulation of tumor sensitivity to either chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Erlotinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with specificity for EGFR/HER1. A phase II trial was conducted to explore the efficacy of a regimen utilizing erlotinib and proton therapy. Methods: Patients with unresectable or borderline resectable non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were included. Patients received 8-week systemic treatment with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and erlotinib 100 mg (GE). If there was no evidence of metastatic disease after GE, then patients preceded with proton therapy to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent capecitabine 825 mg/m2 (CPT). This was followed with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 (CapOx) for 4 cycles. The primary study objective was 1-year overall survival (OS). The benchmark was 43% 1-year survival as demonstrated in RTOG/NRG 98-12. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year OS and the median OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: The study enrolled 9 patients ages 47-81 years old (median 62) between January 2013 and March 2016, when the trial was closed due to low patient accrual. The 1-year OS rate was 55.6% (95% CI: 31% to 99%). The median OS was 14.1 months (95% CI: 11.4-NE) and the median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 7.44-NE). A majority of patients completed CPT and GE, but only 33.3% completed the four cycles of CapOx. A third of patients experienced grade 3 toxicities, which were all hepatic along with one patient who also had grade 3 diarrhea. There were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Four patients were enrolled with borderline resectable disease, three of which were eligible for pancreaticoduodenectomy after GE and CPT treatment. One of two patients who underwent resection had a negative margin. Conclusions: This regimen for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) exceeded the pre-specified benchmark and was safe and well tolerated. Additional investigations utilizing more current systemic treatment regimens with proton therapy are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCTNCT01683422).

Factors associated with the refusal of surgery and the associated impact on survival in patients with rectal cancer using the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is an integral component of the curative-intent treatment for most patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. However, some patients refuse surgery for a number of reasons. Utilizing the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we investigated the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with patients who were coded as having been offered but refused surgery, and the factors affecting overall survival (OS) in these patients. METHODS: Adult patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum (excluding T1N0M0 and M1 disease) diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 were analyzed in this retrospective cohort study. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with refusal of surgery. OS of patients refusing surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimate, log-rank test, propensity score matching, and proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 55,704 patients were identified: 54,266 received definitive surgery (97.4%) and 1,438 refused (2.6%). Of patients refusing surgery, 135 (9.4%) were stage I, 709 (49.3%) were stage II, and 594 (41.3%) were stage III. Patients were more likely to refuse surgery as the study period progressed (P<0.01). Factors associated with refusal of surgery on multivariate analysis include: age ≥70 years, Black race, non-private insurance, and tumor size greater than 2 cm (all values P≤0.01). The 5-year OS was 61.6% for the surgery cohort and 35.7% for the refusal cohort. In the propensity matched groups, median survival was 84.2 months in patients who received definitive surgery compared to 43.7 months in patients who refused surgery. As an index for comparison, patients who refused surgery but received both radiotherapy and chemotherapy had a median survival of 48.5 months. Among patients that refused surgery, those that received radiotherapy alone, chemotherapy alone, or radiotherapy and chemotherapy (compared to no treatment) experienced a survival benefit (all values P≤0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum reported in the NCDB, age, race, and insurance status were associated with refusal of surgery. Refusal of surgery was more common in the later years of the study. Survival is poor in patients who refused surgical resection.

Proton stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver metastases-results of 5-year experience for 81 hepatic lesions.

BACKGROUND: To report on our institutional experience using Proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with liver metastases. METHODS: All patients with liver metastases treated with Proton SBRT between September 2012 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method calculated from the time of completion of Proton SBRT. LC was defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines (version 1.1). Toxicity was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. RESULTS: Forty-six patients with 81 lesions were treated with Proton SBRT. The median age was 65.5 years old (range, 33-86 years) and the median follow up was 15 months (range, 1-54 months). The median size of the gross tumor volume (GTV) was 2.5 cm (range, 0.7-8.9 cm). Two or more lesions were treated in 56.5% of patients, with one patient receiving treatment to a total of five lesions. There were 37 lesions treated with a biologically effective dose (BED) ≤60, 9 lesions with a BED of 61-80, 22 lesions with a BED of 81-100, and 13 lesions with a BED >100. The 1-year and 2-year LC for all lesions was 92.5% (95% CI, 82.7% to 96.8%). The grade 1 and grade 2 toxicity rates were 37% and 6.5%, respectively. There were no grade 3 or higher toxicities and no cases of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD). CONCLUSIONS: Proton SBRT for the treatment of liver metastases has promising LC rates with the ability to safely treat multiple liver metastases. Accrual continues for our phase II trial treating liver metastases with Proton SBRT to 60 GyE (Gray equivalent) in 3 fractions.