The mandible-C2 angle: a new radiographic assessment of occipitocervical alignment.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Occipitocervical fusion is a rare and often challenging surgical procedure. Significant morbidity can result if care is not taken to achieve physiologic alignment. This is especially true for patients needing occipitocervical fusion in the setting of trauma where preoperative alignment is unknown. PURPOSE: To assess the radiographic angles normally subtended between the C2 body and the mandible ramus, in a series of patients with neutral physiologic alignment and no pathology, and to assess its validity as a possible intraoperative radiographic tool to determine a neutral craniocervical alignment. DESIGN: Validation and reliability study of radiographic parameters. PATIENT SAMPLE: Hundred lateral, neutral, cervical radiographs from patients with "normal" radiographic findings. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic parameters of occipital-cervical alignment with assessment of reliability and correlation in data. METHODS: One hundred neutral lateral cervical spine radiographs in the upright position of patients with no complaints or known pathology were obtained from two medical clinics between December of 2014 and January of 2017. Three physicians, at different levels of spine surgery training, took measurements of radiographic parameters. The new technique used four different angles measured between the C2-body/dens complex and the mandibular ramus (anterior/posterior C2 body and anterior/posterior mandible lines angles), and compared these with the Occipito-C2 angle, which is a validated assessment of occipitocervical alignment. Statistical analysis was performed to assess correlation in data and measure reproducibility. RESULTS: Between the three reviewers, the mean±standard deviation were 18.0°±6.5° for Occipito-C2 angle (O-C2A), -4.2°±5.4° for anterior C2-body/anterior mandible line angle (AB/AM), -4.2°±5.9° for anterior C2-body/posterior mandible line angle (AB/PM), 5.1°±5.8° for posterior C2 body/anterior mandible line angle (PB/AM) and 5.6°±6.2° for posterior C2 body/ posterior mandible line angle (PB/PM). Overall the measurements obtained were correlative with an appropriate range for the standard deviation. Mean intraclass correlation coefficient were 0.889 for O-C2A, 0.795 for AB/AM, 0.859 for AB/PM, 0.876 for PB/AM, and 0.750 for PB/PM, showing high interobserver reliability for all the radiographic measures. Across the five techniques, 87%-92% of measurements fell within 10° of the median, 76%-83% fell within 7.5°, and 55%-66% within 5°. CONCLUSIONS: The mandible-C2 angle offers a reproducible alternative to the validated O-C2A technique for determining appropriate intraoperative occipitocervical alignment, which may be especially useful when preoperative radiographic alignment is unknown, such as occurs with trauma patients, with the goal of decreasing alignment-related complications in the setting of occipitocervical stabilization.

Forearm Fixation is Not Necessary in the Treatment of Pediatric Floating Elbow.

BACKGROUND: Ipsilateral supracondylar humerus and forearm fractures in the pediatric population are an uncommon injury associated with high-energy trauma. Current literature suggests a high rate of compartmental syndrome with this fracture pattern and recommends surgical stabilization of both injuries. We investigate whether surgical treatment of the supracondylar fracture with closed reduction of the forearm fracture and placement into a noncircumferential cast may be an appropriate treatment. METHODS: Retrospective clinical and radiographic review of 47 patients (22 male, 25 female; mean age 6 y) with modified Gartland type 2 or type 3 supracondylar humerus fracture requiring surgical stabilization and an ipsilateral forearm fracture from a single institution over 78 months. RESULTS: Forty-seven pediatric "floating elbow" cases that had operative management of the supracondylar fracture were identified. A total of 21/47 (45%) had displaced forearm fractures that required closed manipulation. Of these, 17/21 (81%) underwent closed reduction of the displaced forearm fracture(s) and were placed into a noncircumferential cast or splint. No patients lost reduction or required remanipulation of either fracture. No patients developed signs of elevated compartment pressures. All patients went on to radiographic union without secondary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that a supracondylar humerus fracture with an ipsilateral forearm fracture can be safely managed with operative stabilization of the supracondylar humerus fracture alone. Simultaneous closed reduction of the ipsilateral displaced forearm fracture and use of noncircumferential immobilization postoperatively is safe and was not associated with the development of elevated compartment pressures or need for remanipulation. Previous studies that relate a high rate of compartment syndrome with this injury pattern may be misguided, as method of postoperative immobilization may be a more significant factor in the development of elevated compartment pressures than the injury pattern. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Preliminary Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Elderly Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) remains highly morbid despite improving surgical techniques. As the median age of diagnosis is 73, many patients are elderly at the time of cystectomy. We compare perioperative surgical outcomes in elderly patients undergoing robotic vs open radical cystectomy (RC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients >75 years at time of RC were identified. Demographic, clinicopathologic, and perioperative variables were examined. Estimated blood loss (EBL) and length of stay (LOS) data were collected with multivariate linear regression analysis performed to assess whether technique was independently associated with outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients >75 years of age underwent cystectomy for MIBC (58 open, 29 robotic). Mean age was 79.6 (±3.2) and 79.2 (±3.5) for open and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.64). There were no significant differences in baseline comorbidities, clinical or pathologic stage, or use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The mean number of lymph nodes removed was similar (p = 0.08). Robotic cystectomy had significantly longer mean OR times (p < 0.001). On multivariate analyses, robotic surgery was associated with -389cc less EBL (95% CI -547 to -230, p < 0.001) and a -1.5-day-shortened LOS (95%CI -2.9 to -0.2, p = 0.02) compared with open surgery. There were no significant differences in surgical complications or 90-day readmission rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic cystectomy is safe and feasible in an elderly population. We observed longer OR times with robotic surgery, but with decreased EBL, shorter hospital stays, and comparable complication and readmission rates with open RC. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

A contemporary large single-institution evaluation of resected retroperitoneal sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare malignancies, comprising just 10-15 % of all soft-tissue sarcomas. These are challenging tumors to treat, with surgical resection being the only modality capable of providing a cure. This study analyzed the management and survival of patients resected at a large academic institution. METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients with primary localized RPS referred to the University of Washington between January 2000 and January 2013 was performed. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to analyze progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by patient, tumor, and treatment variables. RESULTS: The study identified 132 patients. Median follow-up was 31.8 months. Median PFS was 33 months, and median OS was 111 months. Sixty patients (45.5 %) underwent a margin-negative resection (R0), 59 (44.7 %) had a microscopic margin-positive resection (R1), and 7 (5.3 %) had a macroscopic margin-positive resection (R2). Forty (30.3 %) patients received preoperative radiation, 28 (21.2 %) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 7 (5.3 %) received both. Tumor grade and microscopic margin status emerged as statistically significant predictors for both PFS and OS. Tumor size was also found to correlate with PFS. No significant difference in OS or PFS was observed for histologic subtype, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Complete surgical resection should remain the mainstay of management for RPS, with emphasis on achieving negative microscopic margins. Neither neoadjuvant chemotherapy nor radiation was shown to significantly improve survival, and their unclear role in the management of RPS requires evaluation in a prospective setting.