Robinson, William A.

This investigation assessed 106 consecutive primary proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties performed on border digits: 73 index or 33 little fingers. This was compared with 193 arthroplasties performed in non-border digits: 121 middle or 72 ring fingers. There were 20 proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties in the border digits that required revision surgery for pain and stiffness (10 digits), dislocation (six digits), implant fracture (one digit), and infection (three digits). Risk of revision surgery was not associated with border digit. The 5-year implant survival rate for the border digits was 81%. There was no significant difference in implant revision rate or joint dislocations between border and non-border digits. We conclude that proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasties performed in border digits had similar pain relief, survivorship, complications, and reoperation rates compared with those performed in non-border digits. Level of evidence: IV

Mini We compared the sensitivity and specificity of peri-implant tissue culture to the vortexing–sonication technique for the diagnosis of spinal implant infection (SII). Lower thresholds of sonicate fluid culture positivity showed increased sensitivity with maintained specificity. We recommend a threshold of 20 CFU/10 mL for sonicate culture positivity for the diagnosis of SII. Study Design. This is a retrospective study comparing the diagnosis of spinal implant infection (SII) by peri-implant tissue culture to vortexing–sonication of retrieved spinal implants. Objective. We hypothesized that vortexing–sonication would be more sensitive than peri-implant tissue culture. Summary of Background Data. We previously showed implant vortexing–sonication followed by culture to be more sensitive than standard peri-implant tissue culture for diagnosing of SII. In this follow-up study, we analyzed the largest sample size available in the literature to compare these two culture methods and evaluated thresholds for positivity for sonicate fluid for SII diagnosis. Methods. We compared peri-implant tissue culture to the vortexing–sonication technique which samples bacterial biofilm on the surface of retrieved spinal implants. We evaluated different thresholds for sonicate fluid positivity and assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the two culture methods for the diagnosis of SII. Results. A total of 152 patients were studied. With more than 100 colony forming units (CFU)/10 mL as a threshold for sonicate fluid culture positivity, there were 46 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 65.2% and 79.6%; the specificities were 88.7% and 93.4%, respectively. With more than 50 CFU/10 mL as a threshold, there were 50 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 68.0% and 76.0%; the specificities were 92.2% for both methods. Finally, with more than or equal to 20 CFU/10 mL as a threshold, there were 52 patients with SII. The sensitivities of peri-implant tissue and sonicate fluid culture were 69.2% and 82.7%; the specificities were 94.0% and 92.0%, respectively. Conclusion. Implant sonication followed by culture is a sensitive and specific method for the diagnosis of SII. Lower thresholds for defining sonicate fluid culture positivity allow for increased sensitivity with a minimal decrease in specificity, enhancing the clinical utility of implant sonication. Level of Evidence: 4

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study of the Own the Bone database which is a fracture liaison service designed to improve recognition and treatment of osteoporosis. Objective. To use the Own the Bone (OTB) database to 1) examine the specific demographics of patients presenting with a low-energy clinical vertebral fracture (VFX) and 2) compare demographic and fracture-specific risk factors between patients with clinical VFX versus patients with nonvertebral low-energy fracture (NVFX). Summary of Background Data. Large database studies have described risk factors for developing VFX. It is well described that a history of previous VFX portends an increased risk of future VFX. Few studies have reported cohorts from a fracture liaison service such as the OTB initiative. Methods. 35,039 unique cases of fragility fracture occurred between 2009 and 2016 and were included in analysis. VFX accounted for 3395 (9.9%) of the presenting fractures at OTB enrollment. The demographics, lifestyle factors, medication use, and fracture-specific data for patients in the OTB registry with vertebral fractures were summarized and then statistically compared to those with nonvertebral fragility fractures. Results. The majority of VFX patients were Caucasian, postmenopausal women (74.4%). There was an increased likelihood of presenting with a vertebral fracture in patients who sustained a previous VFX after the age of 50, while patients who sustained a prior nonvertebral fracture (NVFX) were more likely to present with a subsequent NVFX. After controlling for patients with a history of fracture after the age of 50, VFX patients (vs. NVFX) were more likely to be age 70–79, class 1 obesity, with a history of taking anti-osteoporotic prescription medications. Conclusions. Multiple factors were associated with a significantly increased risk of VFX compared with NVFX. Understanding the risk factors unique to fragility VFX is a critical component for targeting “at-risk” patients and preventing future osteoporosis-related fractures and their consequences. Level of Evidence: 4

Introduction: Osteopenia and osteoporosis are common conditions in the United States. The health consequences of low bone density can be dire, from poor surgical outcomes to increased mortality rates following a fracture. Significance: This article highlights the impact low bone density has on spine health in terms of vertebral fragility fractures and its adverse effects on elective spine surgery. It also reviews the clinical importance of bone health assessment and optimization. Results: Vertebral fractures are the most common fragility fractures with significant consequences related to patient morbidity and mortality. Additionally, a vertebral fracture is the best predictor of a subsequent fracture. These fractures constitute sentinel events in osteoporosis that require further evaluation and treatment of the patient’s underlying bone disease. In addition to fractures, osteopenia and osteoporosis have deleterious effects on elective spine surgery from screw pullout to fusion rates. Adequate evaluation and treatment of a patient’s underlying bone disease in these situations have been shown to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion: With an increased understanding of the prevalence of low bone mass and its consequences as well an understanding of how to identify these patients and appropriately intervene, spine surgeons can effectively decrease the rates of adverse health outcomes related to low bone mass.

Case: We present 2 cases of postoperative seroma formation following posterior cervical fusion with the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Conclusion: Although some who advocate for the off-label use of rhBMP-2 in patients undergoing posterior cervical spine fusion believe it to be safe, relatively little has been published regarding complication rates. We believe that rhBMP-2 carries a risk of seroma formation in patients who undergo posterior cervical fusion, which necessitates the use of a postoperative drain. Surgeons should have a low threshold for obtaining postoperative magnetic resonance imaging in a symptomatic patient.