Active nerve management for above the knee amputation: A comparison of through the wound versus posterior approach.

Targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and regenerative peripheral nerve interface (RPNI) are used to prevent or treat neuromas in amputees. TMR for above-the-knee amputation (AKA) is most commonly performed through a posterior incision rather than the stump wound because recipient motor nerves are primarily located in the proximal third of the thigh. When preventative TMR is performed with concurrent AKA, a posterior approach requires intraoperative repositioning and an additional incision. The purpose of this study was to evaluate feasibility of TMR and operative times for nerve management performed through the wound compared to a posterior approach in AKA patients to guide surgical decision-making. Patients who underwent AKA with TMR between 2018-2023 were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups: TMR performed through the wound (Group I) and TMR performed through a posterior approach (Group II). If a nerve was unable to undergo coaptation for TMR due to the lack of suitable donor motor nerves, RPNI was performed. Eighteen patients underwent AKA with nerve management were included from Group I (8 patients) and Group II (10 patients). TMR coaptations performed on distinct nerves was 1.5 ± 0.5 in Group I compared to 2.6 ± 0.5 in Group II (p = 0.001). Operative time for Group I was 200.7 ± 33.4 min compared to 326.5 ± 37.1 min in Group II (p = 0.001). TMR performed through the wound following AKA requires less operative time than a posterior approach. However, since recipient motor nerves are not consistently found near the stump, RPNI may be required with TMR whereas the posterior approach allows for more TMR coaptations.

Tranexamic Acid in Infantile Craniosynostosis Surgery: Friend or Foe?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies support the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid during craniosynostosis surgery to reduce blood loss. The study aims to assess national trends and outcomes of tranexamic acid administration. METHODS: The Pediatric Health Information System database was used to identify patients who underwent craniosynostosis surgery over a 9-year period (2010 to 2018). Search criteria included patients younger than 2 years with a primary diagnosis of craniosynostosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, 756.0; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Q75.0) and CPT code for craniotomy (61550 to 61559). Tranexamic acid use, complications, length of stay, and transfusion requirements were recorded. Subgroup analysis was performed for fronto-orbital advancements and single-suture surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1345 patients were identified. Mean patient age was 229 ± 145 days. Four hundred fifty-four patients (33.7 percent) received tranexamic acid. Tranexamic acid use increased from 13.1 percent in 2010 to 75.6 percent in 2018 (p = 0.005), and mean blood products per patient increased from 1.09 U to 1.6 U (p = 0.009). Surgical complication rate was higher in those receiving tranexamic acid (16.7 percent versus 11.1 percent; p = 0.004). Tranexamic acid administration was associated with increased transfusion requirements on univariate and multivariate analysis (1.76 U versus 1.18 U; OR, 2.03; p < 0.001). In the fronto-orbital advancement subgroup, those receiving tranexamic acid received more total blood products (2.2 U versus 1.8 U; p = 0.02); this difference was present but not significant within the single-suture group (0.69 U versus 0.50 U; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid use in craniosynostosis surgery has increased dramatically since 2010. However, it was associated with higher transfusion and complication rates in this data set. Optimization of its use and blood loss mitigation in infant craniosynostosis deserve continued research. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Incisions and reconstruction approaches for large sarcomas.

Large intraabdominal, retroperitoneal, and abdominal wall sarcomas provide unique challenges in treatment due to their variable histology, potential considerable size at the time of diagnosis, and the ability to invade into critical structures. Historically, some of these tumors were considered inoperable if surgical access was limited or the consequential defect was unable to be closed primarily as reconstructive options were limited. Over time, there has been a greater understanding of the abdominal wall anatomy and mechanics, which has resulted in the development of new techniques to allow for sound oncologic resections and viable, durable options for abdominal wall reconstruction. Currently, intra-operative positioning and employment of a variety of abdominal and posterior trunk incisions have made more intraabdominal and retroperitoneal tumors accessible. Primary involvement or direct invasion of tumor into the abdominal wall is no longer prohibitive as utilization of advanced hernia repair techniques along with the application of vascularized tissue transfer have been shown to have the ability to repair large area defects involving multiple quadrants of the abdominal wall. Both local and distant free tissue transfer may be incorporated, depending on the size and location of the area needing reconstruction and what residual structures are remaining surrounding the resection bed. There is an emphasis on selecting the techniques that will be associated with the least amount of morbidity yet will restore and provide the appropriate structure and function necessary for the trunk. This review article summarizes both initial surgical incisional planning for the oncologic resection and a variety of repair options for the abdominal wall spanning the reconstructive ladder.

Surgical inpatient satisfaction: what are the real drivers?

BACKGROUND: Inpatient satisfaction is a key element of hospital pay-for-performance programs. Communication and pain management are known to influence results, but additional factors may affect satisfaction scores. We tested the hypothesis that patient factors and outcome parameters not considered previously are clinically important drivers of inpatient satisfaction. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for 1,340 surgical patients who returned nationally standardized inpatient satisfaction questionnaires. These patients were managed by 41 surgeons in seven specialties at two academic medical centers. Thirty-two parameters based on the patient, surgeon, outcomes, and survey were measured. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: Inpatients rated their overall experience favorably 75.7% of the time. Less-satisfied patients were more likely to be female, younger, less ill, taking outpatient narcotics, and admitted via the emergency department (all P < .02). Less-satisfied patients also were more likely to have unresected cancer (P < .001) or a postoperative complication (P < .001). The most relevant independent predictors of dissatisfaction in multivariable analyses were younger age, admission via the emergency department, preoperative narcotic use, lesser severity of illness, unresected cancer, and postoperative morbidity (all P < .01). CONCLUSION: Several patient factors, expectations of patients with cancer, and postoperative complications are important and clinically relevant drivers of surgical inpatient satisfaction. Programs to manage expectations of cancer patient expectations and decrease postoperative morbidity should improve surgical inpatient satisfaction. Further efforts to risk-adjust patient satisfaction scores should be undertaken.