Effects of physical activity interventions using wearables to improve objectively-measured and patient-reported outcomes in adults following orthopaedic surgical procedures: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence on physical activity interventions that used wearables, either alone or in combination with education or rehabilitation, in adults following orthopaedic surgical procedures. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials of wearable-based interventions from each database's inception to August 2021 in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Relevant outcomes included physical activity, physical function, pain, psychological distress, or general health. PEDro scale scoring ranges from 0 to 10 and was used to appraise studies as high (≥7), moderate (5-6), or poor (<5) quality. RESULTS: Of 335 articles identified, 6 articles met eligibility criteria. PEDro scores ranged from 2 to 6, with 3 studies of moderate quality and 3 of poor quality. Studies included patients undergoing total knee (number; n = 4) or total knee or hip (n = 1) arthroplasty and lumbar disc herniation surgery (n = 1). In addition to wearables, intervention components included step diary (n = 2), motivational interviewing (n = 1), goal setting (n = 2), tailored exercise program (n = 2), or financial incentives (n = 1). Interventions were delivered in-person (n = 2), remotely (n = 3) or in a hybrid format (n = 1). Intervention duration ranged from 6 weeks to 6 months. Compared to controls, 3 moderate quality studies reported greater improvement in steps/day; however, 1 moderate and 2 poor quality studies showed no between-group difference in physical function, pain, or quality of life. No serious adverse events related to the use of wearable were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of physical activity interventions using wearables, either delivered in-person or remotely, appear promising for increasing steps per day after joint arthroplasty; however, this finding should be viewed with caution since it is based on 3 moderate quality studies. Further research is needed to determine the therapeutic effects of using wearables as an intervention component in patients undergoing other orthopaedic surgical procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020186103.

Preliminary proposal: a classification system for reconstruction with autologous femoral head after periacetabular tumors resection.

BACKGROUND: Although researchers have adopted various methods for the resection and reconstruction of periacetabular tumors, the total incidence rate of complications remains high. Aiming for preserving the acetabulum and reducing the risk of complications, we applied a surgery method using tumor-free autologous femoral head to reconstruct the defective acetabulum after resection of periacetabular tumors followed by performing a conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). Moreover, we proposed a preliminary classification system for these surgery methods. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 6 patients treated with acetabulum reconstruction combined with autologous femoral head following peri-acetabulum resection between April 2010 and May 2018. All patients were diagnosed as periacetabular tumors including chondrosarcoma (n = 5) and chondroblastoma (n = 1). Clinical data such as age, diagnosis, complications, local recurrence or metastasis, and function (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1993, MSTS93) were documented. The average time of follow-up was 62.5 months (range, 17 to 106 months). RESULTS: A total of 5 patients survive with average MSTS93 score of 27.8 points (range, 26-30). One patient, suffering from multiple bone metastasis prior treatment, ended up dying. One who had received radiotherapy before surgery had poor incision healing. Further, a classification system was preliminary proposed in 2 patients involving the pubis (type A) and 4 patients involving ischium (type B). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, we preliminary proposed a classification system for reconstruction with autologous femoral head after periacetabular low malignant tumors resection. The clinical results suggested that surgery methods involving pubis (type A) and ischium (Type B) are safe and feasible. However, further researches should be conducted to verify our classification system.

Revision Surgery Rates After Minimally Invasive Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Correlation with Roussouly Spine Type at 2-Year Follow-Up?

BACKGROUND: Spinopelvic parameters have hitherto dictated much of adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction. The Roussouly classification is used for the normal adult spine. We evaluated whether a correlation would be found between the Roussouly type and the rate of revision surgery in patients with ASD undergoing circumferential minimally invasive spinal (cMIS) correction. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review of patients who had undergone cMIS surgery for ASD was performed. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and 1 of the following: coronal Cobb angle >20°, sagittal vertical axis >5 cm, pelvic tilt >20°, pelvic incidence (PI) to lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch >10°, cMIS surgery, and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up data available. The patients were classified by Roussouly type, and the clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were included in the present analysis. Of the 104 patients, 41 had Roussouly type 1, 32 had type 2, 23 had type 3, and 8 had type 4. Preoperatively, the patients with type 4 had the highest PI (P = 0.002) and LL (P < 0.001). Postoperatively, the PI-LL mismatch, Cobb angle, and sagittal vertical axis were not different among the 4 groups. However, the patients with type 2 had had the highest rate of complications (type 1, 29.3%; type 2, 61.3%; type 3, 34.8%; type 4, 25.0%; P = 0.031). The reoperation rates were comparable (type 1, 19.5%; type 2, 38.7%; type 3, 13.0%; type 4, 12.5%; P = 0.097). The reoperation rates for adjacent segment degeneration or proximal junctional kyphosis were also comparable (P = 0.204 and P = 0.060, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a clear correlation between Roussouly type and the rate of revision surgery for adjacent segment disease or proximal junctional kyphosis in patients who had undergone cMIS surgery for ASD.

Shoulder girdle resection: surgical technique modification and introduction of a new classification system.

OBJECTIVE: Different classification systems for surgical tumor resections in the proximal humerus and scapula have been described, but none are specific or have been recently revised. The purpose of this article is to report modified surgical techniques and a new classification system for resections in the humerus and scapula. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with shoulder girdle bone tumors were operated upon. Two separate new classifications were assigned to resections in the humerus (types I-IV) and scapula (types I-III). An annotation is added to signify deltoid preservation (A) or sacrifice (B). Modified surgical techniques were devised. RESULTS: For extra-articular resections of the proximal humerus, we show that sacrificing the acromion and coracoid process is not required. Preservation of these structures can improve cosmetic shoulder outcome. For tumors with no large medial component, we show that there is no need to detach the muscle attachment from the coracoid process allowing earlier elbow extension postoperatively. After a mean follow-up period of 46 months, only two patients developed local recurrence. Postoperative infection was seen in two and stem loosening in one patient. The average MSTS functional score for all patients was 83%. CONCLUSION: Our modified surgical techniques saved structures which were unnecessarily resected with no advantage in surgical series. We reserved the integrity of more muscular tissues and attachments leading to less restriction during the rehabilitation process. This new classification system is realistic, easy to implement, and applicable to all patients.

Overview of randomised controlled trials in orthopaedic research: search for significant findings.

BACKGROUND: The majority of recent orthopaedics randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been non-inferiority trials with no significant clinical or statistical differences between treatment groups. The aim of this study was to evaluate randomised trials for significant findings in the orthopaedic literature based on the main elective procedures undertaken across different subspecialties. METHODS: We evaluated the following procedures: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), subacromial decompression (SAD), carpal tunnel decompression (CTD), total hip replacement (THR), anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), total knee replacement (TKR) and hallux valgus correction (HVC). Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2018, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 12 January 2018) and Embase (1980 to 12 January 2018). Trials that met our inclusion criteria were assessed using a binary outcome measure of whether they reported statistically significant findings. RESULTS: We included 1078 RCTs across seven most commonly performed elective procedures. Of those, only 16% (172/1078) reported significant findings [ACDF 26/77 (33.8%); SAD 2/22 (9%); CTD 11/72 (15.3%); THR 52/281 (18.5%); ACLR 21/239 (8.8%); TKR 55/357 (15.4%); HVC 5/30 (16.7%)]. The number of RCTs per year of publication has increased dramatically particularly since early 2000s-with over 100 RCTs of those seven procedures published in 2017 alone. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to undertake a comprehensive review of orthopaedic RCTs in elective practice. The number of RCTs in orthopaedic research is steadily increasing. However, only 16% of trials reports significant differences between interventions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For trials comparing different surgical techniques, this evidence provides treating surgeons with the flexibility to utilise available resources and infrastructure to deliver patients care without compromising clinical outcomes. Further, for trials comparing different treatment modalities, this study helps to inform the shared decision-making process when counselling patients on the effectiveness of surgical interventions.

Orthopedic Devices; Reclassification of Pedicle Screw Systems, Henceforth To Be Known as Thoracolumbosacral Pedicle Screw Systems, Including Semi-Rigid Systems. Final order.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final order to reclassify pedicle screw systems, a preamendments class III device (regulated under product code NKB), into class II (special controls), renaming the device "thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw systems"; reclassify dynamic stabilization systems, a subtype of pedicle screw systems regulated under product code NQP when used as an adjunct to fusion, into class II (special controls), renaming this device subtype "semi-rigid systems"; and clarify the device identification of pedicle screw systems to more clearly delineate between rigid pedicle screw systems and semi-rigid systems. FDA is finalizing this action based on a reevaluation of information pertaining to the device type.

Randomised trial support for orthopaedic surgical procedures.

We investigated the proportion of orthopaedic procedures supported by evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing operative procedures to a non-operative alternative. Orthopaedic procedures conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2011 across three metropolitan teaching hospitals were identified, grouped and ranked according to frequency. Searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were performed to identify RCTs evaluating the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Included studies were categorised as "supportive" or "not supportive" of operative treatment. A risk of bias analysis was conducted for included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. A total of 9,392 orthopaedic procedures were performed across the index period. 94.6% (8886 procedures) of the total volume, representing the 32 most common operative procedure categories, were used for this analysis. Of the 83 included RCTs, 22.9% (19/83) were classified as supportive of operative intervention. 36.9% (3279/8886) of the total volume of procedures performed were supported by at least one RCT showing surgery to be superior to a non-operative alternative. 19.6% (1743/8886) of the total volume of procedures performed were supported by at least one low risk of bias RCT showing surgery to be superior to a non-operative alternative. The level of RCT support for common orthopaedic procedures compares unfavourably with other fields of medicine.

[The DRG responsible physician in trauma and orthopedic surgery. Surgeon, encoder, and link to medical controlling]. / Der DRG-beauftragte Arzt in der Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie. Operateur, Kodierer und Bindeglied zum Medizincontrolling.

BACKGROUND: Precise coding is an essential requirement in order to generate a valid DRG. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of the initial coding of surgical procedures, as well as to introduce our "hybrid model" of a surgical specialist supervising medical coding and a nonphysician for case auditing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The department's DRG responsible physician as a surgical specialist has profound knowledge both in surgery and in DRG coding. At a Level 1 hospital, 1000 coded cases of surgical procedures were checked. RESULTS: In our department, the DRG responsible physician who is both a surgeon and encoder has proven itself for many years. The initial surgical DRG coding had to be corrected by the DRG responsible physician in 42.2% of cases. On average, one hour per working day was necessary. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a DRG responsible physician is a simple, effective way to connect medical and business expertise without interface problems. Permanent feedback promotes both medical and economic sensitivity for the improvement of coding quality.

Orthopedics coding and funding.

The French tarification à l'activité (T2A) prospective payment system is a financial system in which a health-care institution's resources are based on performed activity. Activity is described via the PMSI medical information system (programme de médicalisation du système d'information). The PMSI classifies hospital cases by clinical and economic categories known as diagnosis-related groups (DRG), each with an associated price tag. Coding a hospital case involves giving as realistic a description as possible so as to categorize it in the right DRG and thus ensure appropriate payment. For this, it is essential to understand what determines the pricing of inpatient stay: namely, the code for the surgical procedure, the patient's principal diagnosis (reason for admission), codes for comorbidities (everything that adds to management burden), and the management of the length of inpatient stay. The PMSI is used to analyze the institution's activity and dynamism: change on previous year, relation to target, and comparison with competing institutions based on indicators such as the mean length of stay performance indicator (MLS PI). The T2A system improves overall care efficiency. Quality of care, however, is not presently taken account of in the payment made to the institution, as there are no indicators for this; work needs to be done on this topic.

[Algorithm of diagnostics and surgery of trauma and degenerative diseases of cervical spine].

A retrospective analysis of diagnostics and surgery in 240 patients was made. The vertebral spinal trauma took place in 168 patients (average age 31 +/- 5 years), degenerative dystrophic diseases of spine were in 72 patients (average age 52 +/- 7 years). The clinicodiagnostic complex included survey and functional radiography of the spine, magnetic resonance image and helical computer tomography of the spine with spondylometric measurements and color duplex scanning of the vertebral artery. Stabilization of the spine was performed in 137 (57%) cases. The variants were determined on the basis of predominate injury of 1 out of 3 supporting complexes. The rigid and dynamic methods and their combination were used for fixation of the spine. More favorable results were registered using dynamic fixation and the arthroplasty of intervertebral disks with nitinol constructions. An algorithm of radiodiagnostics and surgery methods were proposed.

Unravelling the debate over orthopaedic trauma transfers: The sender's perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing frequency of orthopaedic trauma patient transfers is an issue at the centre of the current orthopaedic "call crisis" that has the potential to inundate resources at tertiary care centres. Appropriateness of transfer has been investigated only from the perspective of receiving surgeons. This study investigates the suitability and reasons for orthopaedic trauma patient transfer from the viewpoint of transferring surgeons. METHODS: A questionnaire was e-mailed to a random sampling of 500 active members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association. Surgeons were split into three groups: senders of trauma patients (senders); orthopaedic traumatologists who receive transfers (traumatologist receivers); and other trauma transfer receivers that are not traumatologists (non-traumatologist receivers). The perceived complexity and appropriateness for transfer of eight virtual case scenarios were determined, along with the specific reasons mitigating transfer. RESULTS: 51 Senders, 90 traumatologist receivers, and 98 non-traumatologist receivers completed 239 surveys. There was agreement between groups for case complexity and appropriateness for transfer in five of eight case scenarios (p<0.05). Fracture complexity was cited as the primary reason for transfer by 28% of senders. However, just as common was a lack of resources at the sending hospital; OR equipment (18%), critical care services (18%), and inability to handle the immediacy of the case (7%) were also cited. Likelihood of uninsured status was the least common reason for transfer (1%). CONCLUSIONS: In most cases, both senders and receivers of orthopaedic trauma have similar viewpoints regarding fracture complexity and appropriateness of transfer. Sending surgeons cite case complexity and a lack of hospital resources as the primary reasons for patient transfer. Mandating increased call for orthopaedic surgeons at non-trauma centres without a concomitant increase in hospital resources is unlikely to substantially reduce unnecessary patient transfers to higher level facilities.

The challenge of infection prevention in spine surgery: an update.

Prevention is particularly challenging in implant-associated bone and joint infection, as it could reduce the following: (1) the risk of infection in particular patient populations; (2) the risk associated with particular surgical procedures; and/or (3) the risk of infection with particular pathogen that has the ability to produce biofilm, such as staphylococci. As a consequence, it is crucial to identify: (1) host-related risk factors that may be involved in the acquisition of infection; (2) surgical procedures particularly at risk of infection; and (3) the different ways to target the most frequent pathogens involved in implant-associated spinal infection. In this article, we reviewed the data of the literature on the infection prevention in spine surgery.

Using the spine surgical invasiveness index to identify risk of surgical site infection: a multivariate analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection after spine surgery is a well-known complication that can result in poor outcomes, arthrodesis-site nonunion, and neurological injury. We hypothesized that a higher surgical invasiveness score will increase the risk for surgical site infection following spine surgery. METHODS: Data were examined from patients undergoing any type of spinal surgery from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004, at two academic hospitals. The surgical invasiveness index is a previously validated instrument that accounts for the number of vertebral levels decompressed, arthrodesed, or instrumented as well as the surgical approach. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each of the categorical variables. Multivariate binomial stepwise logistic regression was used to examine the association between surgical invasiveness and surgical site infection requiring a return to the operating room for treatment, adjusting for confounding risk factors. RESULTS: The regression analysis of 1532 patients who were evaluated for surgical site infection identified the following significant risk factors for surgical site infection: a body mass index of >35 (relative risk, 2.24 [95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 3.86]; p = 0.01), hypertension (relative risk, 1.73 [95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.85]; p = 0.03), thoracic surgery versus cervical surgery (relative risk, 2.57 [95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 5.60]; p = 0.01), lumbosacral surgery versus cervical surgery (relative risk, 2.03 [95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 4.05]; p = 0.02), and a surgical invasiveness index of >21 (relative risk, 3.15 [95% confidence interval, 1.37 to 6.99]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing more invasive spine surgery as measured with the surgical invasiveness index had greater risk for having a surgical site infection that required a return to the operating room for treatment. Surgical invasiveness was the strongest risk factor for surgical site infection, even after adjusting for medical comorbidities, age, and other known risk factors. The magnitude of this association should be considered during surgical decision-making and intraoperative and postoperative care of the patient. These findings further validate the importance of the invasiveness index when performing safety and clinical outcome comparisons for spine surgery.

Intravenous acetaminophen for pain after major orthopedic surgery: an expanded analysis.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: From the time that Sinatra et al. (Anesthesiology. 2005;102:822) was published to FDA apaproval of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen, an expanded analysis of the original raw study data became necessary for the regulatory submission. The following analyses were conducted: (1) sum of pain intensity differences over 24 hours (SPID24) using currently accepted imputation methods to account for both missing data and the effects of rescue; (2) efficacy results after the first 6 hours; (3) effects of gender, race/ethnicity, age, weight, surgical site, ASA Class, and serotonin antagonists; and (4) a stepwise regression analysis of why adverse events of nausea and vomiting were numerically (although not statistically) higher in the IV acetaminophen group compared with placebo. RESULTS: Sum of pain intensity differences over 24 hours using a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale was statistically significantly (P < 0.001) in favor of IV acetaminophen (n = 49) compared with placebo (n = 52). Time to rescue was found to be 3.9 and 2.1 hours, respectively, for total hip and knee arthroplasty compared with 0.8 hours for the placebo group. Rescue medication consumption, requests, and actual administration were all significantly lower in the IV acetaminophen group compared with placebo for each dosing interval, except in the 6- to 12-hours interval where a numerical trend was observed. Analysis of various subset variables demonstrated similar efficacy for each variable. A stepwise regression analysis demonstrated that AE reports of nausea and vomiting were most likely due to prerandomization events, particularly opioid consumption and presence of nausea prior to randomization. CONCLUSION: Repeated-dose 24-hours end points were found to be as robust as previously published results. IV acetaminophen efficacy and safety appeared to be unaffected by specific subset variables.▪