Infection after the use of INFIX in Pelvic Ring Injuries.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to report on infection with anterior subcutaneous internal pelvic fixation (INFIX) for pelvic ring injuries and the outcomes of treatment. METHODS: An IRB-approved retrospective study was performed using trauma databases of a level one and level two trauma center from 2012-2018. Infection after the INFIX procedure was diagnosed in 10 of 179 cases. Treatment included formal irrigation and debridement, removal of the hardware, and culture-specific antibiotics. Patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months. Recorded outcomes include X-rays, Majeed scores, and the presence of any loss of reduction using reduction parameters. RESULTS: Time to detect the infection was 54.2 ± 24.3 days (range 24-90, median 56 days). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacteria isolated. The average follow-up was 830 ± 170 days (range 575-1088 days). All patients went on to the radiographic union. There were no recurrent infections or osteomyelitis at the latest follow-up. Patients maintained their reduction after INFIX removal (KI), and Majeed scores ranged from 72 to 96 (seven good, three excellent). DISCUSSION: Infections after using the INFIX procedure were dealt with by irrigating and debriding the wounds, removing the INFIX with culture-specific antibiotics for 2-6 weeks. Implants were maintained for at least 25 days, and there was no loss of reduction. There were no long-term sequelae noted in this small series or the literature review included in this paper.

Aseptic Revision and Reoperation Risks After Meniscectomy at the Time of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: An intact meniscus is considered a secondary stabilizer of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While loss of the meniscus can increase forces on the anterior cruciate ligament graft after reconstruction, it is unclear whether this increased loading affects the success of the graft after ACLR. PURPOSE: To identify the risk of subsequent knee surgery when meniscectomy, either partial or total, is performed at the time of index ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Registry. Patients were identified who had a primary ACLR performed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2016, with up to 12 years of follow-up. The study sample comprised patients with ACLR who had a lateral meniscectomy (n = 2581), medial meniscectomy (n = 1802), or lateral and medial meniscectomies (n = 666). For each meniscectomy subgroup, patients with ACLR alone were matched to patients with a meniscectomy on a number of patient and procedure characteristics. After the application of matching, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, while competing risks regression was used to evaluate the risk of cause-specific ipsilateral reoperation between meniscectomy and ACLR alone. Analysis was performed for each meniscectomy subgroup. RESULTS: After the application of matching, we failed to observe a difference in aseptic revision risk for patients with ACLR and a meniscectomy-lateral (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02), medial (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.70-1.29), or both (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-2.04)-as compared with ACLR alone. When compared with patients who had ACLR alone, patients with a lateral meniscectomy had a higher risk for subsequent lateral meniscectomy (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.18-3.02; P = .008), and those with a medial meniscectomy had a lower risk for manipulation under anesthesia (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .041). CONCLUSION: No difference in aseptic revision risk was observed for patients undergoing primary ACLR between groups with and without meniscectomy at the time of index surgery. Partial lateral meniscectomy at the time of index ACLR did associate with a higher risk of subsequent lateral meniscectomy.

Professional Formation of Physicians Focused on Improving Care: How Do We Get There?

As the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and National Academy of Medicine (NAM) increase emphasis on quality improvement (QI), continuing medical education must also adapt to meet these increasing demands. In fellowship programs and for attending physicians, QI initiatives exist but are more rare compared with initiatives during residency programs, and they are even more rare for orthopedic surgery residents, fellows, and attending physicians. A QI curriculum should be in place at all stages of continuing medical education, as they help meet the criteria of the ACGME and NAM and promote better clinical practice and minimize errors.