Long-term Results of Spine Stapling for AIS to Skeletal Maturity and Beyond.

BACKGROUND: We looked at long-term follow-up of spine stapling with Nitinol Staples. This was a cohort of all adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients with curves at high risk to progress based on curve magnitude, premenarchal status in all females, failure of brace treatment, and skeletal immaturity. METHODS: This is a single surgeon retrospective review of consecutive AIS patients treated with Nitinol staples for progressive scoliosis. Fourteen patients, 16 curves from 2005 to 2008 were eligible. Minimum curve for stapling was 30 degrees. Standard preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. All patients were followed for a minimum of 36 months and to skeletal maturity. Three groups were: improved (group 1), correction of any amount; minimal progression (group 2), progression ≤10 degrees; and failure (group 3), ≥10 degrees of progression. RESULTS: A total of 13 thoracic curves and 2 compensatory lumbar curves met the inclusion criteria (94%). Average follow-up was 61 months. The mean preoperative main thoracic curve was 35 degrees. All but 1 patients progressed at least 9 degrees in a brace prior to stapling. Females were all premenarchal, 10 patients were Risser 0 and 3 Risser 1. The average number of vertebrae stapled per curve was 6. Group 1 included 6 curves (40%). Group 2, 5 curves (33%). Group 3, 4 curves (27%). Three patients went on to uncomplicated fusion. Final curve measurement at the end of follow-up or before fusion (P=0.0037), curve progression (P≤0.001), and percentage of coronal correction on first postoperative standing radiograph (P=0.042) were the significant differences between groups 1+2 (successful) versus group 3 (failures). In total, 73% of this group either progressed ≤10 degrees or improved. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that follows AIS patients treated with spine stapling to skeletal maturity. Staples likely changed natural history in some of our patients. Initial percentage of correction on first standing postoperative PA x-rays was the only predictor of success. Stapling was safe without any long-term complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective study.

Does Spanning a Lateral Lumbar Interbody Cage Across the Vertebral Ring Apophysis Increase Loads Required for Failure and Mitigate Endplate Violation.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized Biomechanical Cadaveric Study-Level II. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to elucidate that placing lateral lumbar interbody cages that span the stronger ring apophysis will require increasing loads for failure, decreasing rates of subsidence, regardless of bone density or endplate integrity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are several reports regarding the rates and grades of cage subsidence when utilizing the lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique. However, there is limited data on how spanning the lateral cage across the ring apophysis can prevent it. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen human spines (L1-L5) were utilized. Each vertebra was placed with their endplates horizontal in an MTS actuator. A total of 40 specimens were randomized into Groups:Load displacement data was collected at 5 Hz until failure. RESULTS: Longer cages spanning the ring apophysis provided more strength in compression with less subsidence relative to shorter cages, regardless of endplate integrity.Longer cages, spanning the ring apophysis, resting on intact endplates (G2) had a significant (P < 0.05) increase in strength and less subsidence when compared with the smaller cage group resting on intact endplates (G1) (P = 0.003).Longer cages spanning the ring apophysis of intact endplates (G2) showed a significant (P < 0.05) increase in strength and resistance to subsidence when compared with similar length cages resting on decorticated endplates (G4) (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Spanning the ring apophysis increased the load to failure by 40% with intact endplates and by 30% with decorticated endplates in this osteoporotic cadaveric model. Larger cages that span the endplate ring apophysis could improve the compressive strength and decrease subsidence at the operative level despite endplate violation or osteoporosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Financial Analysis of Treating Periprosthetic Joint Infections at a Tertiary Referral Center.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a significant challenge to the orthopedic surgeon, patient, hospital, and insurance provider. Our study compares the financial information of self-originating and referral 2-stage revision hip and knee surgeries at our tertiary referral center for hip or knee PJI over the last 4 years. METHODS: We performed an in-house retrospective financial review of all patients who underwent 2-stage revision hip or knee arthroplasty for infection between January 2008 and August 2013, comparing self-originating and referral cases. RESULTS: We found an increasing number of referrals over the study period. There was an increased cost of treating hips over knees. All scenarios generated a positive net income; however, referral hip PJIs offered lower reimbursement and net income per case (although not statistically significant), whereas knee PJIs offered higher reimbursement and net income per case (although not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: With referral centers treating increased numbers of infected joints performed elsewhere, we show continued financial incentive in accepting referrals, although with less financial gain than when treating one's own hip PJI and an increased financial gain when treating referral knee PJIs.

The Effects of a Hospitalist Comanagement Model for Joint Arthroplasty Patients in a Teaching Facility.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare postoperative medical comanagement of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty patients using a hospitalist (H) and nonhospitalist (NH) model at a single teaching institution to determine the clinical and economic impact of the hospitalist comanagement. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 1656 patients who received hospitalist comanagement with 1319 patients who did not. The NH and H cohorts were compared at baseline via chi-square test for the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, the t test for age, and the Wilcoxon test for the unadjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score and the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Chi-square test was used to compare the postoperative length of stay, readmission rate at 30 days after surgery, diagnoses present on admission, new diagnoses during admission, tests ordered postoperatively, total direct cost, and discharge location. RESULTS: The H cohort gained more new diagnoses (P < .001), had more studies ordered (P < .001), had a higher cost of hospitalization (P = .002), and were more likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (P < .001). The H cohort also had a lower length of stay (P < .001), but we believe evolving techniques in both pain control and blood management likely influenced this. There was no significant difference in readmissions. CONCLUSION: Any potential benefit of a hospitalist comanagement model for this patient population may be outweighed by increased cost.