Search

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. This study compares reoperation rates and complications following single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)/lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)/posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Summary of Background Data. ALIF, LLIF, TLIF, and PLIF are widely used for degenerative disc disease. Lumbar interbody fusions have high rates of reoperation, primarily related to adjacent segment pathology and pseudarthrosis. Materials and Methods. The PearlDiver database was queried for patients (2010-2021) who had single-level ALIF/LLIF or TLIF/PLIF with same-day, single-level posterior instrumentation. ALIF/LLIF were combined, and similarly, TLIF/PLIF were combined, given how these operations are indistinguishable from Current Procedural Terminology coding. All patients were followed for ≥ 2 years and excluded if they had spinal traumas, fractures, infections, or neoplasms before surgery. The two cohorts, ALIF/LLIF and TLIF/PLIF, were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, Elixhausercomorbidity index, smoking status, and diabetes. The primary outcome was the incidence of all-cause subsequent lumbar operations. Secondary outcomes included 90-day surgical complications. Results. After 1:1 matching, each cohort contained 14,070 patients. All-cause subsequent lumbar operations were nearly identical at five-year follow-up (9.4% ALIF/LLIF vs. 9.5% TLIF/PLIF, P=0.91). Survival analysis using all-cause subsequent lumbar operations as the endpoint showed an equivalent 10-year survival rate of 86.0% (95%CI: 85.2-86.8). Within 90 days, TLIF/PLIF had more infections (1.3% vs. 1.7%, P=0.007) and dural injuries (0.2% vs. 0.4%, P=0.001). There was no difference in wound dehiscence, hardware complications, or medical complications. Conclusion. As utilized in real-world clinical practice, singlelevel anterolateral versus posterior approaches for interbody fusion have no effect on long-term reoperation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear how pediatric orthopedic surgeons are geographically distributed relative to their patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geographic distribution of pediatric orthopedic surgeons in the United States. Materials and Methods: County-level data of actively practicing pediatric orthopedic surgeons were identified by matching several registries and membership logs. Data were used to calculate the distance between counties and nearest surgeon. Counties were categorized as "surgeon clusters" or "surgeon deserts" if the distance to the nearest surgeon was less than or greater than the national average and the average of all neighboring counties, respectively. Cohorts were then compared for differences in population characteristics using data obtained from the 2020 American Community Survey. Results: A total of 1197 unique pediatric orthopedic surgeons were identified. The mean distance to the nearest pediatric orthopedic surgeon for a patient residing in a surgeon desert or a surgeon cluster was 141.9±53.8 miles and 30.9±16.0 miles, respectively. Surgeon deserts were found to have lower median household incomes (P<.001) and greater rates of children without health insurance (P<.001). Multivariate analyses showed that higher Rural-Urban Continuum codes (P<.001), Area Deprivation Index scores (P<.001), and percentage of patients without health insurance (P<.001) all independently required significantly greater travel distances to see a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. Conclusion: Pediatric orthopedic surgeons are not equally distributed in the United States, and many counties are not optimally served. Additional studies are needed to identify the relationship between travel distances and patient outcomes and how geographic inequalities can be minimized. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(4):e204–e210.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the injury and illness characteristics, treatments, and outcomes at elite ultraendurance triathlon events. Methods: We quantified participant demographics, injury types, treatments, and disposition for medical encounters at 27 Ironman-distance triathlon championships from 1989 to 2019. We then calculated the likelihood of concurrent medical complaints in each encounter. Results: We analyzed 10,533 medical encounters among 49,530 race participants for a cumulative incidence of 221.9/1000 participants (95% confidence interval [CI] = 217.7-226.2). Younger (<35 yr; 259.3/1000, 95% CI = 251.6-267.2) and older athletes (70+ yr; 254.0/1000, 95% CI = 217.8-294.4) presented to the medical tent at higher rates than middle-age adults (36-69 yr; 180.1/1000, 95% CI = 175.4-185.0). Female athletes also presented at higher rates when compared with males (243.9/1000, 95% CI = 234.9-253.2 vs 198.0/1000, 95% CI = 193.4-202.6). The most common complaints were dehydration (438.7/1000, 95% CI = 426.2-451.6) and nausea (400.4/1000, 95% CI = 388.4-412.6). Intravenous fluid was the most common treatment (483/1000; 95% CI = 469.8-496.4). Of the athletes who received medical care, 116.7/1000 (95% CI = 110.1-123.4) did not finish the race, and 17.1/1000 (95% CI = 14.7-19.8) required hospital transport. Athletes rarely presented with an isolated medical condition unless their injury was dermatologic or musculoskeletal in nature. Conclusions: Ultraendurance triathlon events have high rates of medical encounters among female athletes, as well as both younger and older age categories. Gastrointestinal and exertional-related symptoms are among the most common complaints. Intravenous infusions were the most common treatment after basic medical care. Most athletes entering the medical tent finished the race, and a small percentage were dispatched to the hospital. A more thorough understanding of common medical occurrences, including concurrent presentations and treatments, will allow for improved care and optimal race management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter to the editor responds to a study comparing the rates of adjacent segment disease (ASD) following Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF). The authors of the letter raise concerns about the methodology and outcomes of the study, particularly regarding the definition of ASD and the use of ICD and CPT codes. They suggest that the reported rates may include all-cause subsequent surgeries rather than surgeries specifically for ASD. Additionally, they propose that the higher ASD rate associated with ALIF may be due to staged procedures and not a true reflection of the risk. The authors argue that ASD does not occur within days and recommend the use of a Kaplan-Meier curve to further analyze the data. The letter is authored by Nakul Narendran, Paal K. Nilssen, Alexander Tuchman, and David L. Skaggs from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Department of Neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. [Extracted from the article]

The thoracolumbar junction is a complex and challenging anatomical region due to its heterogeneous array of planes and structures.1 Navigating this region during a lateral approach to the spine is a challenge that requires a thorough understanding of the anatomy. We present a case of a 54-year-old woman with a 7-year history of breast cancer who presented with low back pain after running a marathon. To date, the patient had deferred medical management. Imaging revealed Stage IV differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma with extensive bony metastatic disease in multiple areas of the spine. The patient underwent a right-sided minimally invasive retrodiaphragmatic approach to the thoracolumbar junction for L1 corpectomy, placement of an expandable cage, and posterior percutaneous pedicle screw segmental fixation from T11 to L3 with robotic guidance. Patient consent was obtained for the following procedure, and IRB approval was not required for publication of this single patient case report., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Retrospective Matched Cohort., Objective: Despite known consequences to the facet joints following lumbar total disc replacement (TDR), there is limited data on facet injection usage for persistent postoperative pain. This study uses real-world data to compare the usage of therapeutic lumbar facet injections as a measure of symptomatic facet arthrosis following single-level, stand-alone TDR vs anterolateral lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF/LLIF)., Methods: The PearlDiver database was queried for patients (2010-2021) with lumbar degenerative disc disease who received either a single-level, stand-alone TDR or ALIF/LLIF. All patients were followed for ≥2 years and excluded if they had a history of facet injections or spinal trauma, fracture, infection, or neoplasm. The two cohorts were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, insurance, year of operation, and medical comorbidities. The primary outcome was the use of therapeutic lumbar facet injections at 1-, 2-, and 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included subsequent lumbar surgeries and surgical complications., Results: After 1:1 matching, each cohort had 1203 patients. Lumbar facet injections occurred significantly more frequently in the TDR group at 1-year (6.07% vs 1.66%, P < .0001), 2-year (8.40% vs 3.74%%, P < .0001), and 5-year (11.47% vs 6.40%, P < .0001) follow-up. 5-year injection-free probability curves demonstrated an 87.1% injection-free rate for TDR vs 92.9% for ALIF/LLIF. There was no clinical difference in the incidence of subsequent lumbar surgeries or complications., Conclusion: Compared with ALIF/LLIF, patients who underwent TDR received significantly more facet injections, suggesting a greater progression of symptomatic facet arthrosis. TDR was not protective against reoperations compared to ALIF/LLIF., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Study Design: Retrospective Cohort., Objectives: Most data regarding cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) outcomes are from highly controlled clinical trials with strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. This study aimed to identify risk factors for CDA reoperation, in "real world" clinical practice using a national insurance claims database., Methods: The PearlDiver database was queried for patients (2010-2020) who underwent a subsequent cervical procedure following a single-level CDA. Patients with less than 2 years follow-up were excluded. Primary outcome was to evaluate risk factors for reoperation. Secondary outcome was to evaluate the types of reoperations. Risk factors were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariate regression analyses were used to ascertain the association among risk factors and reoperation., Results: Of 14,202 patients who met inclusion criteria, 916 (6.5%) underwent reoperation. Patients undergoing reoperation were slightly older with higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) scores, however both were not risk factors for reoperation. Patients with diagnoses such as smoking, myelopathy, inflammatory disorders, spinal deformity, trauma, or a history of prior cervical surgery were at greater risk for reoperation. No association was found between the year of index surgery and reoperation risk. The most common reoperation procedure was cervical fusion., Conclusions: As billed for in the United States since 2010, CDA was associated with a 6.5% reoperation rate over a mean follow-up time of 5.3 years. Smoking, myelopathy, inflammatory disorders, spinal deformity, and a history of prior cervical surgery or trauma are risk factors for reoperation following CDA. Though patients who underwent a reoperation were older, age was not found to be an independent risk factor for a subsequent procedure., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.