What Are the Risk Factors for an Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis After Orthopaedic Irrigation and Debridement and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement?

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement is necessary for delivery of intravenous (IV) antibiotics to treat bone and soft tissue infections. Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) after PICC placement is a complication with unknown incidence in the orthopaedic literature. The major objectives of this study are Identifying the rate of upper extremity PICC-associated DVTs after orthopaedic procedures;Which orthopaedic subspecialties are most likely to encounter an upper extremity PICC-associated DVT?What surgeries or medical comorbidities are risk factors for upper extremity PICC-associated DVTs?Does type of DVT chemoprophylaxis decrease the risk of an upper extremity PICC-associated DVT? METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic medical records (EMR) was performed to include all patients undergoing irrigation and debridement (I&D) for treatment of orthopaedic surgery-related infections over a 10-year period. All patients with PICC placement were included for analyses. Age, sex, and medical comorbidities were extracted from the EMR. Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests, Fisher's exact tests, Chi-square tests, and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests were used to determine associations with DVT events for those with PICCs based on medical comorbidities, PICC lumen size, team placing the PICC, impact of implant removal, and protective effect of DVT chemoprophylaxis. Significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 660 patients (3.18% rate) were found to have an upper extremity PICC-associated DVT. A history of DVT (OR=8.99 [95% CI: 3.39, 49.42]) was significantly associated with an upper extremity PICC-associated DVT. The greatest risk for an upper extremity PICC-associated DVT was intramedullary implant removal (OR=12.43 [95% CI: 3.13, 49.52]). The type of DVT chemoprophylaxis did not significantly affect the likelihood of an upper extremity PICC-associated DVT. CONCLUSION: Intramedullary implant removal and a history of DVT are risk factors for an upper extremity PICC-associated DVT. The results of this study should be of particular interest to surgeons who do not typically give DVT prophylaxis and plan to perform surgery on patients with CHF, a history of a DVT, or plan to manipulate the intramedullary canal.

Patient Knowledge Regarding Radiation Exposure From Foot and Ankle Imaging.

Foot and ankle surgeons routinely prescribe diagnostic imaging that exposes patients to potentially harmful ionizing radiation. It is unclear how well patients understand the radiation to which they are exposed. In this study, 946 consecutive new patients were surveyed regarding medical imaging and radiation exposure prior to their first appointment. Respondents compared the amount of radiation associated with chest X-rays (CXRs) with various types of foot and ankle imaging. Results were compared with actual values of radiation exposure from the published literature. Of 946 patients surveyed, 841 (88.9%) participated. Most had private insurance (82.8%) and a bachelor's degree or higher (60.6%). Most believed that foot X-ray, ankle X-ray, "low dose" foot and ankle computed tomography (CT) scan (alluding to cone-beam CT), and traditional foot and ankle CT scan contain similar amounts of ionizing radiation to CXR. This contradicts the published literature that suggests that the actual exposure to patients is 0.006, 0.006, 0.127, and 0.833 CXR equivalents of radiation, respectively. Of patients who had undergone an X-ray, 55.9% thought about the issue of radiation prior to the study, whereas 46.1% of those undergoing a CT scan considered radiation prior to the exam. Similarly, 35.2% and 27.6% reported their doctor having discussed radiation with them prior to obtaining an X-ray and CT scan, respectively. Patients greatly overestimate the radiation exposure associated with plain film X-rays and cone-beam CT scans of the foot and ankle, and may benefit from increased counseling regarding the relatively low radiation exposure associated with these imaging modalities.Level of Evidence: Level III: Prospective questionnaire.

Arthroscopically Repaired Bucket-Handle Meniscus Tears: Patient Demographics, Postoperative Outcomes, and a Comparison of Success and Failure Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To define patient demographics, preoperative, and intraoperative surgical variables associated with successful or failed repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears. DESIGN: All patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a bucket-handle meniscus tear at a single institution between May 2011 and July 2016 with minimum 6-month follow-up were retrospectively identified. Patient demographic, preoperative (including imaging), and operative variables were collected and evaluated. A Kaplan-Meier curve was generated to demonstrate meniscus repair survivorship. RESULTS: In total, 75 patients (78 knees) with an average age of 26.53 ± 10.67 years met inclusion criteria. The average follow-up was 23.41 ± 16.43 months. Fifteen knees (19.2%) suffered re-tear of the repaired meniscus at an average 12.24 ± 9.50 months postoperatively. Survival analysis demonstrated 93.6% survival at 6 months, 84.6% survival at 1 year, 78.4% survival at 2 years, and 69.9% survival at 3 years. There was significant improvement from baseline to time of final follow-up in all patient-reported outcome (P < 0.05) except Marx score (P = 0.933) and SF-12 Mental Subscale (P = 0.807). The absence of other knee pathology (including ligament tear, contralateral compartment meniscal tear, or cartilage lesions) noted intraoperatively was the only variable significantly associated with repair failure (P = 0.024). Concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (vs. no concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction) trended toward significance (P = 0.059) as a factor associated with successful repair. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of the absence of other knee pathology (including ligament tear, contralateral compartment meniscal tear, or cartilage lesions) noted intraoperatively, no other variables were significantly associated with re-tear. The results are relatively durable with 84.6% survival at 1 year. Surgeons should attempt meniscal repair when presented with a bucket-handle tear.

Midlevel Providers in Orthopaedic Surgery: The Patient's Perspective.

Background: Midlevel providers (i.e. physician assistants [PAs] and nurse practitioners [NPs]) are being integrated into systems of care due to the exponentially increasing demand for orthopaedic care. There is a lack of studies which investigate orthopaedic patients' perspectives regarding midlevel providers. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was administered to 538 first-time patients of four orthopaedic surgeons before their new patient visit. Content included patient perspectives regarding: optimal scope of practice, midlevel provider importance in physician selection, and reimbursement equity with physicians. Results: Of 538 consecutive patients, 415 (77%) responded. 57% were female with an average age of 63.9 ± 11.4 years. Most patients (68%) considered the training background of the surgeon's midlevel provider when initially choosing an orthopaedic surgeon. 34% of all patients perceived PAs to be more highly trained than NPs while 17% perceived the opposite. Patients had specific preferences regarding which services should be surgeon-provided: follow-up for abnormal tests (82%), initial postoperative appointment (81%), new patient visits (81%), and determining the need for advanced diagnostic studies (e.g. MRI) (76%). Patients had specific preferences regarding which services could be midlevel-provided: preoperative teaching (73%), minor in-office procedures (65%), long term postoperative appointments (61%), and prescriptions (61%). Patients lacked a consensus on reimbursement equity for midlevel providers and orthopaedic surgeons, despite most patients (78%) reporting the surgeon provides a higher-quality consultation. Conclusions: As health care becomes increasingly consumer-centric and value-driven, a databased utilization of midlevel staff will allow orthopaedic physicians to optimize efficiency and patient satisfaction. Surgeons may consider our results in division of clinical duties among midlevel staff since patients had specific preferences regarding which services should be physician-provided or midlevel-provided. Orthopaedic surgeons may also consider including the midlevel provider in marketing efforts, as most patients considered the midlevel provider's training background when initially choosing a surgeon and perceived PAs to be more highly trained than NPs. Patients lacked a consensus towards reimbursement equity for orthopaedic surgeons and midlevels, despite reporting that the surgeon provides a higher quality consultation. These findings are important as the midlevel workforce grows in response to the rising demand for orthopaedic care.Level of Evidence: IV.

Physician Extenders in Hand Surgery: The Patient's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Physician extenders, such as physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), have been incorporated into health systems in response to the rising demand for care. There is a paucity of literature regarding patient perspectives toward physician extenders in hand surgery. METHODS: We anonymously surveyed 939 consecutive new patients before their clinic visit. Our questionnaire assessed patient perspectives toward physician extenders, including optimal scope of practice, the effect of the extender when choosing a hand surgeon, and pay equity for the same clinical services. RESULTS: Of 939 patients, 784 (84%) responded: 54% were male and 46% were female with a mean age of 44.1 years. Most (65%) patients consider the extender's training background when choosing a hand surgeon, with 31% of all patients considering PAs to have higher training than NPs and 17% the reverse. Patients responded that certain services should be physician-provided, including determining the need for advanced imaging (eg, magnetic resonance imaging), follow-up for abnormal diagnostics, and new patient visits. Patients were amenable to services being extender-provided, including minor in-office procedures, preoperative teaching, and postoperative clinic visits. Patients lacked a consensus toward reimbursement equity for hand surgeons and physician extenders providing the same clinical services. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that patients presenting to a hand surgeon are comfortable receiving direct care from a physician extender in many, but not all, circumstances. Hand surgeons can use these data when deciding how to use extenders to optimize patient satisfaction and practice efficiency as health care systems become increasingly consumer-focused and value-based.

Patient Perspectives of Midlevel Providers in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Midlevel providers (eg, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) have been integrated into orthopaedic systems of care in response to the increasing demand for musculoskeletal care. Few studies have examined patient perspectives toward midlevel providers in orthopaedic sports medicine. PURPOSE: To identify perspectives of orthopaedic sports medicine patients regarding midlevel providers, including optimal scope of practice, reimbursement equity with physicians, and importance of the physician's midlevel provider to patients when initially selecting a physician. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 690 consecutive new patients of 3 orthopaedic sports medicine physicians were prospectively administered an anonymous questionnaire prior to their first visit. Content included patient perspectives regarding midlevel provider importance in physician selection, optimal scope of practice, and reimbursement equity with physicians. RESULTS: Of the 690 consecutive patients who were administered the survey, 605 (87.7%) responded. Of these, 51.9% were men and 48.1% were women, with a mean age of 40.5 ± 15.7 years. More than half (51.2%) perceived no differences in training levels between physician assistants and nurse practitioners. A majority of patients (62.9%) reported that the physician's midlevel provider is an important consideration when choosing a new orthopaedic sports medicine physician. Patients had specific preferences regarding which services should be physician provided. Patients also reported specific preferences regarding those services that could be midlevel provided. There lacked a consensus on reimbursement equity for midlevel practitioners and physicians, despite 71.7% of patients responding that the physician provides a higher-quality consultation. CONCLUSION: As health care becomes value driven and consumer-centric, understanding patient perspectives on midlevel providers will allow orthopaedic sports medicine physicians to optimize efficiency and patient satisfaction. Physicians may consider these data in clinical workforce planning, as patients preferred specific services to be physician or midlevel provided. It may be worthwhile to consider midlevel providers in marketing efforts, given that patients considered the credentials of the physician's midlevel provider when initially selecting a new physician. Patients lacked consensus regarding reimbursement equity between physicians and midlevel providers, despite responding that the physician provides a higher-quality consultation. Our findings are important for understanding the midlevel workforce as it continues to grow in response to the increasing demand for orthopaedic sports care.

Patient Perceptions of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: To describe patient perceptions of minimally invasive spine (MIS) versus open surgery, and to determine which factors are most heavily considered by the patient when choosing between approaches. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MIS surgery has increased in popularity due to proposed advantages in the perioperative and immediate postoperative periods. However, patient preferences and understanding with regard to the differences between MIS and open surgery have not been elucidated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire consisting of 30 questions was administered to patients scheduled to see either an MIS surgeon or an open spine surgeon for a clinical evaluation from 2016 to 2017. Six questions asked about patient demographics and medical history. Nine questions asked respondents to rate the importance of several criteria when deciding between MIS and open surgery. In total, 15 multiple choice and free response questions asked respondents about their perceptions of MIS versus open surgery with regard to surgical and physician characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 326 patients completed the survey. The 3 most important criteria for patients when choosing between open and MIS surgery were: long-term outcomes, surgeon's recommendation, and complication risk. When compared with MIS surgery, the majority of patients perceived open surgery to be more painful (83.8%), have increased complication risk (78.5%), have increased recovery time (89.3%), have increased costs (68.1%), and require heavier sedation (62.6%). If required to have spine surgery in the future, the majority of both patient groups would prefer a minimally invasive approach (80.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes, surgeon's recommendation, and complication risk were the most important criteria identified by patients when choosing between open and MIS surgery. Patients also perceived MIS surgery to have advantages over open surgery with regard to postoperative pain, complication risk, recovery time, cost, and anesthesia requirement. Most patients seem to prefer a minimally invasive approach to their treatment.

Factors Influencing Patient Selection of a Foot and Ankle Surgeon.

An increasingly consumer-centric health insurance market has empowered patients to select the providers of their choice. There is a lack of studies investigating the rationale by which patients select a foot and ankle surgeon. In the present study, 824 consecutive new patients seeking treatment from 3 foot-ankle surgeons were consecutively administered an anonymous questionnaire prior to their first appointment. It included rating the importance of 15 factors regarding specialist selection on a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 designated " Very important" and 1 designated " Not important at all." The remaining questions were multiple choice regarding patient perspectives on other surgeon aspects (appointment availability, waiting room times, clinic proximity, etc). Of 824 consecutive patients administered the survey, 305 (37%) responded. Patients rated board certification (9.24 ± 1.87) and on-site imaging availability (8.48 ± 2.37)-on a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 designated "Very important- as the 2 most important criteria in choosing a foot and ankle surgeon. Patients rated advertisements as least important. Among the patients, 91% responded that a maximum of 30 minutes should elapse between clinic check-in and seeing their physician; 61% responded that a maximum of 20 minutes should elapse between clinic check-in and seeing their physician. In the context of an increasingly consumer-driven paradigm of health care delivery and reimbursement, it is important to understand patients' preferences in specialist selection. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level III: Prospective questionnaire.

Factors Influencing Patient Selection of an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Physician.

BACKGROUND: The rise in consumer-centric health insurance plans has increased the importance of the patient in choosing a provider. There is a paucity of studies that examine how patients select an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. PURPOSE: To evaluate factors that patients consider when choosing an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 1077 patients who sought treatment by 3 sports medicine physicians were administered an anonymous questionnaire. The questionnaire included 19 questions asking respondents to rate the importance of specific factors regarding the selection of orthopaedic sports medicine physicians on a scale of 1 (not important at all) to 10 (very important). The remaining 6 questions were multiple-choice and regarded the following criteria: preferred physician age, appointment availability, clinic waiting room times, travel distance, and medical student/resident involvement. RESULTS: Of the 1077 consecutive patients administered the survey, 382 (35%) responded. Of these, 59% (n = 224) were male, and 41% (n = 158) were female. In ranking the 19 criteria in terms of importance, patients rated board certification (9.12 ± 1.88), being well known for a specific area of expertise (8.27 ± 2.39), and in-network provider status (8.13 ± 2.94) as the 3 most important factors in selecting an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. Radio, television, and Internet advertisements were rated the least important. Regarding physician age, 63% of patients would consider seeking a physician who is ≤65 years old. Approximately 78% of patients would consider seeking a different physician if no appointments were available within 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that board certification, being well known for a specific area of expertise, and health insurance in-network providers may be the most important factors influencing patient selection of an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. Advertisements were least important to patients. Patient preferences varied regarding ideal physician age, clinic appointment availability, medical student/resident involvement, and travel distance in choosing an orthopaedic sports medicine physician. In the context of health care delivery and as reimbursement becomes increasingly consumer centered, understanding the process of provider selection is important.

Prospective Assessment of Sleep Quality Before and After Primary Total Joint Replacement.

Sleep disruption is a common, yet rarely addressed, complaint among patients who have undergone total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This study assessed sleep quality before and after primary TJA. A total of 105 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prospectively completed questionnaires during the preoperative, early postoperative, and late postoperative periods. The survey included the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, current sleeping habits, and patient perspectives of sleep quality and duration. In the early postoperative period (4.7±2.0 weeks), patients reported significant increases in sleep disturbance as denoted by increased length of time to fall asleep (P=.006) and mean nightly awakenings (P=.002) compared with the preoperative baseline. At late postoperative follow-up (40.8±19.5 weeks), patients' sleep quality subsequently improved above the preoperative baseline. Approximately 40% of patients tried a new sleeping method postoperatively, the most common being new pillow placement. No significant differences in pre- or postoperative sleeping trends were noted between THA and TKA patients. These findings suggest transient sleep disturbance is common in the early postoperative period, with subsequent improvement by 10-month follow-up after a primary TJA. Given the growing importance of patient satisfaction in health care systems, orthopedic surgeons must manage patients' expectations while working with them to optimize sleep quality after TJA. A multimodal approach with preoperative counseling, early postoperative sleep modifications, and possibly preemptive use of medications may improve transient sleep disturbance among TJA patients. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):e636-e640.].

Patient knowledge regarding radiation exposure from spinal imaging.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spine surgeons employ a high volume of imaging in the diagnosis and evaluation of spinal pathology. However, little is known regarding patients' knowledge of the radiation exposure associated with these imaging techniques. PURPOSE: To characterize spine patients' knowledge regarding radiation exposure from various imaging modalities. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A cross-sectional survey study. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred patients at their first clinic visit with a single spine surgeon at an urban institution. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient estimate of radiation dose for various common spinal imaging modalities as compared with true dose. METHODS: An electronic survey was administered to all new patients before their first appointment with a single spinal surgeon. The survey asked patients to estimate how many chest x-rays (CXRs) worth of radiation were equivalent to various common spinal imaging modalities. Patient estimates were compared to true effective radiation doses determined from the literature. The survey also asked patients whether they would consider avoiding types of imaging modalities out of concern for excessive radiation exposure. RESULTS: Patients accurately approximated the radiation associated with two views of the cervical spine, with a median estimate of 3.5 CXRs, compared with an actual value of 4.7 CXRs. However, patients underestimated the dose for computed tomography (CT) scans of the cervical spine (2.0 CXRs vs. 145.3 CXRs), two views of the lumbar spine (3.0 CXRs vs. 123.3 CXRs), and CT scans of the lumbar spine (2.0 CXRs vs. 638.3 CXRs). The majority of patients believed that there is at least some radiation exposure associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The percent of patients who would consider forgoing imaging recommend by their surgeon out of concern for radiation exposure was 14% for x-rays, 13% for CT scans, and 9% for MRI. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate a lack of patient understanding regarding radiation exposure associated with common spinal imaging techniques. These data suggest that patients might benefit from increased counseling and/or educational materials regarding radiation exposure before undergoing diagnostic imaging of the cervical or lumbar spine.

Serial Mehta Cast Utilization in Infantile Idiopathic Scoliosis: Evaluation of Radiographic Predictors.

BACKGROUND: Mehta cast utilization has gained a considerable momentum as a nonoperative treatment modality for the initial management of infantile idiopathic scoliosis (IIS). Despite its acceptance, there is paucity of data that characterize the radiographic parameters associated with Mehta casting and the factors correlated with a sustained curve correction. METHODS: A retrospective review of IIS patients who underwent Mehta casting was performed with a mean 2-year follow-up. X-rays were evaluated at each visit for the Cobb angle, focal deformity, rib-vertebral angle difference, and height of concavity and convexity of the apical 3 vertebrae. Concave-to-convex height ratios were calculated and tracked for each patient. Radiographic parameters were compared from precasting to after final casting, and from final casting to most recent follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were identified, of whom 18 (40%) were male and 27 (60%) were female, with a mean age of 18.8±9.5 months at first casting and a mean follow-up of 37.7±19.7 months. Following final casting, the mean Cobb angle (25.6 vs. 52.7 degrees), focal deformity (17.4 vs. 30.5 degrees), rib-vertebral angle difference (18 vs. 32.3 degrees), and the concave-to-convex height ratios improved relative to precast parameters, respectively (P<0.001). At final follow-up, mean Cobb angle (16.2 vs. 25.6 degrees) and concave-to-convex height ratios progressively improved when compared with final cast measurements, respectively (P<0.001). Five (11%) patients did not demonstrate sustained curve correction at final follow-up, whereas 4 (9%) required growing-rod placement. Lastly, the regression analysis demonstrated improvements in the focal deformity (17.4 vs. 30.5) and the concave-to-convex height ratios of the +1 and -1 apical vertebrae from the precast to last cast periods (P<0.001). These findings were correlated with sustained Cobb angle correction from cast removal to the most recent follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic parameters associated with control of progressive deformity for IIS include improvements in focal deformity and concave-to-convex height ratios for +1 and -1 apical vertebrae after final casting. Mehta casting is an effective treatment for symptomatic IIS and continues to provide IIS patients with significant curve correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Surgical Anatomy of the Knee A Review of Common Open Approaches.

Knee-related complaints are among the most commonly encountered conditions by orthopaedic surgeons. Knee pathology varies widely and includes arthritis, deformities, fractures, infections, neuromuscular disorders, oncologic diseases, and soft-tissue injury. While nonoperative treatment modalities (activity modification, medications, injections, and physical therapy) are typically used as primary interventions, surgical treatment may ultimately become necessary. The purpose of this review is to discuss the most common open approaches to the knee, with an emphasis on surgically relevant anatomy for each approach. Understanding of the anatomy of the knee joint and associated neurovascular structures is necessary in order to avoid intraoperative complications and optimize postoperative recovery.

Spine Surgeon Selection Criteria: Factors Influencing Patient Choice.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate factors that patients consider when selecting a spine surgeon. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The rise in consumer-driven health insurance plans has increased the role of patients in provider selection. The purpose of this study is to identify factors that may influence a patient's criteria for selecting a spine surgeon. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-one patients who sought treatment by one spine surgeon completed an anonymous questionnaire consisting of 26 questions. Four questions regarded demographic information; 16 questions asked respondents to rate the importance of specific criteria regarding spine surgeon selection (scale 1-10, with 10 being the most important); and six questions were multiple-choice regarding patient preferences toward aspects of their surgeon (age, training background, etc.). RESULTS: Patients rated board certification (9.26 ±â€Š1.67), in-network provider status (8.10 ±â€Š3.04), and friendliness/bedside manner (8.01 ±â€Š2.35) highest among factors considered when selecting a spine surgeon. Most patients (92%) reported that 30 minutes or less should pass between check-in and seeing their surgeon during a clinic appointment. Regarding whether their spine surgeon underwent training as a neurosurgeon versus an orthopedic surgeon, 25% reported no preference, 52% preferred neurosurgical training, and 23% preferred orthopedic training. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that board certification and in-network health insurance plans may be most important in patients' criteria for choosing a spine surgeon. Advertisements were rated least important by patients. Patients expressed varying preferences regarding ideal surgeon age, training background, proximity, medical student/resident involvement, and clinic appointment availability. The surgeon from whom patients sought treatment completed an orthopedic surgery residency; hence, it is notable that 52% of patients preferred a spine surgeon with a neurosurgical background. In the context of patients' increasing role in health care decision-making and provider selection, understanding the factors that influence patients' selection of a spine surgeon is important. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Minimally invasive lumbar decompression-the surgical learning curve.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) procedures carry an inherently difficult learning curve based upon anecdotal evidence. Few studies have investigated the surgeon's learning curve for MIS lumbar laminectomy or laminotomy with or without discectomy. PURPOSE: To characterize the learning curve of a 1- or 2-level MIS lumbar decompression (LD) based on perioperative and postoperative parameters . STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained registry was used for this study. PATIENT SAMPLE: There were 228 consecutive patients who underwent a primary 1- or 2-level MIS LD by a single surgeon for degenerative spinal pathology from 2009 to 2014. From 2005 to 2006, 50 patients underwent 1- or 2-level open LD consecutively. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative and postoperative outcomes (complications, visual analogue scale [VAS] scores, reoperations) were the outcome measures for this study. METHODS: Patients were stratified into first and second groups as determined by the case number at which the procedural time reached a plateau. Demographics, comorbidity, pain scores, and surgical outcomes were compared between the first 50 patients and the subsequent 178 patients. The secondary analysis compared the surgical outcomes between the initial 50 MIS and 50 open LD patients. No funds were received in support of this work. RESULTS: The initial cohort was older with a higher comorbidity burden (p<.05). However, body mass index, gender, smoking status, and ethnicity did not differ between cohorts. The initial cohort incurred a greater procedural time (p<.001) and longer length of hospitalization (p<.05) than the second cohort. Estimated blood loss (EBL), pain scores, complication rates, recurrent herniation rates, and reoperation rates were similar between groups. In the secondary analysis, the open LD patients demonstrated greater procedural time, higher EBL, and longer length of hospital stay than the MIS patients. However, the reoperation rate and 30-day readmission rate were not different between the MIS and open patients. CONCLUSIONS: Continued surgical experience was associated with a reduced operative time, shorter length of hospitalization, and similar blood loss following an MIS LD. Independent of surgical experience, all patients demonstrated similar improvements in clinical outcomes. These findings appear to suggest that although surgical experience may improve perioperative parameters (operative time, length of hospitalization), an MIS LD may initially be performed safely without prior experience.

Impact of Age, Gender and Anesthesia Modality on Post-Operative Pain in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing pain control following total knee arthroplasty is of utmost importance to the immediate post-operative course. Various anesthesia modalities are available, but studies comparing multiple anesthesia modalities, patient age, and sex are limited. QUESTIONS/PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to examine the impact of patient age, gender, and perioperative anesthesia modality on postoperative pain following primary total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: 443 patients who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty by 14 surgeons with some combination of general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, femoral nerve block, and intrathecal morphine were identified. Anesthesia route and type, length of surgery, post-operative patient-reported pain measures using the Visual Analog Scale, opioid consumption, and length of hospital stay were recorded for each patient and used to compare differences among study groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between anesthesia groups with regards to postoperative pain or length of hospital stay. Patients receiving spinal anesthesia and femoral nerve block without intrathecal morphine were significantly older than other groups. Patients receiving general anesthesia required significantly more daily intravenous morphine equivalents than patients receiving spinal anesthesia. Patients receiving spinal anesthesia with femoral nerve block and intrathecal morphine consumed the least amount of morphine equivalents. When comparing males and females among all groups, females had significantly higher pain ratings between 24-36 and 24-48 hours postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Although no significant differences were noted on pain scores, patients who received spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine and femoral nerve block used less narcotic pain medication than any other group. Females reported significantly higher pain between 24-48 hours post-op compared with males but not significantly greater anesthetic usage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Study, (Retrospective Comparative study).

Biomaterial hypersensitivity: is it real? Supportive evidence and approach considerations for metal allergic patients following total knee arthroplasty.

The prospect of biomaterial hypersensitivity developing in response to joint implant materials was first presented more than 30 years ago. Many studies have established probable causation between first-generation metal-on-metal hip implants and hypersensitivity reactions. In a limited patient population, implant failure may ultimately be related to metal hypersensitivity. The examination of hypersensitivity reactions in current-generation metal-on-metal knee implants is comparatively limited. The purpose of this study is to summarize all available literature regarding biomaterial hypersensitivity after total knee arthroplasty, elucidate overall trends about this topic in the current literature, and provide a foundation for clinical approach considerations when biomaterial hypersensitivity is suspected.

Diagnosis and Management of Extra-articular Causes of Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Postoperative pain, which has been attributed to poor outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), remains problematic for many patients. Although the source of TKA pain can often be delineated, establishing a precise diagnosis can be challenging. It is often classified as intra-articular or extra-articular pain, depending on etiology. After intra-articular causes, such as instability, aseptic loosening, infection, or osteolysis, have been ruled out, extra-articular sources of pain should be considered. Physical examination of the other joints may reveal sources of localized knee pain, including diseases of the spine, hip, foot, and ankle. Additional extra-articular pathologies that have potential to instigate pain after TKA include vascular pathologies, tendinitis, bursitis, and iliotibial band friction syndrome. Patients with medical comorbidities, such as metabolic bone disease and psychological illness, may also experience prolonged postoperative pain. By better understanding the diagnosis and treatment options for extra-articular causes of pain after TKA, orthopaedic surgeons may better treat patients with this potentially debilitating complication.

Diagnosis and Management of Intra-articular Causes of Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective procedure for decreasing pain, improving functional capability, and increasing the overall quality of life for thousands of people with chronic knee osteoarthritis. Although patient outcomes and satisfaction remain high, a substantial percentage of patients report residual pain after TKA. Sources of postoperative pain include intra- and extra-articular etiologies as well as factors unrelated to the implants themselves. A patient-centered approach to the painful TKA may aid clinicians in diagnosing and treating patients with intra-articular causes of pain after TKA. A thorough understanding of the mechanisms involved may lead to improved preoperative planning and patient selection, ultimately decreasing the number of patients with less than optimal postoperative outcomes.

Orthopaedic Surgery Under National Health Reform: An Analysis of Power, Process, Adaptation, and Leadership: AOA Critical Issues.

Morrison argued that demography, economy, and technology drive the evolution of industries from a formative first-generation state ("First Curve") to a radically different way of doing things ("Second Curve") that is marked by new skills, strategies, and partners. The current health-reform movement in the United States reflects these three key evolutionary trends: surging medical needs of an aging population, dramatic expansion of Medicare spending, and care delivery systems optimized through powerful information technology. Successful transition from a formative first-generation state (First Curve) to a radically different way of doing things (Second Curve) will require new skills, strategies, and partners. In a new world that is value-driven, community-centric (versus hospital-centric), and prevention-focused, orthopaedic surgeons and health-care administrators must form new alliances to reduce the cost of care and improve durable outcomes for musculoskeletal problems. The greatest barrier to success in the Second Curve stems not from lack of empirical support for integrated models of care, but rather from resistance by those who would execute them. Porter's five forces of competitive strategy and the behavioral analysis of change provide insights into the predictable forms of resistance that undermine clinical and economic success in the new environment of care. This paper analyzes the components that will differentiate orthopaedic care provision for the Second Curve. It also provides recommendations for future-focused orthopaedic surgery and health-care administrative leaders to consider as they design newly adaptive, mutually reinforcing, and economically viable musculoskeletal care processes that drive the level of orthopaedic care that our nation deserves-at a cost that it can afford.