Search

Study Design: Narrative Review. The spine remains the most common site for bony metastasis. It is estimated that up to 70% of cancer patients harbor secondary spinal disease. And up to 10% will develop a clinically significant lesion. The last two decades have seen a substantial leap forward in the advancements of the management of spinal metastases. What once was a death sentence is now a manageable, even potentially treatable condition. With marked advancements in the surgical treatment and post-operative radiotherapy, a standardized approach to stratify and manage these patients is both prudent and now feasible. Objectives: This article looks to examine the best available evidence in the stratification and surgical management of patients with spinal metastases. So the aim of this review is to offer a standardized approach for surgical management and surgical planning of patients with spinal metastases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients who have undergone segmental replacement of the distal femur or proximal tibia after tumor resection can be associated with considerable morbidity, pain, and risk of complications because the procedure often results in removal of long, well-fixed stems from the diaphysis. A less-aggressive surgical approach, such as debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), may be attractive to patients and surgeons because of less morbidity, but the likelihood of eradicating infection in comparison to the traditional two-stage revision is not well established for oncology patients. Furthermore, the relative risk of subsequent amputation for DAIR versus two-stage revision has not been defined for this population., Questions/purposes: (1) How does DAIR compare with two-stage revision in terms of infection control for patients with distal femoral or proximal tibial segmental modular endoprostheses? (2) Is DAIR as an initial procedure associated with an increased risk of amputation compared with two-stage revision for infection?, Methods: From the longitudinally maintained orthopaedic oncology surgical database at our institution, we identified 69 patients who had been treated for a clinical diagnosis of PJI at the knee between 1993 and 2015. We excluded 32% (22) of patients who did not meet at least one of the major criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) for PJI, 3% (2) of patients who underwent immediate amputation, 3% (2) of patients who had a follow-up time of < 24 months, and 7% (5) of patients who did not have a primary tumor of the distal femur or proximal tibia. The study consisted of 38 patients, of whom eight underwent two-stage revision, 26 underwent DAIR, and four underwent extended DAIR (removal of all segmental components but with retention of stems and components fixed in bone) for their initial surgical procedure. To be considered free of infection, patients had to meet MSIS standards, including no positive cultures, drainage, or surgical debridement for a minimum of 2 years from the last operation. Factors associated with time-dependent risk of infection relapse, clearance, amputation, and patient survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves and the log-rank test to compare factors. Association of demographic and treatment factors was assessed using chi-square and Fisher exact tests., Results: Continuous infection-free survival at 5 years was 16% (95% CI 2% to 29%) for patients undergoing DAIR compared with 75% (95% CI 45% to 100%) for patients undergoing two-stage revision (p = 0.006). The median (range) number of total surgical procedures was 3 per patient (1 to 10) for DAIR and 2 (2 to 5) for two-stage revision. Twenty-nine percent (11 of 38) of patients eventually underwent amputation. Survival without amputation was 69% (95% CI 51% to 86%) for DAIR compared with 88% (95% CI 65% to 100%) for two-stage revision at 5 years (p = 0.34). The cumulative proportion of patients achieving infection-free status (> 2 years continuously after last treatment) and limb preservation was 58% (95% CI 36% to 80%) for patients initially treated with DAIR versus 87% (95% CI 65% to 100%) for patients first treated with two-stage revision (p = 0.001)., Conclusion: Infection control was better with two-stage revision than DAIR. The chance of eventual clearance of infection with limb preservation was better when two-stage revision was chosen as the initial treatment. However, the loss to follow-up in the two-stage revision group would likely make the true proportion of infection control lower than our estimate. Our experience would suggest that the process of infection eradication is a complex and difficult one. Most patients undergo multiple operations. Nearly one-third of patients eventually underwent amputation, and this was a serious risk for both groups. While we cannot strongly recommend one approach over the other based on our data, we would still consider the use of DAIR in patients who present with acute short duration of symptoms (< 3 weeks), no radiographic signs of erosion around fixed implants, and organisms other than Staphylococcus aureus. We would advocate the extended DAIR procedure with removal of all segmental or modular components, and we would caution patients that there is a high likelihood of needing further surgery. A prospective trial with strict adherence to indications may be needed to evaluate the relative merits of an extended DAIR procedure versus a two-stage revision., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2024 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Posterior laminectomy (LA) for resection of intradural extramedullary tumors (IDEMTs) is associated with postoperative complications, including sepsis. Sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication that can lead to increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospital stays, and greater costs. Given the susceptibility of a solid tumor patients to sepsis-related complications, it is important to recognize IDEMT patients as a unique population when assessing the risk factors for sepsis after laminectomy., Methods: The study design was a retrospective cohort study. Adult patients undergoing LA for IDEMTs from 2012 to 2018 were identified in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Baseline patient characteristics/comorbidities, operative and hospital variables, and 30-day postoperative complications were collected., Results: Of 2,027 total patients undergoing LA for IDEMTs, 38 (2%) had postoperative sepsis. On bivariate analysis sepsis was associated with superficial surgical site infection [odds ratio (OR) 11.62, P<0.001], deep surgical site infection (OR 10.67, P<0.001), deep vein thrombosis (OR 10.75, P<0.001), pulmonary embolism (OR 15.27, P<0.001), transfusion (OR 6.18, P<0.001), length of stay greater than five days (OR 5.41, P<0.001), and return to the operating room within thirty days (OR 8.72, P<0.001). Subsequent multivariate analysis identified the following independent risk factors for sepsis and septic shock: operative time ≥50th percentile (OR 2.11, P=0.032), higher anesthesia class (OR 1.76, P=0.046), dependent functional status (OR 2.23, P=0.001), diabetes (OR 2.31, P=0.037), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 3.56, P=0.037)., Conclusions: These findings can help spine surgeons identify high-risk patients and proactively deploy measures to avoid this potentially devastating complication in individuals who may be more vulnerable than the general elective spine population., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jss.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jss-22-22/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2022 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.)

To determine whether nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have an adverse effect on bone healing by evaluating all available human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this subject., Data Sources: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cross-References) until October 2018 comparing the occurrence of nonunion in patients who received NSAIDs to the control group through RCTs., Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were English-only studies, and the type of studies was restricted to RCTs., Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted data from the selected studies, and the data collected were compared to verify agreement., Data Synthesis: Nonunion was the main outcome evaluated in each study. Regression analysis was used to estimate the relative risk comparing the duration and the type of NSAIDs by calculating the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables. Studies were weighed by the inverse of the variance of the outcome, and a fixed-effects model was used for all analyses., Conclusions: Six RCTs (609 patients) were included. The risk of nonunion was higher in the patients who were given NSAIDs after the fracture with an OR of 3.47. However, once the studies were categorized into the duration of treatment with NSAIDs, those who received NSAIDs for a short period (<2 weeks) did not show any significant risk of nonunion compared to those who received NSAIDs for a long period (>4 weeks). Indomethacin was associated with a significant higher nonunion rate and OR ranging from 1.66 to 9.03 compared with other NSAIDs that did not show a significant nonunion risk., Competing Interests: We disclose that the authors of this study have no commercial or financial association with regards to this project and, therefore, have no affiliation that may pose a conflict of interest with the manuscript enclosed. We had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the data, as well as the decision to submit for publication. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association.)

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an autosomal recessive disorder that is characterized by abnormal "sickle-shaped" erythrocytes. Because of their shape, these erythrocytes are more likely to become trapped in small slow-flowing vessels, leading to vaso-occlusion. Because this commonly happens in the bones, patients with SCD are at an increased risk for orthopaedic manifestations such as osteomyelitis, septic joint, or osteonecrosis. Osteomyelitis is a serious and potentially disabling condition but can be difficult to differentiate from benign conditions of SCD, such as vaso-occlusive crisis. Diagnosis of osteomyelitis requires careful evaluation of the clinical presentation, laboratory testing, and imaging. Treatment of osteomyelitis in patients with SCD may be medical or surgical, but considerations in antibiotic selection and management preoperatively and postoperatively must be taken to ensure optimal outcomes.

Background: Metastasis to the bone is one of the most common complications associated with advanced cancer. Patients with bone metastases are at risk of devastating skeletal related events, including pathological fractures., Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy of zoledronic acid (ZA) versus denosumab in the prevention of pathological fractures in patients with bone metastases from advanced cancers by evaluating all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this subject., Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) was performed to identify all published RCTs comparing ZA with denosumab in prevention of pathological fractures in bone metastases. Risk of bias of the studies was assessed. The primary outcomes evaluated were pathological fractures., Results: Four RCTs (7,320 patients) were included. Denosumab was superior to ZA in reducing the likelihood of pathological fractures, when all tumor types were combined (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99, P = 0.04). Denosumab was favored, although not statistically significant, over ZA in endodermal origin (breast and prostate) (OR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.05, P = 0.13) and mesodermal origin tumors (solid tumors and multiple myeloma) (OR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.06, P = 0.16)., Discussion: Denosumab moderately reduces the likelihood of pathological fractures in comparison to ZA in patients with bone metastases with statistical significance. When pathological fractures were grouped by tumor origin (endodermal or mesodermal), no statistical difference was observed between denosumab and ZA. Further long-term studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of these treatment regimens.