Search

BACKGROUND Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a debilitating condition that commonly requires surgical intervention. However, ASD patients may also present with osteoporosis, predisposing them to surgical complications and failure of instrumentation. As a result, proper detection of low bone mineral density (BMD) is critical in order to ensure proper patient care. Typically dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans are performed on the hip and spine. Unfortunately, in ASD patients, the latter is often inaccurate PURPOSE In this study, we consider the value of obtaining a forearm DEXA scan in addition to a hip scan in patients suffering from ASD and osteoporosis in order to accurately detect low BMD. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE Patient data between 2016 and 2018 from a single academic medical center was utilized. Two hundred eighty-six patients met the initial search criteria. OUTCOME MEASURES No outcomes measures related to self-reporting, physiology, or functionality were evaluated in this study. Primary outcome measures analyzed included T-scores across various anatomic locations and diagnoses relating to low bone density (ie, osteopenia and osteoporosis). METHODS This retrospective study examines patients that underwent DEXA studies between 2016 and 2018 and were previously diagnosed with both osteoporosis and adult spinal deformity. For each patient, age, gender, body mass index, and smoking history were noted, as well as whether there was long-term prednisone use. T-scores from both the forearm and hip were recorded and analyzed. Diagnoses from hip DEXA scans were compared with those obtained from forearm scans to identify which region was more sensitive in detecting low BMD. From this data, the frequency of a missed diagnosis, due to reliance on hip or spine T-scores for detection of low BMD, was extrapolated. No external funding source was received in support of this study. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-six patients matched the initial search criteria. Only 68% had one T-score value. However, 24.8% of patients had data for both the hip and forearm, whereas 7.1% had data for the forearm, hip, and spine. Among the 85 patients with more than one anatomical site of study, the forearm was more sensitive than the hip in its ability to detect osteopenia or osteoporosis 41.2% of the time. A two-tailed t test showed no statistically significant difference between hip T-scores and forearm T-scores. However, for more than 17% of patients, the forearm allowed clinicians to detect osteoporosis or osteopenia in a setting where using only the hip data would have missed such a diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians need to ensure they survey at least two locations when conducting DEXA studies before precluding a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis. All ASD patients being evaluated for low bone density should receive DEXA scans that survey at least the hip and the forearm. Misdiagnoses can be costly in the setting of ASD. They occur frequently when only a single hip scan is relied upon to assess BMD.

Background Context Exposure of unintended levels (defined as a spinal segment outside the intended surgical levels) is unnecessary and potentially adds to operative time and patient morbidity. Wrong-level surgery (defined as decompression, instrumentation, or fusion of a spinal segment not part of the intended surgical procedure) clearly adds to morbidity as well as putting the surgeon at medicolegal risk. Purpose To describe a localization technique for posterior lumbar spine surgery to minimize both unintended-level exposure and wrong-level surgery. Study Design Consecutive case series. Patient Sample One thousand nine hundred and eighty-six consecutive posterior lumbar operations performed from January 2010 to January 2017 using this technique were reviewed. Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was the incidence of unintended-level exposure and wrong-level surgery. Methods This localization technique was consistently used for determination of skin incision, soft tissue dissection, and identification of spinal levels for all patients undergoing posterior lumbar surgery during the time interval noted. Two spinal needles are inserted under sterile technique 3cm lateral to the midline before incision at the approximate cranial and caudal aspects of the anticipated incision based on external landmarks. A cross-table lateral X-ray before incision is obtained and the actual incision is adjusted based on the location of the spinal needles. Once dissection is carried down to the facet capsules, spinal needles are then placed in adjacent facets, and a second cross-table lateral film is obtained to confirm appropriate levels. A retrospective review of all posterior lumbar cases was performed to determine the incidence of unintended-level exposure and wrong-level surgery using this technique. Results There were no wrong-level surgeries during this time period. There were six (0.30%) cases of unintended-level exposure. Conclusions The technique described provides surgeons with a reliable, accurate, and easily reproducible method for localizing surgical levels during posterior lumbar spine surgery while minimizing exposure of uninvolved areas. This technique offers distinct advantages over previously proposed protocols and may lead to a widely accepted system for intraoperative spinal level identification.

Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and regorafenib (REG) prolong survival in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and have similar indications with different side-effect profiles. The present study compared real-world treatment patterns with FTD/TPI and REG for mCRC in a large, representative US claims database.Retrospective data from the US Symphony Health Solutions' Integrated Dataverse database were analyzed for adult mCRC patients receiving FTD/TPI or REG from October 2014 to July 2016. The index date was the first FTD/TPI or REG prescription date. The observation period spanned from the index date to the end of data collection, end of continuous clinical activity, or treatment switch. Adherence was assessed using the medication possession ratio and proportion of days covered at 3 months. The time to discontinuation was assessed over the observation period with gaps of 45, 60, or 90 days. Outcomes were compared between the cohorts using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for baseline characteristic differences.A total of 1630 FTD/TPI patients and 1425 REG patients were identified. The FTD/TPI patients were 80% more likely to have a medication possession ratio of ≥ 0.80 compared with the REG patients (odds ratio, 1.80; P .001) and more than twice as likely to have a proportion of days covered of ≥ 0.80 (odds ratio, 2.66; P .001) at 3 months. The FTD/TPI patients were 37% less likely to discontinue their treatment compared with the REG patients when using the 60-day gap (hazard ratio, 0.63; P .001). Similar results were found using the 45- and 90-day gaps.mCRC patients taking FTD/TPI were significantly more likely to adhere to and comply with therapy compared with those taking REG.

Degenerative lumbar stenosis can lead to symptoms of neurogenic claudication and lumbar radiculopathy. Lumbar stenosis can be caused by static compression of the neural elements in the central canal, along the lateral recess, and in the neuroforamen, as well as by dynamic changes to the total area of the central canal and neuroforamen. Previously, surgical options for the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis were primarily based on direct posterior open decompressions and fusions. However, novel techniques of indirect decompression have now been developed that restore disc height to increase the area of the central canal and neuroforamen and address the dynamic aspect of stenosis, while avoiding the extensive soft tissue injury involved in posterior open decompressions and fusions. Interbody fusions and interspinous devices are two methods of indirect decompression that are being commonly used. In this study, we provide a broad overview of the advantages, disadvantages, indications, evidence, and complications of ALIF, LLIF, and OLIF, as well as interspinous devices including Coflex. Though there is limited comparative evidence demonstrating that one approach is superior to another in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes, evidence does show that interbody techniques are effective at treating lumbar stenosis by increasing the total area of the central canal and neuroforamen while having high fusion rates. Though the newer generation of interspinous devices have lower failure rates than their predecessors, they still are not comparable to the interbody devices in terms of long term outcomes. The optimal approach for the indirect treatment of lumbar stenosis therefore depends on multiple variables, including but not limited to the spinal level of disease, the anatomy of the individual patient, the pathology being treated, and the familiarity of the surgeon.