ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The pelvis is one of the most common locations for metastatic bone disease. While many of the publications that describe surgical treatments focus on periacetabular lesions (Enneking zone II), there is a lack of investigation into lesions in the non-periacetabular areas (zones I, III, and IV). We recently described a minimally invasive percutaneous screw application for metastatic zone-II lesions with excellent results. In the present study, we aimed to extend this approach to the other pelvic areas. METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive patients with painful non-periacetabular pelvic metastatic cancer were included based on retrospective chart review. There were 16 women and 6 men with an average age of 60 years (range, 36 to 81 years). The most common primary cancers were multiple myeloma (7 cases) and breast (5 cases). The most common locations were the sacrum and the ilium. A pathologic fracture was identified in 15 patients. Most of the lesions were treated with multiple large-diameter screws, except for the isolated zone-III lesions. All of the procedures were completed in a standard operating room without the need for special instruments. Radiation therapy was given to 19 patients; the average dose was 15 Gy. The studied outcomes were pain and functionality as assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS) score and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score (ECOG), respectively. RESULTS: There were no surgical complications and no need for blood transfusion. The average follow-up time was 7 months (range, 0.3 to 34.0 months). Two patients died within 4 weeks of surgery due to COVID-19 infection. There was significant improvement in the postoperative VAS pain score (p < 0.0001) and the ECOG score (p < 0.05) when compared with the preoperative scores. There was no implant failure or revision surgery. Local bone-healing was observed in 12 of 14 patients (86%) who survived for >3 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous screw application is safe and effective in the treatment of metastatic non-periacetabular pelvic lesions. Given the simplicity of the technique and the instrumentation and the tolerance for concomitant treatments, this approach is worthy of broader consideration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
ABSTRACT
Category: Other;Ankle Introduction/Purpose: On March 1, 2020, the first case of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in New York City (NYC) was confirmed. By March 16, the NYC mayor and New York State Governor issued executive orders to postpone elective surgeries. At our tertiary care academic medical care center in the Bronx, the densely populated community of 1.4 million saw many COVID-19 positive cases. In response, the hospital quickly accommodated these patients, while maintaining outpatient orthopedic care. Consequently, only emergent orthopedic cases were granted permission to rapidly proceed to surgery. Most foot and ankle cases were deemed amenable to non-surgical or delayed surgical care. The purpose of this study is to characterize a series of patients with foot and ankle pathology whose orthopedic care was altered due to the pandemic. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review from February 2020-May 2020 encompassing the time that elective surgery was on hold and one month prior, to capture those patients were scheduled for surgery prior to the pandemic. Included were patients with foot and ankle pathology that required urgent orthopedic care, who were seen in the foot and ankle clinic, fracture clinic, and subsequently in the general orthopedic clinic that was instituted on an emergent bases. Excluded were patients who required intervention to address elective foot and ankle issues such as osteoarthritis, or ankle instability, and those were referred to an outside institution for further treatment. Throughout the pandemic, contact was made with patients either directly in clinic, via a telehealth portal or telephone. Descriptive statistics are taken. Results: Of the 17 patients included in this series, 11 (65%) patients were managed non operatively. Of these, 4 chose nonoperative management due to shared decision making between the patient and surgeon. 2 patients could not have surgery due to complications related to COVID-19. As the zenith of the pandemic passed 2 patients remained fearful of infection and therefore chose non operative management. 3 patients that had been in contact with the orthopedic department refused further imaging. 6 patients were managed operatively. 2 patients had surgery during the peak of the pandemic, both of whom tested positive for COVID and who failed conservative management. 4 patients had delayed surgery. Of these four cases, 3 were malunion corrections that would have benefitted from more prompt surgery. Conclusion: There was an overall decrease in foot & ankle cases. Non- emergent foot and ankle surgery was delayed to divert resources to patients who were stricken with the COVID-19 virus. While every attempt was made to provide the appropriate care for all, a personalized approach to foot and ankle health was developed to address health concerns, preferences, and logistics. As the course of this global pandemic is still uncertain, it is imperative to have a strategy in place to deal with urgent cases, should a second wave of cases once again affect our ability to provide routine care.