Bachmann, Keith

Background: In skeletally immature patients, alternative surgical approaches should be undertaken for the treatment of patellofemoral instability that respect the open physis. Remaining growth can be exploited for correction of genu valgum, a known anatomic risk factor of patellofemoral instability. Indications: A skeletally immature 14-year-old boy with bilateral genu valgum and patella alta presented with symptomatic, recurrent left knee patellar instability precluding sports participation and causing dysfunction in his activities of daily living. Technique Description: A midline approach to the knee was used. Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFL-R) was completed up until the point of femoral-sided allograft fixation. The socket for femoral-sided graft fixation was reamed with an all-epiphyseal technique. Next, growth modulation with temporary hemiepiphysiodesis of the medial distal femoral physis was undertaken with an 8-plate bilaterally. Patellar tendon shortening was completed. Femoral-sided graft fixation for the MPFL-R was then completed. Results: There were no acute complications associated with surgery. Surgical management led to resolution of the patient’s patellar instability. The patient is being followed for timing of hemiepiphysiodesis plate removal. Discussion/Conclusion: In skeletally immature patients, a physeal-sparing MPFL-R is a viable treatment option to address recurrent patellar instability. Other anatomic risk factors, such as genu valgum and patella alta, may be concomitantly addressed using techniques that are respective of the open physis. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Background: Vertebral body tethering and other non-fusion techniques for the treatment of pediatric idiopathic scoliosis are increasing in popularity. There is limited physician consensus on this topic as the result of a paucity of published data regarding which patients most benefit from non-fusion strategies. Thus, much of the decision-making is left to patients and parents, who must select a treatment based on their goals and values and the information available from health-care providers, the internet, and social media. We sought to understand patient and family preferences regarding the attributes of fusion versus non-fusion surgery that drive these choices. Methods: Patients and families were recruited from 7 pediatric spine centers and were asked to complete a survey-based choice experiment that had been jointly developed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate patient preferences. Choices between experimentally designed alternatives were analyzed to estimate the relative importance of outcomes and requirements associated with the choice options (attributes). The attributes included appearance, confidence in the planned correction, spinal motion, device failure, reoperation, and recovery period. The inclusion criteria were (1) an age of 10 to 21 years and (2) a diagnosis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in patients who were considering, or who had already undergone, treatment with fusion or non-fusion surgery. Preference weights were estimated from the expected changes in choice given changes in the attributes. Results: A total of 344 respondents (124 patients, 92 parents, and 128 parent/patient dyads) completed the survey. One hundred and seventy-three patients were enrolled prior to surgery, and 171 were enrolled after surgery. Appearance and motion were found to be the most important drivers of choice. For the entire cohort, fusion was preferred over non-fusion. For patients who were considering surgery, the most important attributes were preservation of spinal motion and appearance. Conclusions: Patients and families seeking treatment for idiopathic scoliosis value appearance and preservation of spinal motion and, to a lesser extent, reoperation rates when considering fusion versus non-fusion surgery.

Background: Prior “best practice guidelines” (BPG) have identified strategies to reduce the risk of acute deep surgical site infection (SSI), but there still exists large variability in practice. Further, there is still no consensus on which patients are “high risk” for SSI and how SSI should be diagnosed or treated in pediatric spine surgery. We sought to develop an updated, consensus-based BPG informed by available literature and expert opinion on defining high-SSI risk in pediatric spine surgery and on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of SSI in this high-risk population. Materials and Methods: After a systematic review of the literature, an expert panel of 21 pediatric spine surgeons was selected from the Harms Study Group based on extensive experience in the field of pediatric spine surgery. Using the Delphi process and iterative survey rounds, the expert panel was surveyed for current practices, presented with the systematic review, given the opportunity to voice opinions through a live discussion session and asked to vote regarding preferences privately. Two survey rounds were conducted electronically, after which a live conference was held to present and discuss results. A final electronic survey was then conducted for final voting. Agreement ≥70% was considered consensus. Items near consensus were revised if feasible to achieve consensus in subsequent surveys. Results: Consensus was reached for 17 items for defining high-SSI risk, 17 items for preventing, 6 for diagnosing, and 9 for treating SSI in this high-risk population. After final voting, all 21 experts agreed to the publication and implementation of these items in their practice. Conclusions: We present a set of updated consensus-based BPGs for defining high-risk and preventing, diagnosing, and treating SSI in high-risk pediatric spine surgery. We believe that this BPG can limit variability in practice and decrease the incidence of SSI in pediatric spine surgery. Level of Evidence: Not applicable.