Trends and epidemiology of knee extensor mechanism injuries presenting to United States emergency departments from 2001 to 2020.

OBJECTIVES: Injuries to the native extensor mechanism (EM) of the knee are potentially disabling and often require surgical treatment. Large-scale, updated epidemiological data on these injuries is lacking. The objective of the current study was to examine recent trends in EM injuries presenting to United States (US) Emergency Departments (EDs) over the last 20 years using a nationally representative sample. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database to identify cases of EM injuries (defined as either a quadriceps tendon rupture, a patella fracture, or a patellar tendon rupture) presenting to EDs in the US from 2001 to 2020. RESULTS: During the study period, an estimated 214,817 EM injuries occurred in an at-risk population of 6,183,899,410 person-years for an overall incidence rate of 3.47 per 100,000 person-years. Patella fractures (PFs) were the most common injury type, representing 77.5% of all EM injuries (overall incidence rate: 2.69), followed by patellar tendon ruptures (PTRs; 13.5%; incidence: 0.48) and quadriceps tendon ruptures (QTRs; 9%; incidence: 0.31). Demographic characteristics and mechanisms of injury differed between injury types. Annual incidence rates increased significantly during the study period for all EM injury types, with PTRs demonstrating the largest relative increase (average annual percent increase: PF, 2.8%; PTR, 7.2%; QTR, 5.3%). Accounting for population growth yielded an increasing incidence of all EM injuries combined from 3.65 in 2001 to 4.9 in 2020. The largest relative increases in incidence rates were observed in older age groups. CONCLUSION: Extensor mechanism injuries of the knee are increasing in the US, which likely reflects an aging and more active population. These types of injuries are associated with substantial functional impairment and recent increases in incidence rates highlight the need for injury prevention and management strategies.

Accuracy of self-reported opioid use in orthopaedic trauma patients.

PURPOSE: Opioids have long been a mainstay of treatment for pain in patients with orthopaedic injuries, but little is known about the accuracy of self-reported narcotic usage in orthopaedic trauma. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of self-reported opioid usage in orthopaedic trauma patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of all new patients presenting to the orthopaedic trauma clinic of a level 1 trauma centre with a chief complaint of recent orthopaedic-related injury over a 2-year time frame was conducted. Participants were administered a survey inquiring about narcotic usage within the prior 3 months. Responses were cross-referenced against a query of a statewide prescription drug monitoring program system. RESULTS: The study comprised 241 participants; 206 (85.5%) were accurate reporters, while 35 (14.5%) were inaccurate reporters. Significantly increased accuracy was associated with hospital admission prior to clinic visit (ß = - 1.33; χ2 = 10.68, P < 0.01; OR: 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.62). Decreased accuracy was associated with higher pre-visit total morphine equivalent dose (MED) (ß = 0.002; χ2 = 11.30, P < 0.01), with accurate reporters having significantly lower pre-index visit MED levels compared to underreporters (89.2 ± 208.7 mg vs. 249.6 ± 509.3 mg; P = 0.04). An Emergency Department (ED) visit prior to the index visit significantly predicted underreporting (ß = 0.424; χ2 = 4.28, P = 0.04; OR: 2.34, 95% CI 1.01-5.38). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that most new patients presenting to an orthopaedic trauma clinic with acute injury will accurately report their narcotic usage within the preceding 3 months. Prior hospital admissions increased the likelihood of accurate reporting while higher MEDs or an ED visit prior to the initial visit increased the likelihood of underreporting.

A review of current practices in periprosthetic joint infection debridement and revision arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection remains a significant challenge for arthroplasty surgeons globally. Over the last few decades, there has been much advancement in terms of treatment and diagnosis, however, the fight rages on. As management of periprosthetic joint infections continues to evolve, it is critical to reflect back on current debridement practices to establish common ground as well as identify areas for future research and improvement. BODY: In order to understand the debridement techniques of periprosthetic joint infections, one must also understand how to diagnose a periprosthetic joint infection. Multiple definitions have been elucidated over the years with no single consensus established but rather sets of criteria. Once a diagnosis has been established the decision of debridement method becomes whether to proceed with single vs two-stage revision based on the probability of infection as well as individual patient factors. After much study, two-stage revision has emerged as the gold standard in the management of periprosthetic infections but single-stage remains prominent with further and further research. CONCLUSION: Despite decades of data, there is no single treatment algorithm for periprosthetic joint infections and subsequent debridement technique. Our review touches on the goals of debridement while providing a perspective as to diagnosis and the particulars of how intraoperative factors such as intraarticular irrigation can play pivotal roles in infection eradication. By providing a perspective on current debridement practices, we hope to encourage future study and debate on how to address periprosthetic joint infections best.

Operative time in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a need for a standard definition.

Our objective is to report and define 'operative time' in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) posterior spinal fusion surgeries. Documenting key times during surgery are important to compare operative risks, assess learning curves, and evaluate team efficiency in AIS surgery. 'Operative time' in literature has not been standardized. Systematic review was performed by two reviewers. Keywords included operative time, duration of surgery, and scoliosis. One thousand nine hundred six studies were identified, 1092 duplicates were removed and 670 abstracts were excluded. Of the 144 articles, 67 met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were evaluated for number of patients, operative time, and definition of operative time. Meta-analysis was not performed due to confounders. Of the 67 studies (6678 patients), only 14 (1565 patients) defined operative time, and all specified as incision to closure. From these 14 studies, the median operative time was 248 minutes (range 174-448 minutes). In the 53 studies (5113 patients) without a definition, one study reported time in a non-comparable format, therefore, data were analyzed for 52 studies (5078 patients) with a median operative time of 252 minutes (wider range 139-523 minutes). A clear standardized definition of operative or surgical time in spine surgery does not exist. We believe that operative time should be clearly described for each published study for accurate documentation and be defined from incision time to spine dressing completion time in order to standardize study results. Level of evidence: IV.