Establishing a Collaborative Orthoplastic Approach for the Management of Primary Musculoskeletal Neoplasms: An 8-year Case Series.

Orthoplastic surgery is a multidisciplinary approach that is well-studied for extremity trauma, but not for musculoskeletal oncologic reconstruction. Here, the authors describe the application of a collaborative orthoplastic approach for the management of primary musculoskeletal neoplasms and evaluate its impact. The collaboration protocol, implemented in July 2019, comprises specific checkpoints of interdisciplinary co-management, which span the pre-, intra-, and postoperative treatment period. This involves direct communication between attending surgeons and their respective clinical teams. Patients who underwent resection of a primary musculoskeletal neoplasm between March 2014 and April 2022 were retrospectively categorized into conventional or collaboration groups. Of the 136 total patients, there were 63.2% (n = 86) conventional and 36.8% (n = 50) collaboration; 31.6% (n = 43) had reconstruction and 68.4% (n = 93) did not. Compared with the conventional group, the collaboration group had significantly higher rates of diabetes (18% versus 7%, P = 0.048) and radiation treatment (68% versus 43%, P = 0.005). The collaboration group was significantly more likely to have plastic surgery involvement in their care than the conventional group (38% versus 14%, P = 0.001), and to undergo reconstruction (42% versus 26%, P = 0.047). The groups showed no difference in rates of hematoma, seroma, delayed healing, infection, 30- or 90-day reoperation, or partial or complete flap/graft failure. The collaborative approach described here is feasible and associated with increased plastic surgery involvement and reconstructive surgery. Complications were equivalent despite evidence suggesting increased case complexity in the collaboration group. These early results are promising and could inspire wider adoption of structured orthoplastic protocols for care of these patients.

Foregoing Preoperative Antibiotics in Clean, Implant-Based Hand Surgery Does Not Increase Postoperative Infectious Risks.

Purpose: Although data support foregoing preoperative antibiotics for outpatient, soft-tissue procedures, there is a paucity of evidence regarding antibiotics for implant-based hand procedures. The purpose of this investigation was to assess early postoperative infectious concerns for patients undergoing implant-based hand surgery, regardless of preoperative antibiotic use. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed consisting of all patients undergoing implant-based hand procedures between January 2015 and October 2021. Primary outcomes included antibiotic prescription or reoperation for infection within 90 days of surgery. Demographics (age, gender, body mass index, diabetes, and smoking status) and hand surgery procedure type were recorded. To account for differences in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not receive preoperative antibiotics, covariate balancing was performed with subsequent weighted logistic regression models constructed to estimate the effect of no receipt of preoperative antibiotics on the need for postoperative antibiotics. In a separate logistic regression analysis, patients' baseline characteristics were evaluated together as predictors of postoperative antibiotic prescription. Results: One thousand eight hundred sixty-two unique procedures were reviewed with 1,394 meeting criteria. Two hundred thirty-six patients (16.9%) were not prescribed preoperative antibiotics. Overall, 54 (3.87%) and 69 (4.95%) patients received antibiotics within 30 and 90 days of surgery, respectively. One patient (0.07%) underwent reoperation. There were no differences in the rates of 30- and 90-day postoperative antibiotic prescriptions between the two groups. After covariant balancing of risk factors, patients not prescribed preoperative antibiotics did not display significantly higher odds of requiring postoperative antibiotics at 30 or 90 days. Logistic regression models showed male gender, temporary Kirschner wire fixation, and elevated body mass index were associated with increased postoperative antibiotics at 30 and 90 days. Conclusions: For implant-based hand procedures, there was no increased risk in postoperative antibiotic prescription or reoperation for patients who did not receive preoperative antibiotics. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic III.

Screening for Breast Cancer Risk: An Analysis of Under-recognized Risk Factors and Comparison of Interventions.

Recognition of patients at high risk (HR) for breast cancer allows earlier screening and opportunities for risk reduction. We compare patients referred to our breast clinic as HR vs referrals for other reason (ROR) and found to be HR. We evaluate under-recognized factors and treatment differences. A retrospective chart review of patients found to be HR but referred for any reason to our breast clinic from July 2012 to December 2022 was performed. Referral reason, demographics, hormonal history, family history, and other risk factors were evaluated and compared (HR vs ROR). While other risk models were used for screening, Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 (TCv7) were used for comparison. Breast imaging received, hormonal therapy, and genetics referral evaluations were compared. 195 patients were referred to our breast team, 113 (58%) were referred as HR while 82 (42%) were ROR. Average age was 47 years old. 175 (91%) were Caucasian. 74 (65.5%) were referred for genetic testing, and 32 (26%) tested positive for a genetic mutation (n = 10, 12% ROR). 67 (35%) were recommended chemoprevention (n = 32, 16.4% took chemoprevention). 6 (3.1%) underwent prophylactic mastectomies and 163 (85%) had supplemental breast imaging. Comparison of HR vs ROR did not show significant differences in hormonal factors or treatments received; however, TCv7 was higher in the group referred as HR (P < .001). Our study showed that HR patients are more commonly referred secondary to family history but undergo similar treatments as those ROR. Accessibility to screening tools and education of risk factors, especially in minorities and those not otherwise being screened, may help better recognize HR.

The Efficacy of Axillary Reverse Mapping for the Prevention of Lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: Lymphedema (LE) is the most notable complication of axillary surgery. The axillary reverse mapping (ARM) technique was created to decrease LE. This study aims to evaluate a single surgeon's experience with ARM in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for breast cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent SLNB or ALND. Tumor characteristics and treatments received were evaluated. Surgical intervention and use of ARM were compared to assess LE rates. A subgroup analysis was also performed of patients who underwent NAC. RESULTS: LE was initially reported in 7.1% (n = 10) of patients; 3.3% (n = 4) with SLNB and 35% (n = 6) with ALND. At initial follow-up, LE was reported 16.4% more often in patients who underwent ALND with no ARM, and 38.8% more often in patients who underwent ALND plus ARM. An increased risk of LE was found in patients treated with ALND (OR = 16.0, P < .001). All patients who underwent ARM were 12.75% more likely to develop LE if they received NAC (P < .05). Patients in the ALND group who also received NAC were more likely to undergo ARM as compared with patients in the SLNB group (P < .01). DISCUSSION: Our study showed that ARM failed to decrease the incidence of LE. Until better surgical outcomes are shown for the prevention of LE using ARM, other approaches should be utilized. However, larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate ARM.

Geriatric assessment-derived deficit accumulation and patient-reported treatment burden in older adults with bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: When a person's workload of healthcare exceeds their resources, they experience treatment burden. At the intersection of cancer and aging, little is known about treatment burden. We evaluated the association between a geriatric assessment-derived Deficit Accumulation Index (DAI) and patient-reported treatment burden in older adults with early-stage, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of older adults with NMIBC (≥65 years). We calculated DAI using the Cancer and Aging Research Group's geriatric assessment and measured urinary symptoms using the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6). The primary outcome was Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) score. A negative binomial regression with LASSO penalty was used to model TBQ. We further conducted qualitative thematic content analysis of responses to an open-ended survey question ("What has been your Greatest Challenge in managing medical care for your bladder cancer") and created a joint display with illustrative quotes by DAI category. RESULTS: Among 119 patients, mean age was 78.9 years (SD 7) of whom 56.3% were robust, 30.3% pre-frail, and 13.4% frail. In the multivariable model, DAI and UDI-6 were significantly associated with TBQ. Individuals with DAI above the median (>0.18) had TBQ scores 1.94 times greater than those below (adjusted IRR 1.94, 95% CI 1.33-2.82). Individuals with UDI-6 greater than the median (25) had TBQ scores 1.7 times greater than those below (adjusted IRR 1.70, 95% CI 1.16-2.49). The top 5 themes in the Greatest Challenge question responses were cancer treatments (22.2%), cancer worry (19.2%), urination bother (18.2%), self-management (18.2%), and appointment time (11.1%). CONCLUSIONS: DAI and worsening urinary symptoms were associated with higher treatment burden in older adults with NMIBC. These data highlight the need for a holistic approach that reconciles the burden from aging-related conditions with that resulting from cancer treatment.

The Use of Preoperative Antibiotics in Hardware-Based Hand Procedures Is Not Necessary: A Single-Surgeon Experience.

BACKGROUND: A survey to American Society for Surgery of the Hand members by Dunn et al showed that the use of preoperative antibiotics was random and not standardized for all hand procedures (Hand (N Y). 2020;15(4):534-541). Previous publications support that preoperative antibiotics for clean, soft-tissue procedures are not necessary, but there is minimal evidence regarding the need for preoperative antibiotics for hardware-based hand procedures. The purpose of our study is to compare infectious outcomes for patients undergoing hardware-based hand surgery between those who did and those who did not receive preoperative antibiotics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on hardware-based surgical patients from the senior author's hand practice between January 2015 and October 2021. All patients either received imbedded permanent hardware or temporary percutaneous k-wire fixation. Exclusion criteria included polytrauma patients, patients with open hand wounds, and patients with less than 2 outpatient follow-up visits. Primary outcomes measured were 30- and 90-day postoperative antibiotic prescriptions and need to return to the operating room. Basic demographic information such as age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, and smoking status were recorded and compared. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-two patients were reviewed, with 365 patients meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two hundred twenty patients did not receive preoperative antibiotics and 145 patients did receive preoperative antibiotics. χ2 tests to analyze for associations between the variables were used. Thirteen patients in the no preoperative antibiotic group (5.9%), compared with 5 patients in the preoperative antibiotic group (3.4%), received a postoperative antibiotic prescription within 30 days (P = 0.288). Sixteen patients in the no preoperative antibiotic group (7.3%), compared with 8 patients in the preoperative antibiotic group (5.5%) received a postoperative antibiotic prescription within 90 days (P = 0.508). One patient in the nonantibiotic group required return to the operating room for irrigation and debridement. CONCLUSIONS: There are no significant differences in the need for 30- and 90-day postoperative antibiotic prescriptions between those who did or did not receive preoperative antibiotics based on this single-surgeon experience.

Exploring Delay to Follow-Up in a Rural Multidisciplinary Cleft Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Oral clefts require longitudinal multidisciplinary care with follow-up visits at regular intervals throughout a patient's childhood, and delayed care can be detrimental. Although loss to follow-up is commonly studied, this metric does not account for patients that do return to care, but months or years later than recommended. The aim of this study was to explore and determine risk factors for delay to follow-up (DTFU) in a cleft clinic at a rural academic center. METHODS: Medical records from the multidisciplinary cleft clinic at a single rural tertiary care institution between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, were reviewed. The primary outcome was DTFU, measured as the difference in days between recommended and actual follow-up dates for a given visit. RESULTS: A cohort of 282 patients was analyzed, with a total of 953 visits. A total of 71% of patients experienced at least 1 delay in follow-up of 30 days or longer, and 50% had at least 1 delay of 90 days or longer. Out of all visits, the mean DTFU was 73 days (around 2.5 months). For 23% of patients, at least half their visits were delayed by more than 90 days, whereas 11% experienced a delay of more than 90 days with every visit. Patients who failed to show up to at least 1 appointment had significantly higher risk of DTFU ( P < 0.0001). Driving distance, driving time, SES, stage of cleft care, and cleft phenotype were not correlated with DTFU. For canceled appointments, 50.5% of recorded cancellation reasons were patient driven. CONCLUSIONS: Delay to follow-up in a multidisciplinary cleft clinic was prevalent in this rural cohort, with half of patients experiencing delays of 3 months or longer, and about 1 in 9 experiencing this delay with every visit. Delay to follow-up identifies patients with consistently high rates of delay in care, which could eventually lead to targeted interventions to increase compliance. Delay to follow-up may be a new and valuable measure of cleft care compliance that can be easily implemented by other institutions. Further investigation is needed to determine the relationship between delay and clinical outcomes in cleft patients.

Clinical T2N0M0 Esophageal Cancer-Is Treatment Pathway Associated With Overall Survival?

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal cancer therapy is commonly multimodal. The CROSS trial demonstrated a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus surgery alone in T1N1 or T2-3N0-1 patients. Theoretically, chemoradiation should be most beneficial to patients with advanced disease. Treating the intermediary stage, T2N0M0, is challenging as national guidelines offer multiple options. This study aims to compare survival outcomes and associated factors in clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer via treatment modality and compare clinical to pathological stage. The authors conclude that neoadjuvant therapy use has increased; however, there is no associated survival benefit, which may be due to over- or under-staging. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using the National Cancer Database (2006-2016). Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (NCRT + ESOPH) were compared to patients who underwent esophagectomy first (ESOPH). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with treatment pathway. Overall survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests at 1-, 3-, and 5-y post-treatment. Additionally, a multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with adjuvant therapy in ESOPH patients. RESULTS: There were 1662 patients (NCRT + ESOPH: 904 [54.4%], ESOPH: 758 [45.6%]). There was no difference in 5-y survival between NCRT + ESOPH and ESOPH patients. Despite this, NCRT + ESOPH treatment rates rose from 33% to 74% between 2006 and 2016. Patients who received NCRT + ESOPH were younger and more commonly had no Charlson-Deyo comorbidities. Notably, 41% of patients were over-staged (T1 or lower), and 32.8% were under-staged (N ≥ 1). CONCLUSIONS: T2N0M0 remains difficult to characterize, and pathological staging corresponds poorly to clinical staging. Neoadjuvant therapy use has increased; however, the lack of a significant survival benefit to correlate with such may be secondary to over- or under-staging.

Clinical and financial outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy compared to laparoscopic heller myotomy for treatment of achalasia.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies analyzing short-term outcomes for per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) have shown excellent clinical response rates and shorter operative times compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Despite this, many payors have been slow to recognize POEM as a valid treatment option. Furthermore, comparative studies analyzing long-term outcomes are limited. This study compares perioperative and long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and reimbursement for POEM and LHM at a single institution. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent POEM or LHM between 2014 and 2021 and had complete preoperative data with at least one complete follow up, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, success rate, operative time, myotomy length, length of stay, pre- and postoperative symptom scores, anti-reflux medication use, cost and reimbursement were compared. RESULTS: 58 patients met inclusion with 25 undergoing LHM and 33 undergoing POEM. There were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics. Treatment success (Eckardt ≤ 3) for POEM and LHM was achieved by 88% and 76% of patients, respectively (p = 0.302). POEM patients had a shorter median operative time (106 min. vs. 145 min., p = 0.003) and longer median myotomy length (11 cm vs. 8 cm, p < 0.001). All LHM patients had a length of stay (LOS) ≥ 1 day vs. 51.5% for POEM patients (p < 0.001). Both groups showed improvements in dysphagia, heartburn, regurgitation, Eckardt score, GERD HRQL, RSI, and anti-reflux medication use. The improvement in dysphagia score was greater in patients undergoing POEM (2.30 vs 1.12, p = 0.003). Median hospital reimbursement was dramatically less for POEM ($3,658 vs. $14,152, p = 0.002), despite median hospital costs being significantly lower compared to LHM ($2,420 vs. $3,132, p = 0.029). RESULTS: POEM is associated with a shorter operative time and LOS, longer myotomy length, and greater resolution of dysphagia compared to LHM. POEM costs are significantly less than LHM but is poorly reimbursed.