Streufert, Benjamin D.

Study Design Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Objective The purpose of this study is to synthesize recommendations for perioperative medical management of RA patients and quantify outcomes after spine surgery when compared to patients without RA. Methods A search of available literature on patients with RA and spine surgery was performed. Studies were included if they provided a direct comparison of outcomes between patients undergoing spine surgery with or without RA diagnosis. Meta-analysis was performed on operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, overall complications, implant-related complications, reoperation, infection, pseudarthrosis, and adjacent segment disease. Results Included in the analysis were 9 studies with 703 patients with RA undergoing spine surgery and 2569 patients without RA. In RA patients compared to non-RA patients undergoing spine surgery, the relative risk of infection was 2.29 times higher (P = .036), overall complications 1.61 times higher (P < .0001), implant-related complications 3.93 times higher (P = .009), and risk of reoperation 2.45 times higher (P < .0001). Hospital length of stay was 4.6 days longer in RA patients (P < .0001). Conclusions Treatment of spinal pathology in patients with RA carries an increased risk of infection and implant-related complications. Spine-specific guidelines for perioperative management of antirheumatic medication deserve further exploration. All RA patients should be perioperatively co-managed by a rheumatologist. This review helps identify risk profiles in RA specific to spine surgery and may guide future studies seeking to medically optimize RA patients perioperatively.

Objectives: We conducted a large, U.S wide, observational study of type III tibial fractures, with the hypothesis that delays between definitive fixation and flap coverage might be a substantial modifiable risk factor associated with nosocomial wound infection. Design: A retrospective analysis of a multicenter database of open tibial fractures requiring flap coverage. Setting: Fourteen level-1 trauma centers across the United States. Patients: Two hundred ninety-six (n = 296) consecutive patients with Gustilo III open tibial fractures requiring flap coverage at 14 trauma centers were retrospectively analyzed from a large orthopaedic trauma registry. We collected demographics and the details of surgical care. We investigated the patient, and treatment factors leading to infection, including the time from various points in care to the time of soft-tissue coverage. Intervention: Delay definitive fixation and flap coverage in tibial type III fractures. Main Outcome Measurements: (1) Results of multivariate regression with time from injury to coverage, debridement to coverage, and definitive fixation to coverage in the model, to determine which delay measurement was most associated with infection. (2) A second multivariate model, including other factors in addition to measures of flap delay, to provide the estimate between delay and infection after adjustment for confounding. Results: Of 296 adults (227 M: 69 F) with open Gustilo type III tibial fractures requiring flap coverage, 96 (32.4%) became infected. In the multivariate regression, the time from definitive fixation to flap coverage was most predictive of subsequent wound infection (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.08, n = 260, P = 0.02) among the time measurements. Temporary internal fixation was not associated with an increased risk of infection in both univariate (P = 0.59) or multivariate analyses (P = 0.60). Flap failure was associated with the highest odds of infection (odds ratio 6.83, 95% confidence interval 3.26 to 14.27, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Orthoplastic teams that are dedicated to severe musculoskeletal trauma, that facilitate coordination of definitive fixation and flap coverage, will reduce the infection rates in Gustilo type III tibial fractures. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Treatment of a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) is sensitive to patient preferences. The operative or nonoperative management debate provides an excellent opportunity to learn how surgeons apply patient preferences in treatment decisions. Purpose: To determine how patient preferences (repeat dislocation risk, recovery difficulties, fear of surgery, treatment costs) and surgeon factors influence a surgeon’s treatment plan for FTASD. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Eight clinical vignettes of hypothetical patients with FTASD (including age, sex, and activity level) were presented to members of the Magellan Society. A second set of matched vignettes with patient preferences and clinical variables were also presented. The vignettes represented scenarios in which evidence does not favor one treatment over another. Respondents were asked how they would manage each hypothetical case. Respondents also estimated the risk of redislocation for the nonoperative cases for comparison with the published rates. Finally, respondents completed a Likert-scale questionnaire to determine their perceptions on factors influencing their decisions. Results: A total of 103 orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey; 48% practiced in an academic hospital; 79% were in practice for 10 years or longer; and 75% had completed a sports medicine fellowship. Patient preferences were the single most important factor influencing treatment recommendation, with activity type and age also important. Just 62% of the surgeon estimates of the risk of redislocation were consistent with the published rates. The inclusion of patient preferences to clinical variables changed treatment recommendations in 62.5% of our hypothetical cases. Respondents rated patient treatment preference as the leading factor in their treatment decision making. Conclusion: Patient preferences were important when deciding the appropriate treatment for FTASD. Respondents were inconsistent when applying evidence in their decision making and estimates of recurrent instability. Decision support tools that deliver patient preferences and personalized evidence-based outcome estimates improve the quality of decision making at the point of care.