Food Insecurity in the Elective Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Colorectal Surgical Population: Prevalence and Implications for Surgical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is defined as having limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate food. Approximately 10.5% of U.S. households are food-insecure. Our study aimed to determine the prevalence and postoperative implications of food insecurity in a diverse group of colorectal surgery patients admitted to a hospital in an area with a higher-than-average median income. METHODS: The 6-question Household Food Security Survey was added to the colorectal surgery ERAS program preoperative paperwork. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative parameters, length of stay, and postoperative outcomes were collected by review of electronic medical records. RESULTS: A total of 294 ERAS patients (88.8%) completed the survey over an 11-month period. Thirty-three patients (11.2%) were identified as food-insecure. Food-insecure patients were more likely to be non-white (P = .003), younger (P = .009), smokers (P = .004), chronic narcotic users (P < .001), unmarried (P = .007), and have more comorbidities (P = .004). The food-insecure population had more frequent postoperative ileus (P = .044). Hospital length of stay was significantly longer in food-insecure patients (8.6 days vs 5.4 days, P < .001). Food-insecure patients also had higher rates of >30-day mortality (P = .049). DISCUSSION: Food insecurity was found to occur in patients that lived in communities deemed both affluent and distressed. These patients had longer hospital stays and higher mortality. A food insecurity questionnaire can easily identify patients at risk. Further investigations to mitigate these complications are warranted.

Olecranon bursitis.

BACKGROUND: Bursitis is a common medical condition, and of all the bursae in the body, the olecranon bursa is one of the most frequently affected. Bursitis at this location can be acute or chronic in timing and septic or aseptic. Distinguishing between septic and aseptic bursitis can be difficult, and the current literature is not clear on the optimum length or route of antibiotic treatment for septic cases. The current literature was reviewed to clarify these points. METHODS: The reported data for olecranon bursitis were compiled from the current literature. RESULTS: The most common physical examination findings were tenderness (88% septic, 36% aseptic), erythema/cellulitis (83% septic, 27% aseptic), warmth (84% septic, 56% aseptic), report of trauma or evidence of a skin lesion (50% septic, 25% aseptic), and fever (38% septic, 0% aseptic). General laboratory data ranges were also summarized. CONCLUSIONS: Distinguishing between septic and aseptic olecranon bursitis can be difficult because the physical and laboratory data overlap. Evidence for the optimum length and route of antibiotic treatment for septic cases also differs. In this review we have presented the current data of offending bacteria, frequency of key physical examination findings, ranges of reported laboratory data, and treatment practices so that clinicians might have a better guide for treatment.

Comminuted olecranon fracture fixation with pre-contoured plate: Comparison of composite and cadaver bones.

AIM: To determine whether use of a precontoured olecranon plate provides adequate fixation to withstand supraphysiologic force in a comminuted olecranon fracture model. METHODS: Five samples of fourth generation composite bones and five samples of fresh frozen human cadaveric left ulnae were utilized for this study. The cadaveric specimens underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scanning to quantify the bone quality. The composite and cadaveric bones were prepared by creating a comminuted olecranon fracture and fixed with a pre-contoured olecranon plate with locking screws. Construct stiffness and failure load were measured by subjecting specimens to cantilever bending moments until failure. Fracture site motion was measured with differential variable resistance transducer spanning the fracture. Statistical analysis was performed with two-tailed Mann-Whitney-U test with Monte Carlo Exact test. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in fixation stiffness and strength between the composite bones and human cadaver bones. Failure modes differed in cadaveric and composite specimens. The load to failure for the composite bones (n = 5) and human cadaver bones (n = 5) specimens were 10.67 nm (range 9.40-11.91 nm) and 13.05 nm (range 12.59-15.38 nm) respectively. This difference was statistically significant (P ˂ 0.007, 97% power). Median stiffness for composite bones and human cadaver bones specimens were 5.69 nm/mm (range 4.69-6.80 nm/mm) and 7.55 nm/mm (range 6.31-7.72 nm/mm). There was a significant difference for stiffness (P ˂ 0.033, 79% power) between composite bones and cadaveric bones. No correlation was found between the DEXA results and stiffness. All cadaveric specimens withstood the physiologic load anticipated postoperatively. Catastrophic failure occurred in all composite specimens. All failures resulted from composite bone failure at the distal screw site and not hardware failure. There were no catastrophic fracture failures in the cadaveric specimens. Failure of 4/5 cadaveric specimens was defined when a fracture gap of 2 mm was observed, but 1/5 cadaveric specimens failed due to a failure of the triceps mechanism. All failures occurred at forces greater than that expected in postoperative period prior to healing. CONCLUSION: The pre-contoured olecranon plate provides adequate fixation to withstand physiologic force in a composite bone and cadaveric comminuted olecranon fracture model.

Inner Synovial Membrane Footprint of the Anterior Elbow Capsule: An Arthroscopic Boundary.

Introduction. The purpose of this study is to describe the inner synovial membrane (SM) of the anterior elbow capsule, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Materials and Methods. Twenty-two cadaveric human elbows were dissected and the distal humerus and SM attachments were digitized using a digitizer. The transepicondylar line (TEL) was used as the primary descriptor of various landmarks. The distance between the medial epicondyle and medial SM edge, SM apex overlying the coronoid fossa, the central SM nadir, and the apex of the SM insertion overlying the radial fossa and distance from the lateral epicondyle to lateral SM edge along the TEL were measured and further analyzed. Gender and side-to-side statistical comparisons were calculated. Results. The mean age of the subjects was 80.4 years, with six male and five female cadavers. The SM had a distinctive double arched attachment overlying the radial and coronoid fossae. No gender-based or side-to-side quantitative differences were noted. In 18 out of 22 specimens (81.8%), an infolding extension of the SM was observed overlying the medial aspect of the trochlea. The SM did not coincide with the outer fibrous attachment in any specimen. Conclusion. The humeral footprint of the synovial membrane of the anterior elbow capsule is more complex and not as capacious as commonly understood from the current literature. The synovial membrane nadir between the two anterior fossae may help to explain and hence preempt technical difficulties, a reduction in working arthroscopic volume in inflammatory and posttraumatic pathologies. This knowledge should allow the surgeon to approach this aspect of the anterior elbow compartment space with the confidence that detachment of this synovial attachment, to create working space, does not equate to breaching the capsule. Alternatively, stripping the synovial attachment from the anterior humerus does not constitute an anterior capsular release.

The olecranon spur.

BACKGROUND: There is very little information for today's clinician on olecranon spurs. In addition, there is some ambiguity in the literature, with the terms "olecranon spur" and "olecranon osteophyte" sometimes being used interchangeably. This review presents the current knowledge about olecranon spur anatomy, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment options and their outcomes, as well as clarification of the terms "spur" and "osteophyte". METHODS: The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched using the terms "olecranon spur," "olecranon traction spur," and "olecranon osteophyte." The resulting articles were used to find other manuscripts pertaining to the subject. RESULTS: Very few articles were found as a result of these search criteria and were limited to a few case reports and a study investigating the postoperative outcomes of spur removal. Confusion of the terms "olecranon spur" and "olecranon osteophyte" was noted in 6 of the manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanism of olecranon spur formation has not been confirmed but seems to be similar to that of spurs at other entheses. In addition, the current literature represents a small number of patients and selects only those who required surgical intervention. Three methods of spur resection have been published, and all have good outcomes with small patient numbers and limited follow-up.