Chung, Andrew

Background: To analyze gender differences regarding the recovery experience (pain, function, complications) after spinal arthrodesis surgery. Methods: Pre-operative and post-operative gender-based differences in patient-reported outcomes for open posterior spinal arthrodesis at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year were studied, including age, comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, number of vertebrae fused, type of surgery, primary vs. revision surgery, and complications. Statistical analysis included the use of Student’s t-test, Chi square, linear regression, Mann–Whitney U test, and Spearman’s rho. Results: Primary or revision posterior arthrodesis was performed on 1931 consecutive adults (1219 females, 712 males) for deformity and degenerative pathologies. At surgery, females were older than males (61.7 years vs. 59.7 years, p < 0.01), had slightly more comorbidities (1.75 vs. 1.5, p < 0.01), and were more likely to undergo deformity correction (38% vs. 22%, p < 0.01). Females described more pre-op pain (female VAS = 6.54 vs. male VAS = 6.41, p < 0.01) and lower pre-op function (female ODI = 49.73 vs. male ODI = 46.52, p < 0.01). By 3 months post-op, there was no significant gender difference in VAS or ODI scores. Similar pain and function scores between males and females continued through 6 months and 12 months. Conclusion: Although females have more pain and dysfunction before undergoing spinal surgery, the differences in these values do not reach the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID). Post-operatively, there is no difference in pain and function scores among males and females at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Background: Debridement and implant retention (DAIR) has variable success as a treatment for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with generally poor outcomes reported in the literature 1 . Because of the unacceptably high failure rate of DAIR, we implemented a 2-stage debridement protocol that includes the use of high-dose antibiotic beads between stages for the treatment of acute PJI. In 2 previous studies, with an average follow-up of 3.5 years in each study, we reported overall infection-control rates of 87% and 90% 2,3 . Description: Following exposure of the joint, cultures are obtained, and all modular components are removed, scrubbed, and soaked in an antiseptic solution. A thorough irrigation and debridement with complete synovectomy is performed, followed by temporary reinsertion of the original modular parts. High-dose antibiotic cement beads are inserted into the joint, and the joint is closed. Approximately 5 to 6 days later, a second debridement is performed, the beads are removed, and the new modular, sterile components are implanted. The patient is placed on a course of intravenous and, later, oral antibiotics, in addition to a standard postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Alternatives: Long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy. One-stage DAIR. One-stage exchange arthroplasty. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty. Resection arthroplasty. Amputation. Rationale: The treatment of acute PJI has historically consisted of a single irrigation and debridement, with exchange of modular parts and retention of the components, followed by intravenous antibiotic therapy. Despite having lower rates of patient morbidity compared with a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, this more traditional procedure also has a higher rate of failure, with reported rates as high as 60% to 84% 4–12 . The utility of component retention continues to be a topic of debate 13 . Alternatives to component retention include both 1- and 2-stage exchange procedures. Although these modalities offer potentially higher rates of infection control, they are associated with substantial patient morbidity, particularly in patients with well-fixed implants 14–16 . Furthermore, exchange procedures may result in substantial iatrogenic bone loss, which can be problematic in revision total joint arthroplasty procedures, in which bone stock may already be limited. The double-DAIR protocol offers infection-control rates that are comparable with those of component-exchange procedures, but with the lower patient morbidity associated with component-retention procedures. Furthermore, the double-DAIR procedure provides the added benefit of retaining important bone stock. Expected Outcomes: The success rate for the double-DAIR procedure has been reproducible, with infection-control rates of 87% and 90% reported in 2 studies from a single cohort at our institution 2,3 . These rates represent a substantial improvement compared with a single irrigation and debridement 1 , and are on par with those reported for 2-stage exchange arthroplasty procedures 17–21 . The infection-control rates of the double-DAIR procedure did not significantly vary depending on whether infection occurred following a total knee or total hip arthroplasty. However, not surprisingly, patients who underwent debridement following a revision procedure had a lower rate of success (77.1% successful infection control) compared with patients debrided following a primary procedure (93.8% successful infection control). We could not demonstrate an association with organism and success or failure of treatment. Although not significant, there was a trend toward an association between the time from symptom onset to initial treatment and infection control (p = 0.07) 2 . Patients with successful infection control underwent the initial debridement an average of 6.2 days after symptom onset, compared with 10.7 days in patients in whom treatment had failed. Several other studies have demonstrated that successful infection control is associated with earlier initial irrigation and debridement 22–27 . We strongly support that, in the setting of confirmed acute PJI, prompt initiation of treatment optimizes the chances for successful infection control. Important Tips: Thorough debridement is key to successful infection control of infection. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement has repeatedly been demonstrated to be safe, and we recommend its use 28–31 . Extended oral antibiotics following debridement with component retention can increase infection-free survivorship 32 .

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To determine if local administration of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) reduces postoperative pain scores and narcotic use in spinal deformity patients. Methods: Adult patients undergoing elective spinal fusion (7 or more levels) for scoliosis or kyphosis were selected for inclusion. Patients received either periincisional injections of combined liposomal and standard bupivacaine (n = 90, group L) or standard bupivacaine only (n = 69, group C). Perioperative pain scores (VAS [visual analogue scale]), opioid use, length of stay, functional outcome (ODI [Oswestry Disability Index]), and perioperative complications were recorded. No external funding was received for this study. Results: A total of 159 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age was 54.2 years of age). No significant baseline demographic differences were noted between the 2 groups. Group L experienced slight improvements in pain control on postoperative day (POD) 1 ( P = .02). No difference in pain scores were otherwise noted. Group L transitioned off of intravenous (IV) narcotics faster with 52.6% less IV use by POD3 ( P = .03). No differences in total narcotic consumption, perioperative complications, lengths of stay, and functional outcome scores were otherwise noted between the 2 cohorts. Conclusions: The use of LB in adult spinal deformity surgery does not appear to provide clinically important improvements in postoperative pain at the manufacturer’s recommended dosage. Furthermore, while patients receiving LB may transition more quickly off of IV narcotics, this does not appear to translate into an overall decrease in narcotic consumption, hasten return of bowel function, or decrease hospital lengths of stay. Future prospective randomized control trials are warranted. The use of varying dosages of LB may also help further clarify the true efficacy of LB in the setting of spinal deformity surgery.

Background: Lumbar spine injuries (LSIs) are common in both men’s and women’s National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball players and can frequently lead to reinjuries and persistent pain. Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of an LSI in collegiate men’s and women’s basketball during the 2009-2010 through 2013-2014 academic years. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: The incidence and characteristics of LSIs were identified utilizing the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP). Rates of injury were calculated as the number of injuries divided by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). AEs were defined as any student participation in 1 NCAA-sanctioned practice or competition. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were then calculated to compare the rates of injury between season, event type, mechanism, injury recurrence, and time lost from sport. Results: The NCAA ISP reported 124 LSIs from an average of 28 and 29 men’s and women’s teams, respectively. These were used via validated weighting methodology to estimate a total of 5197 LSIs nationally. The rate of LSIs in women was 2.16 per 10,000 AEs, while men suffered LSIs at a rate of 3.47 per 10,000 AEs. Men were 1.61 times more likely to suffer an LSI compared with women. In men, an LSI was 3.48 times more likely to occur in competition when compared with practice, while in women, an LSI was 1.36 times more likely to occur in competition than in practice. Women suffered the highest LSI rate during the postseason, while the highest rate in men was during the regular season. The majority of both female (58.9%; n = 1004) and male (73.1%; n = 2353) athletes returned to play within 24 hours of injury. Conclusion: To date, this is the largest study to characterize LSIs in NCAA basketball and provides needed information on the prevalence and timing of these injuries. The majority of injuries in both sexes were new, and most athletes returned to play in less than 24 hours. Injury rates were highest during competition in both sexes.

Background: The number of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) procedures performed annually is increasing as a result of an aging population and an increased access to subspecialty-trained upper extremity arthroplasty surgeons. An up-to-date analysis of the incidence of, risk factors for, and reasons for 90-day readmissions in primary anatomic TSA has yet to be performed. Purpose: To characterize 90-day readmissions on a national level. An understanding of these data will help to predict resource utilization and expenses in shoulder arthroplasty. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All adult patients undergoing elective primary TSA in 2014 who were included in the National Readmission Database were included in the analysis. Two cohorts were created according to 90-day readmission status. Multivariable analysis was then performed to determine predictors of 90-day readmissions. Reasons for 30-, 60-, and 90-day readmissions were identified, and total hospital resource utilization was calculated. Results: An estimated 26,023 patients were identified. The 30-, 60-, and 90-day rates of readmissions were 0.6%, 1.2%, and 1.7%, respectively. There was no difference in comorbidity burden between the cohorts. Medicare payer status (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.00-2.65; P = .05), transfer to a skilled nurse facility (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.05-2.14; P = .02), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.66; P = .02) were identified as predictors of 90-day readmission. Female sex decreased odds of 90-day readmission (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; P = .001). Ninety-day readmissions were associated with significant cost increases ( P < .001). The most common identifiable reason for related readmissions was a hardware-related complication at all time points. Conclusion: While uncommon, 90-day readmissions after primary TSA are associated with significant patient morbidity and ultimately substantial hospital costs. Truncating readmission analysis at a 30-day period will miss most arthroplasty-related hospital readmissions.

Background: National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football players are at a high risk of injuries. Elbow injuries are uncommon, but there are insufficient data specifically on elbow injuries sustained in NCAA football players. Purpose: To define the epidemiology of elbow injuries in NCAA football players during the 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 seasons using data from the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (NCAA-ISP). Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: Using the NCAA-ISP database, a convenience sample of NCAA football athletes was reviewed to determine the types, rates, and trends in elbow injuries. Several factors were examined, including the diagnosis, injury setting, time lost from sport, surgical necessity, and injury recurrence. Raw injury data were obtained as well as weighted totals from the NCAA-ISP to generate national estimates and adjust for underreporting. Injury rates were calculated by dividing the number of injuries by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). The rate ratios of injuries during competition versus practice were compared, as were the rate ratios of preseason, regular-season, and postseason injuries by type. Results: We identified 4874 total elbow injuries from the 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 seasons. The rate of injuries overall was 1.892 per 10,000 AEs. The rate for competition was 9.053 per 10,000 AEs and 1.121 per 10,000 AEs for practice. The rate ratio between competition and practice was 8.08 (95% CI, 6.04-10.80). Injury rates for the preseason, regular season, and postseason were 1.851, 1.936, and 1.406 per 10,000 AEs, respectively. Acute elbow instability was the most common injury type (65.43%). The most common mechanism was a contact injury (86.77%); 96.82% of injuries did not require surgery, and most elbow injuries required less than 24 hours of participation restriction (67.33%). Conclusion: Although elbow injuries in NCAA football players are uncommon, it is important to recognize and treat these injuries appropriately. Dislocations and ulnar collateral ligament injuries caused athletes to miss extended periods of play. Fortunately, a majority of injuries resulted in less than 24 hours of participation restriction. Particular attention should be given to preventing elbow injuries, especially ulnar collateral ligament strains, hyperextension injuries, and acute instability.

Study Design. Descriptive epidemiology study. Objective. The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology of neck and cervical spine injuries in collegiate athletes over a 5-year period. Summary of Background Data. The incidence and etiology of neck and cervical spine injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes has not been well defined in recent years. Methods. The incidence and characteristics of neck and cervical spine injuries were identified utilizing the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program database. Rates of injury were calculated as the number of injuries divided by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). AEs were defined as any student participation in one NCAA-sanctioned practice or competition. Results. Nationally, there were an estimated 11,510 neck and cervical spine injuries over the 5-year period. These occurred at a rate of 7.05 per 100,000 athlete-exposures (AEs). The rate of neck and cervical spine injuries in men was 2.66 per 100,000 AEs, while women suffered injuries at a rate of 1.95 per 100,000 AEs. In sex-comparable sports, men were 1.36 times more likely to suffer a neck or cervical spine injury compared with women. Men's football (29.09 per 100,000 AEs) and women's field hockey (11.51 per 100,000 AEs) were the sports with the highest rates of injuries. These injuries were 3.94 times more likely to occur during competition compared with practice. In-season injury rates were the highest, at 8.18 per 100,000 AEs. Conclusion. The vast majority of neck and cervical spine injuries in NCAA athletes are minor and uncommon. Across all sports in both sexes, the majority of injuries were new, and occurred during in-season competitions. Most athletes returned to play within 24 hours of injury. These data can inform players, parents, coaches, athletic trainers, and physicians regarding the prevalence and rates of these injuries and potentially inform decision-making regarding injury prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. Level of Evidence: 4

Background: Little research has focused on the rates and patterns of elbow injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes. Purpose: To describe the epidemiological patterns of elbow injuries in NCAA athletes during 5 seasons over the academic years 2009 through 2014 using the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (NCAA-ISP) database. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A voluntary convenience sample of NCAA varsity teams from 11 sports was examined to determine the rates and patterns of elbow injuries. Rates and distributions of elbow injuries were identified within the context of sport, event type, time in season, mechanism, time lost from sport, surgical treatment, and injury type. Rates of injury were calculated as the number of injuries divided by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). An AE was defined as any student participation in 1 NCAA-sanctioned practice or competition with an inherent risk of exposure to potential injury. Injury rate ratios (IRRs) and injury proportion ratios (IPRs) were then calculated to compare the rates within and between sports by event type, season, sex, mechanism, surgical treatment, and time lost from sport. Comparisons between sexes were made using only sports data that had both male and female samples. Results: Overall, 373 elbow injuries were reported in the NCAA-ISP data set during the 2009-2010 through 2013-2014 academic years among 11 varsity sports. The overall rate of injury was 1.76 per 10,000 AEs. The rate of elbow injuries in men was 0.74 per 10,000 AEs, while women experienced injuries at a rate of 0.63 per 10,000 AEs. In sex-comparable sports, men were 1.17 times more likely to experience an elbow injury compared with women. Men’s wrestling (6.00/10,000 AEs) and women’s tennis (1.86/10,000 AEs) were the sports with the highest rates of elbow injuries by sex, respectively. The top 3 highest injury rates overall occurred in men’s wrestling, baseball, and tennis. Elbow injuries were 3.5 times more likely to occur during competition compared with practice. Athletes were 0.76 times less likely to sustain an elbow injury during the preseason compared with in-season. Contact events were the most common mechanism of injury (67%). For sex-comparable sports, men were 2.41 times more likely than women to have contact as their injury mechanism (95% CI, 0.78-7.38). The majority of athletes missed less than 24 hours of participation time (67%), and only a minority (3%) of patients with elbow injuries went on to have surgical intervention. Elbow ulnar collateral ligament injuries were most common (26% of total injuries). Conclusion: Analysis of the study data demonstrated a significant rate of elbow injuries, 1.76 injuries per 10,000 AEs in NCAA collegiate athletes. Higher injury rates can be expected in males within sex-comparable sports. Elbow injuries are most common in the setting of competitions and most commonly occur secondary to contact-type mechanisms. Injuries were more likely to occur during in-season play. The majority of injuries required less than 24 hours of time away from sport and did not require surgical intervention.

Study Design. A retrospective cohort study. Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative dehydration on hospital length of stay (LOS), rates of 30-day postoperative complications, related reoperations, and readmissions. Summary of Background Data. Preoperative dehydration has long been associated with postoperative infection, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), acute renal failure, and an increased hospital LOS. To our knowledge, the effect of preoperative dehydration on complication rates for patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery has not been well described. Methods. An analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) data from 2006 to 2013 was performed. Patients undergoing elective lumbar procedures were identified and exclusion criteria eliminated patients who underwent any emergency procedures, infections, tumor cases, or revision surgeries. Patient dehydration was defined as preoperative blood urea nitrogen/creatinine (BUN/Cr) ratio greater than 20. Results. Patients (4698; 34.5%) with preoperative dehydration based on BUN/Cr ratio were identified. Univariate analysis was suggestive of an association between preoperative dehydration and an increased risk of DVT (1.1% compared with 0.6%; P = 0.002), urinary tract infection (2.5% compared with 1.6%; P < 0.001), and need for transfusion postoperatively (17.6% compared with 14.4%; P < 0.001). However, on the basis of multivariate regression, no significant association between dehydration and increased odds of aforementioned outcomes was identified. Conclusion. Preoperative dehydration does not appear to negatively affect perioperative outcomes or readmission in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery. Level of Evidence: 3

Background: There has been a surge in interest with regard to the utility of liposomal bupivacaine as part of a perioperative pain management protocol. The current study was proposed to critically assess the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine as a local anesthetic for pain relief following orthopaedic procedures. Methods: A systematic review of prospective, randomized trials involving liposomal bupivacaine was performed using searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcomes of interest included postoperative subjective pain scores and narcotic consumption. The length of stay and postoperative mobility were reviewed as secondary outcomes. Results: Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria and were included for review. Twelve of 17 studies concluded that periarticular or local infiltrative liposomal bupivacaine offered no additive benefit compared with other local anesthetic injections. Peripheral nerve blocks without liposomal bupivacaine conferred more optimal pain relief and decreased narcotic consumption in the immediate postoperative period when compared with liposomal bupivacaine, with no differences thereafter. Twelve studies listed a conflict of interest related to the drug manufacturer (Pacira Pharmaceuticals). Eight of these studies (67%) demonstrated clinical superiority of liposomal bupivacaine when compared with the study control. In the 15 studies that did not show a conflict of interest, only 1 study (7%) demonstrated therapeutic superiority with use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine when compared with a historical cohort that received no local or regional anesthesia. Conclusions: Current prospective, randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery fail to support the routine use of liposomal bupivacaine compared with other local injectable analgesics, particularly in the setting of knee replacement surgery. We were unable to find consistent support for the potential of superior pain relief and narcotic use reduction with the use of liposomal bupivacaine. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.