Search

Chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO) is an idiopathic autoinflammatory disease of the bone that typically occurs in children and adolescents. CRMO is characterized by recurrent periods of exacerbation and remission of symptomatic, osteolytic/sclerotic sterile bone lesions and is often a diagnosis of exclusion. Treatment consists of multimodal anti-inflammatory medication management by rheumatology and rarely involves surgery. This review summarizes the clinical presentation, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of this disease and highlights the role of the orthopedic surgeon. With increased familiarity with CRMO, clinicians will be able to diagnose and treat the condition in a more timely manner. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(3):e149–e155.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large national databases have become a common source of information on patterns of cancer care in the United States, particularly for low-incidence diseases such as sarcoma. Although aggregating information from many hospitals can achieve statistical power, this may come at a cost when complex variables must be abstracted from the medical record. There is a current lack of understanding of the frequency of use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) over the last two decades in musculoskeletal sarcoma research and whether their use tends to produce papers with conflicting findings. Questions/purposes: (1) Is the number of published studies using the SEER and NCDB databases in musculoskeletal sarcoma research increasing over time? (2) What are the author, journal, and content characteristics of these studies? (3) Do studies using the SEER and the NCDB databases for similar diagnoses and study questions report concordant or discordant key findings? (4) Are the administrative data reported by our institution to the SEER and the NCDB databases concordant with the data in our longitudinally maintained, physician-run orthopaedic oncology dataset? Methods: To answer our first three questions, PubMed was searched from 2001 through 2020 for all studies using the SEER or the NCDB databases to evaluate sarcoma. Studies were excluded from the review if they did not use these databases or studied anatomic locations other than the extremities, nonretroperitoneal pelvis, trunk, chest wall, or spine. To answer our first question, the number of SEER and NCDB studies were counted by year. The publication rate over the 20-year span was assessed with simple linear regression modeling. The difference in the mean number of studies between 5-year intervals (2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2016-2020) was also assessed with Student t-tests. To answer our second question, we recorded and summarized descriptive data regarding author, journal, and content for these studies. To answer our third question, we grouped all studies by diagnosis, and then identified studies that shared the same diagnosis and a similar major study question with at least one other study. We then categorized study questions (and their associated studies) as having concordant findings, discordant findings, or mixed findings. Proportions of studies with concordant, discordant, or mixed findings were compared. To answer our fourth question, a coding audit was performed assessing the concordance of nationally reported administrative data from our institution with data from our longitudinally maintained, physician-run orthopaedic oncology dataset in a series of patients during the past 3 years. Our orthopaedic oncology dataset is maintained on a weekly basis by the senior author who manually records data directly from the medical record and sarcoma tumor board consensus notes; this dataset served as the gold standard for data comparison. We compared date of birth, surgery date, margin status, tumor size, clinical stage, and adjuvant treatment. Results: The number of musculoskeletal sarcoma studies using the SEER and the NCDB databases has steadily increased over time in a linear regression model (β = 2.51; p < 0.001). The mean number of studies per year more than tripled during 2016-2020 compared with 2011-2015 (39 versus 13 studies; mean difference 26 ± 11; p = 0.03). Of the 299 studies in total, 56% (168 of 299) have been published since 2018. Nineteen institutions published more than five studies, and the most studies from one institution was 13. Orthopaedic surgeons authored 35% (104 of 299) of studies, and medical oncology journals published 44% (130 of 299). Of the 94 studies (31% of total [94 of 299]) that shared a major study question with at least one other study, 35% (33 of 94) reported discordant key findings, 29% (27 of 94) reported mixed key findings, and 44% (41 of 94) reported concordant key findings. Both concordant and discordant groups included papers on prognostic factors, demographic factors, and treatment strategies. When we compared nationally reported administrative data from our institution with our orthopaedic oncology dataset, we found clinically important discrepancies in adjuvant treatment (19% [15 of 77]), tumor size (21% [16 of 77]), surgery date (23% [18 of 77]), surgical margins (38% [29 of 77]), and clinical stage (77% [59 of 77]). Conclusion: Appropriate use of databases in musculoskeletal cancer research is essential to promote clear interpretation of findings, as almost two-thirds of studies we evaluated that asked similar study questions produced discordant or mixed key findings. Readers should be mindful of the differences in what each database seeks to convey because asking the same questions of different databases may result in different answers depending on what information each database captures. Likewise, differences in how studies determine which patients to include or exclude, how they handle missing data, and what they choose to emphasize may result in different messages getting drawn from large-database studies. Still, given the rarity and heterogeneity of sarcomas, these databases remain particularly useful in musculoskeletal cancer research for nationwide incidence estimations, risk factor/prognostic factor assessment, patient demographic and hospital-level variable assessment, patterns of care over time, and hypothesis generation for future prospective studies. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Infection is a common mode of failure in lower extremity endoprostheses. The Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery trial reported that 5 days of cefazolin had no difference in surgical site infection compared with 24 hours of cefazolin. Our purpose was to evaluate infection rates of patients receiving perioperative cefazolin monotherapy, cefazolin-vancomycin dual therapy, or alternative antibiotic regimens., Methods: A single-center retrospective review was conducted on patients who received lower extremity endoprostheses from 2008 to 2021 with minimum 1-year follow-up. Three prophylactic antibiotic regimen groups were compared: cefazolin monotherapy, cefazolin-vancomycin dual therapy, and alternative regimens. The primary outcome was deep infection, defined by a sinus tract, positive culture, or clinical diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were revision surgery, microorganisms isolated, and superficial wound issues., Results: The overall deep infection rate was 10% (30/294) at the median final follow-up of 3.0 years (IQR 1.7 to 5.4). The deep infection rates in the cefazolin, cefazolin-vancomycin, and alternative regimen groups were 8% (6/72), 10% (18/179), and 14% (6/43), respectively ( P = 0.625). Patients not receiving cefazolin had an 18% deep infection rate (6/34) and 21% revision surgery rate (7/34) compared with a 9% deep infection rate (24/260) ( P = 0.13) and 12% revision surgery rate (31/260) ( P = 0.17) in patients receiving cefazolin. In those not receiving cefazolin, 88% (30/34) were due to a documented penicillin allergy, only two being anaphylaxis. All six patients in the alternative regimen group who developed deep infections did not receive cefazolin secondary to nonanaphylactic penicillin allergy., Conclusion: The addition of perioperative vancomycin to cefazolin in lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstructions was not associated with a lower deep infection rate. Patients who did not receive cefazolin trended toward higher rates of deep infection and revision surgery, although not statistically significant. The most common reason for not receiving cefazolin was a nonanaphylactic penicillin allergy, highlighting the continued practice of foregoing cefazolin unnecessarily., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Benign soft-tissue masses drastically outnumber malignant tumors. Both benign and malignant soft-tissue masses can present in the same manner, as a painless growing soft-tissue lump or bump. The implications of misdiagnosing a soft-tissue sarcoma can be devastating. The most common mistake occurs when all masses are assumed to be lipomas. A careful history, physical examination, and appropriate imaging can determine the benign or malignant nature of a tumor. A mass that is large (>5 cm), deep (in relation to investing fascia), and firmer than the surrounding muscle should raise suspicion for a malignancy. Small, superficial masses are more likely to be benign, but up to 32% of soft-tissue sarcomas can present in this manner. The orthopaedic surgeon should be able to recognize common imaging findings for benign and malignant entities.