Search

INTRODUCTION: Understanding practice-based differences in treatment of lumbar disc herniations (LDHs) is vital for reducing unwarranted variation in the delivery of spine surgical health care. Identifying factors that influence surgeons' decision-making will offer useful insights for developing the most cost-effective and safest surgical strategy as well as developing surgeon education materials for common lumbar pathologies. This study was to capture any variation in techniques used by surgeons in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) region, and perceived complications of different surgical procedures for primary and recurrent LDH (rLDH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Web-based survey study was emailed to orthopaedic and neurosurgeons who routinely performed spinal surgery in ANZ from Decmber 20, 2018 to February 20, 2020. The response data were analyzed to assess for differences based on geography, practice setting, speciality, practice experience, practice length, and operative volume. RESULTS: Invitations were sent to 150 surgeons; 96 (64%) responded. Most surgeons reported microdiscectomy as their surgical technique of choice for primary LDH (73%) and the first rLDH (72%). For the second rLDH, the preferred choice for most surgeons was fusion surgery (82%). A surgeon's practice setting (academic/private/hybrid) was a statistically significant factor in what surgical procedure was chosen for the first rLDH (P = 0.014). When stratifying based on surgeon experience, there were statisfically significant differences based on the annual volume of spine surgeries performed (perceived reherniation rates following primary discectomy, P = 0.013; perceived reherniation rates following revision surgeries, P = 0.017; perceived intraoperative complications rates following revision surgeries, P = 0.016) and based on the annual volume of lumbar discectomies performed (perceived reherniation rates following revision surgeries, P = 0.022; perceived intraoperative complications rates following revision surgeries, P = 0.036; perceived durotomy rates following primary discectomy, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons' annual practice volume and practice setting have significant influences in the selection of surgical procedures and the perception of surgical complications when treating LDHs.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting results on the biomechanical properties of tibial fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The objective of this study is to compare the initial biomechanical properties of tibial fixation in hamstring-graft ACL reconstruction with interference screw, suspension button, and Tape Locking Screw(TM) devices. We hypothesized there are no differences in the initial biomechanical properties of these three tibial fixation techniques. METHODS: Twenty-one fresh-frozen porcine tibiae were equally divided into three groups of seven tibiae to evaluate the fixation of human hamstring tendon grafts with interference screw, suspension button, or Tape Locking Screw fixation. Using a servohydraulic materials testing system, each graft was subjected to 500 cycles of loading followed by a monotonic failure test. RESULTS: Interference screw fixation demonstrated significantly lower cyclic displacement (1.28 ± 0.73 mm) than the other groups fixated with either a suspension button device (2.54 ± 0.27 mm, p = 0.003) or a Tape Locking Screw (2.32 ± 0.42 mm, p = .009), and a significantly greater cyclic stiffness (212.19 ± 40.30 N/mm) than the Tape Locking Screw (137.64 ± 26.17 N/mm, p = 0.002). The interference screw also demonstrated significantly higher pullout stiffness (166.83 ± 23.22 N/mm) than the suspension button (112.78 ± 24.14 N/mm, P = 0.002) and Tape Locking Screw (109.11 ± 12.91 N/mm, P = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Tibial fixation with an interference screw demonstrated superior biomechanical properties for cyclic testing compared to the suspension button and Tape Locking Screw. Load to failure did not differ between groups, and there were no significant biomechanical differences between the suspension button and Tape Locking Screw fixation devices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Despite the initial biomechanical differences, all three fixation devices exhibited mean loads to failure and cyclic displacements below clinically relevant thresholds of failure. These data suggest all three fixation methods are viable options for achieving a functional ACL reconstruction. Level of Evidence: V