Orthopedics

Cervical pannus is a disease that could easily develop in an active-duty soldier or veteran. The disease has been associated with trauma and rheumatoid arthritis, or can be idiopathic. For years, cervical pannus has been closely tied to rheumatoid arthritis; however, a study published in 2019 showed that only 28% of patients with cervical pannus had an associated diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.¹ In the same study, 18% of patients had undergone some type of prior cervical spine surgery as the next most common cause. The condition also can occur years after an injury.

Background

In the US, 42,000 veterans are living with spinal cord disease, and thousands of these veterans have surgery every year.² Service men and women and veterans are at risk for cervical pannus as they age especially if they have a history of rheumatoid arthritis, cervical spine surgery, trauma, and numerous other causes. It is critical for health care providers who treat this population to understand cervical pannus, how to recognize it, and how to identify patients at risk. A cervical pannus can be life threatening if not detected and treated properly.

There is no clear definition for cervical pannus. Some researchers think of it as the chronically inflamed synovial membrane in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); others consider it as a specialized synovial membrane derived from vascular soft tissue structures at or near the bone synovial membrane.³ The pathogenesis for developing a pannus is not well understood, and little is known when a pannus begins or its initial location. A pannus formation can occur in any synovial joint in the body, such as wrists, metacarpophalangeal joint, proximal interphalangeal joint, and cervical joints.

A cervical pannus can cause serious complications. It can lead to a cervical subluxation in up to 4% of patients with RA, or it also can occur spontaneously in some patients without RA especially those with trauma or cancer.⁴

There are 2 suggested mechanisms by which the synovial membrane proliferates. It was originally believed that T cells from the chronic inflamed joint lead to the pannus formation by initiating an autoimmune reaction through the production of different cytokines against arthritogenic agents.^3-5 These cytokines increase inflammation by recruiting neutrophils and activating various kinds of macrophages that might lead to increased osteoclast activity.⁶ Osteoclastic activity can damage bone and allow the synovium to penetrate the bone, forming the pannus.

Another proposed mechanism is that the synovial cells hyperpolarize and hypertrophy automatically without T-cell help by expressing oncogenes and their proteins.³ In either case, angiogenesis follows this proliferation and increases the influx of inflammatory cells into the joints, which can lead to more destruction.⁷ This increase in blood supply to the synovial membrane is important in the growth of the pannus and can have a damaging effect to cartilage, bone, and joints.^4,7

Cervical pannus can progress in patients with prolonged use of corticosteroids.⁸ Because a pannus can put pressure on any segment of the cervical spine and the cranio-cervical junction leading to cervical instability, patients with this condition may present with a variety of clinical symptoms.⁹ The most frequently reported clinical features include neck pain, easy fatigability, difficulty walking, abnormal gait, increased clumsiness, and numbness and tingling in the arms. Patients also may complain of neck stiffness and decreased neck motion.¹⁰Cervical pannus is most frequently seen in patients with RA. However, patients without a RA diagnosis and incidental atlantoaxial pannus on cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are unlikely to have previously undiagnosed RA.¹¹

Case Presentation

A 70-year-old white woman presented to the neurology clinic at Gretna Medical Center in Virginia in December 2016 with constant headache and imbalance that started in September 2016. She characterized the pain as predominately pressure (6 on a 10-point pain scale) with occasional shooting pains. The pain started at the left occipital lobe and radiated toward the left temporal lobe and left eye. The patient also stated that it was very difficult to lay her head down on a pillow to sleep and that she had to use a recliner in order to sleep over the past 3 months. She reported that the headache felt slightly worse if she had a lot of repetitive head and neck movements during the day. There was no photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, vomiting, facial paresthesias, lacrimation, nasal congestion, confusion, or impaired speech.

The patient’s lack of balance, which resulted in an unsteady gait, had started 1 month before and had increased significantly in the past 2 to 3 weeks. She stated that the unsteady gait was associated with numbness in her right upper and lower extremities, although more intense in the right lower extremity. Aside from the headaches, paresthesia, and unsteady gait, the patient reported no other major symptoms. She did not smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. Her family history revealed that her brothers had heart disease.

The patient’s vital signs at physical examination included heart rate, 83 beats per minute; blood pressure, 159/75 mm hg; temporal temperature, 97.9 °F; and respiratory rate, 20 breaths per minute. The patient’s gait was unsteady, needing stabilization by holding on to her husband’s arm, slightly favoring right lower extremity. Finger-to-nose test, rapid alternating movements, heel-knee-shin testing were all normal. The Romberg sign was positive. The patient could rise on toes and heels with slight balance disturbance. Deep tendon reflexes and reflexes in the upper and lower extremities was symmetric 2+ bilaterally. Musculoskeletal examination revealed strength and tone in all major muscle groups and demonstrated symmetrical movements with no fasciculation noted. A rheumatologic evaluation showed no abnormalities, including inspection of hands, feet, major joints, and other range of motion, besides her neck. The rest of the physical, cognitive, and neurologic examination findings were otherwise unremarkable. A routine rheumatologic laboratory evaluation was negative.

A head computed tomography ordered before coming to the clinic showed normal results. An MRI of the head was obtained to evaluate for ischemic cause or structural abnormality (Figures 1 and 2). Given the patient’s presentation and the pattern seen on the MRI results, it was determined that large pannus posterior to the dens, severely narrowing the spinal canal, was most likely the diagnosis. A second opinion confirmed the diagnosis, and a second MRI revealed stabilization with no signs of enhancement.

The patient was advised to meet with a neurosurgeon to remove the pannus. The patient agreed on occiput to C2 posterior instrument arthrodesis as well as decompression. A plain film radiograph showed C2-occipital repair after surgery (Figure 3). The patient recovered in the neurosurgical intensive care unit, and the rest of the recovery was uncomplicated. She showed some improvement in her headaches and unsteady gait. A postoperative pathologic evaluation of tissue was not available. She was referred to a rheumatologist to rule out an autoimmune disease as the cause for this pannus, but no autoimmune disease was found.

Discussion

Cervical pannus is relatively uncommon in those without RA. However, there are multiple reasons that a patient could develop a cervical pannus. Cervical pannus in RA and cervical pannus without RA may mimic each other clinically, but medical management is distinctly different. Consequently, a rheumatology consult is necessary to ensure that there is no undiagnosed autoimmune disorder. Our patient did not have RA, and a neurosurgery intervention was needed to manage her headaches and unsteady gait. Although we could not isolate a cause of this patient’s cervical pannus development, we believed that nonintervention would adversely affect this patient.

The course of pannus progression can be fatal especially if left untreated.¹² MRI can detect a pannus and may be helpful for planning surgery.¹³ Surgical resection has been the treatment of choice for patients with neurologic symptoms.¹⁴ However, some cases have reported resolution of pannus associated with RA and other forms of chronic atlantoaxial instability only after posterior stabilization.¹⁴In order to manage pannus, cervical spine examination for the diagnosis of cervical involvement is encouraged to prevent morbidity and mortality.¹³ There are new data that demonstrated the potential of using retinoid X receptor agonists, such as bexarotene, as a treatment against the development and progression of pannus.¹⁴

Conclusions

We present a patient with cervical pannus disease without RA whose diagnosis was based on the pathognomonic pattern seen on MRI. She showed a clinically significant recovery with an occiput to C2 posterior instrument arthrodesis as well as decompression. She showed marked improvements in her headaches and unsteady gait. This case report highlights the importance of realizing cervical pannus as a disease found in patients without RA. It serves as an alert to clinicians for timely detection, diagnosis, and initiation of treatment to prevent mortality and long-term neurologic sequelae of cervical pannus.

Although further studies of early diagnosis and treatment for cervical pannus are warranted, we propose that including pannus in a differential diagnosis for patients with no RA could be lifesaving.

Cervical pannus is a disease that could easily develop in an active-duty soldier or veteran. The disease has been associated with trauma and rheumatoid arthritis, or can be idiopathic. For years, cervical pannus has been closely tied to rheumatoid arthritis; however, a study published in 2019 showed that only 28% of patients with cervical pannus had an associated diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.¹ In the same study, 18% of patients had undergone some type of prior cervical spine surgery as the next most common cause. The condition also can occur years after an injury.

Background

In the US, 42,000 veterans are living with spinal cord disease, and thousands of these veterans have surgery every year.² Service men and women and veterans are at risk for cervical pannus as they age especially if they have a history of rheumatoid arthritis, cervical spine surgery, trauma, and numerous other causes. It is critical for health care providers who treat this population to understand cervical pannus, how to recognize it, and how to identify patients at risk. A cervical pannus can be life threatening if not detected and treated properly.

There is no clear definition for cervical pannus. Some researchers think of it as the chronically inflamed synovial membrane in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); others consider it as a specialized synovial membrane derived from vascular soft tissue structures at or near the bone synovial membrane.³ The pathogenesis for developing a pannus is not well understood, and little is known when a pannus begins or its initial location. A pannus formation can occur in any synovial joint in the body, such as wrists, metacarpophalangeal joint, proximal interphalangeal joint, and cervical joints.

A cervical pannus can cause serious complications. It can lead to a cervical subluxation in up to 4% of patients with RA, or it also can occur spontaneously in some patients without RA especially those with trauma or cancer.⁴

There are 2 suggested mechanisms by which the synovial membrane proliferates. It was originally believed that T cells from the chronic inflamed joint lead to the pannus formation by initiating an autoimmune reaction through the production of different cytokines against arthritogenic agents.^3-5 These cytokines increase inflammation by recruiting neutrophils and activating various kinds of macrophages that might lead to increased osteoclast activity.⁶ Osteoclastic activity can damage bone and allow the synovium to penetrate the bone, forming the pannus.

Another proposed mechanism is that the synovial cells hyperpolarize and hypertrophy automatically without T-cell help by expressing oncogenes and their proteins.³ In either case, angiogenesis follows this proliferation and increases the influx of inflammatory cells into the joints, which can lead to more destruction.⁷ This increase in blood supply to the synovial membrane is important in the growth of the pannus and can have a damaging effect to cartilage, bone, and joints.^4,7

Cervical pannus can progress in patients with prolonged use of corticosteroids.⁸ Because a pannus can put pressure on any segment of the cervical spine and the cranio-cervical junction leading to cervical instability, patients with this condition may present with a variety of clinical symptoms.⁹ The most frequently reported clinical features include neck pain, easy fatigability, difficulty walking, abnormal gait, increased clumsiness, and numbness and tingling in the arms. Patients also may complain of neck stiffness and decreased neck motion.¹⁰Cervical pannus is most frequently seen in patients with RA. However, patients without a RA diagnosis and incidental atlantoaxial pannus on cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are unlikely to have previously undiagnosed RA.¹¹

Case Presentation

A 70-year-old white woman presented to the neurology clinic at Gretna Medical Center in Virginia in December 2016 with constant headache and imbalance that started in September 2016. She characterized the pain as predominately pressure (6 on a 10-point pain scale) with occasional shooting pains. The pain started at the left occipital lobe and radiated toward the left temporal lobe and left eye. The patient also stated that it was very difficult to lay her head down on a pillow to sleep and that she had to use a recliner in order to sleep over the past 3 months. She reported that the headache felt slightly worse if she had a lot of repetitive head and neck movements during the day. There was no photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, vomiting, facial paresthesias, lacrimation, nasal congestion, confusion, or impaired speech.

The patient’s lack of balance, which resulted in an unsteady gait, had started 1 month before and had increased significantly in the past 2 to 3 weeks. She stated that the unsteady gait was associated with numbness in her right upper and lower extremities, although more intense in the right lower extremity. Aside from the headaches, paresthesia, and unsteady gait, the patient reported no other major symptoms. She did not smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. Her family history revealed that her brothers had heart disease.

The patient’s vital signs at physical examination included heart rate, 83 beats per minute; blood pressure, 159/75 mm hg; temporal temperature, 97.9 °F; and respiratory rate, 20 breaths per minute. The patient’s gait was unsteady, needing stabilization by holding on to her husband’s arm, slightly favoring right lower extremity. Finger-to-nose test, rapid alternating movements, heel-knee-shin testing were all normal. The Romberg sign was positive. The patient could rise on toes and heels with slight balance disturbance. Deep tendon reflexes and reflexes in the upper and lower extremities was symmetric 2+ bilaterally. Musculoskeletal examination revealed strength and tone in all major muscle groups and demonstrated symmetrical movements with no fasciculation noted. A rheumatologic evaluation showed no abnormalities, including inspection of hands, feet, major joints, and other range of motion, besides her neck. The rest of the physical, cognitive, and neurologic examination findings were otherwise unremarkable. A routine rheumatologic laboratory evaluation was negative.

A head computed tomography ordered before coming to the clinic showed normal results. An MRI of the head was obtained to evaluate for ischemic cause or structural abnormality (Figures 1 and 2). Given the patient’s presentation and the pattern seen on the MRI results, it was determined that large pannus posterior to the dens, severely narrowing the spinal canal, was most likely the diagnosis. A second opinion confirmed the diagnosis, and a second MRI revealed stabilization with no signs of enhancement.

The patient was advised to meet with a neurosurgeon to remove the pannus. The patient agreed on occiput to C2 posterior instrument arthrodesis as well as decompression. A plain film radiograph showed C2-occipital repair after surgery (Figure 3). The patient recovered in the neurosurgical intensive care unit, and the rest of the recovery was uncomplicated. She showed some improvement in her headaches and unsteady gait. A postoperative pathologic evaluation of tissue was not available. She was referred to a rheumatologist to rule out an autoimmune disease as the cause for this pannus, but no autoimmune disease was found.

Discussion

Cervical pannus is relatively uncommon in those without RA. However, there are multiple reasons that a patient could develop a cervical pannus. Cervical pannus in RA and cervical pannus without RA may mimic each other clinically, but medical management is distinctly different. Consequently, a rheumatology consult is necessary to ensure that there is no undiagnosed autoimmune disorder. Our patient did not have RA, and a neurosurgery intervention was needed to manage her headaches and unsteady gait. Although we could not isolate a cause of this patient’s cervical pannus development, we believed that nonintervention would adversely affect this patient.

The course of pannus progression can be fatal especially if left untreated.¹² MRI can detect a pannus and may be helpful for planning surgery.¹³ Surgical resection has been the treatment of choice for patients with neurologic symptoms.¹⁴ However, some cases have reported resolution of pannus associated with RA and other forms of chronic atlantoaxial instability only after posterior stabilization.¹⁴In order to manage pannus, cervical spine examination for the diagnosis of cervical involvement is encouraged to prevent morbidity and mortality.¹³ There are new data that demonstrated the potential of using retinoid X receptor agonists, such as bexarotene, as a treatment against the development and progression of pannus.¹⁴

Conclusions

We present a patient with cervical pannus disease without RA whose diagnosis was based on the pathognomonic pattern seen on MRI. She showed a clinically significant recovery with an occiput to C2 posterior instrument arthrodesis as well as decompression. She showed marked improvements in her headaches and unsteady gait. This case report highlights the importance of realizing cervical pannus as a disease found in patients without RA. It serves as an alert to clinicians for timely detection, diagnosis, and initiation of treatment to prevent mortality and long-term neurologic sequelae of cervical pannus.

Although further studies of early diagnosis and treatment for cervical pannus are warranted, we propose that including pannus in a differential diagnosis for patients with no RA could be lifesaving.

Cervical pannus is a disease that could easily develop in an active-duty soldier or veteran. The disease has been associated with trauma and rheumatoid arthritis, or can be idiopathic. For years, cervical pannus has been closely tied to rheumatoid arthritis; however, a study published in 2019 showed that only 28% of patients with cervical pannus had an associated diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.¹ In the same study, 18% of patients had undergone some type of prior cervical spine surgery as the next most common cause. The condition also can occur years after an injury.

Background

In the US, 42,000 veterans are living with spinal cord disease, and thousands of these veterans have surgery every year.² Service men and women and veterans are at risk for cervical pannus as they age especially if they have a history of rheumatoid arthritis, cervical spine surgery, trauma, and numerous other causes. It is critical for health care providers who treat this population to understand cervical pannus, how to recognize it, and how to identify patients at risk. A cervical pannus can be life threatening if not detected and treated properly.

There is no clear definition for cervical pannus. Some researchers think of it as the chronically inflamed synovial membrane in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); others consider it as a specialized synovial membrane derived from vascular soft tissue structures at or near the bone synovial membrane.³ The pathogenesis for developing a pannus is not well understood, and little is known when a pannus begins or its initial location. A pannus formation can occur in any synovial joint in the body, such as wrists, metacarpophalangeal joint, proximal interphalangeal joint, and cervical joints.

A cervical pannus can cause serious complications. It can lead to a cervical subluxation in up to 4% of patients with RA, or it also can occur spontaneously in some patients without RA especially those with trauma or cancer.⁴

There are 2 suggested mechanisms by which the synovial membrane proliferates. It was originally believed that T cells from the chronic inflamed joint lead to the pannus formation by initiating an autoimmune reaction through the production of different cytokines against arthritogenic agents.^3-5 These cytokines increase inflammation by recruiting neutrophils and activating various kinds of macrophages that might lead to increased osteoclast activity.⁶ Osteoclastic activity can damage bone and allow the synovium to penetrate the bone, forming the pannus.

Another proposed mechanism is that the synovial cells hyperpolarize and hypertrophy automatically without T-cell help by expressing oncogenes and their proteins.³ In either case, angiogenesis follows this proliferation and increases the influx of inflammatory cells into the joints, which can lead to more destruction.⁷ This increase in blood supply to the synovial membrane is important in the growth of the pannus and can have a damaging effect to cartilage, bone, and joints.^4,7

Cervical pannus can progress in patients with prolonged use of corticosteroids.⁸ Because a pannus can put pressure on any segment of the cervical spine and the cranio-cervical junction leading to cervical instability, patients with this condition may present with a variety of clinical symptoms.⁹ The most frequently reported clinical features include neck pain, easy fatigability, difficulty walking, abnormal gait, increased clumsiness, and numbness and tingling in the arms. Patients also may complain of neck stiffness and decreased neck motion.¹⁰Cervical pannus is most frequently seen in patients with RA. However, patients without a RA diagnosis and incidental atlantoaxial pannus on cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are unlikely to have previously undiagnosed RA.¹¹

Case Presentation

A 70-year-old white woman presented to the neurology clinic at Gretna Medical Center in Virginia in December 2016 with constant headache and imbalance that started in September 2016. She characterized the pain as predominately pressure (6 on a 10-point pain scale) with occasional shooting pains. The pain started at the left occipital lobe and radiated toward the left temporal lobe and left eye. The patient also stated that it was very difficult to lay her head down on a pillow to sleep and that she had to use a recliner in order to sleep over the past 3 months. She reported that the headache felt slightly worse if she had a lot of repetitive head and neck movements during the day. There was no photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, vomiting, facial paresthesias, lacrimation, nasal congestion, confusion, or impaired speech.

The patient’s lack of balance, which resulted in an unsteady gait, had started 1 month before and had increased significantly in the past 2 to 3 weeks. She stated that the unsteady gait was associated with numbness in her right upper and lower extremities, although more intense in the right lower extremity. Aside from the headaches, paresthesia, and unsteady gait, the patient reported no other major symptoms. She did not smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. Her family history revealed that her brothers had heart disease.

The patient’s vital signs at physical examination included heart rate, 83 beats per minute; blood pressure, 159/75 mm hg; temporal temperature, 97.9 °F; and respiratory rate, 20 breaths per minute. The patient’s gait was unsteady, needing stabilization by holding on to her husband’s arm, slightly favoring right lower extremity. Finger-to-nose test, rapid alternating movements, heel-knee-shin testing were all normal. The Romberg sign was positive. The patient could rise on toes and heels with slight balance disturbance. Deep tendon reflexes and reflexes in the upper and lower extremities was symmetric 2+ bilaterally. Musculoskeletal examination revealed strength and tone in all major muscle groups and demonstrated symmetrical movements with no fasciculation noted. A rheumatologic evaluation showed no abnormalities, including inspection of hands, feet, major joints, and other range of motion, besides her neck. The rest of the physical, cognitive, and neurologic examination findings were otherwise unremarkable. A routine rheumatologic laboratory evaluation was negative.

A head computed tomography ordered before coming to the clinic showed normal results. An MRI of the head was obtained to evaluate for ischemic cause or structural abnormality (Figures 1 and 2). Given the patient’s presentation and the pattern seen on the MRI results, it was determined that large pannus posterior to the dens, severely narrowing the spinal canal, was most likely the diagnosis. A second opinion confirmed the diagnosis, and a second MRI revealed stabilization with no signs of enhancement.

The patient was advised to meet with a neurosurgeon to remove the pannus. The patient agreed on occiput to C2 posterior instrument arthrodesis as well as decompression. A plain film radiograph showed C2-occipital repair after surgery (Figure 3). The patient recovered in the neurosurgical intensive care unit, and the rest of the recovery was uncomplicated. She showed some improvement in her headaches and unsteady gait. A postoperative pathologic evaluation of tissue was not available. She was referred to a rheumatologist to rule out an autoimmune disease as the cause for this pannus, but no autoimmune disease was found.

Discussion

Cervical pannus is relatively uncommon in those without RA. However, there are multiple reasons that a patient could develop a cervical pannus. Cervical pannus in RA and cervical pannus without RA may mimic each other clinically, but medical management is distinctly different. Consequently, a rheumatology consult is necessary to ensure that there is no undiagnosed autoimmune disorder. Our patient did not have RA, and a neurosurgery intervention was needed to manage her headaches and unsteady gait. Although we could not isolate a cause of this patient’s cervical pannus development, we believed that nonintervention would adversely affect this patient.

The course of pannus progression can be fatal especially if left untreated.¹² MRI can detect a pannus and may be helpful for planning surgery.¹³ Surgical resection has been the treatment of choice for patients with neurologic symptoms.¹⁴ However, some cases have reported resolution of pannus associated with RA and other forms of chronic atlantoaxial instability only after posterior stabilization.¹⁴In order to manage pannus, cervical spine examination for the diagnosis of cervical involvement is encouraged to prevent morbidity and mortality.¹³ There are new data that demonstrated the potential of using retinoid X receptor agonists, such as bexarotene, as a treatment against the development and progression of pannus.¹⁴

Conclusions

We present a patient with cervical pannus disease without RA whose diagnosis was based on the pathognomonic pattern seen on MRI. She showed a clinically significant recovery with an occiput to C2 posterior instrument arthrodesis as well as decompression. She showed marked improvements in her headaches and unsteady gait. This case report highlights the importance of realizing cervical pannus as a disease found in patients without RA. It serves as an alert to clinicians for timely detection, diagnosis, and initiation of treatment to prevent mortality and long-term neurologic sequelae of cervical pannus.

Although further studies of early diagnosis and treatment for cervical pannus are warranted, we propose that including pannus in a differential diagnosis for patients with no RA could be lifesaving.

Microdiscectomy could significantly reduce pain intensity at 6 months in people with chronic sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, a randomized controlled trial has found.

Catherine Yeulet/Thinkstock

Researchers reported the outcomes of a single-center trial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which 128 patients with chronic sciatica resulting from lumbar disc herniation were randomized either to microdiscectomy or 6 months of standardized nonoperative care, followed by surgery if required.

Chris S. Bailey, MD, of the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University in Toronto, Ontario, and coauthors wrote that, while the majority of patients with sciatica from acute herniation of the lumbar disc improve with conservative care, there is little study comparing surgery with conservative care in patients whose symptoms have lasted longer than 3 months.

In this study, all patients had experienced unilateral radiculopathy for 4-12 months. Those randomized to surgery were operated on a median of 3.1 weeks after enrollment, while those randomized to nonsurgical treatment received education on exercise, functioning, and the use of oral analgesics, as well as active physiotherapy and epidural glucocorticoid injections if needed.

At 6 months, the surgical group showed significantly lower visual analog scale scores for leg-pain intensity, compared with the nonsurgical group (2.8 vs. 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4; P < .001) and the difference persisted at 1 year (2.6 vs. 4.7).

In an editorial accompanying the study, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, MD, and James D. Kang, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the results in this group of patients with persistent sciatica as “encouraging,” and suggested the improvement may be because the surgery achieves more rapid decompression of the compressed nerve.

“Patients in the current trial who were assigned to undergo surgery received the intervention relatively quickly, at a median of 3 weeks, and it is reasonable to conclude that expeditious removal of the nerve compression minimized the potential for long-term persistence of pain,” they wrote.

Among the 64 patients who were randomized to nonsurgical treatment, 22 (34%) crossed over to undergo surgery at a median of 11 months after enrollment in the study. These patients tended to be younger at baseline, and less likely to have an asymmetrical decrease in reflexes.

The intention-to-treat analysis found a similar rate of surgical adverse events in the group initially randomized to surgery and the group who crossed over to have surgery (6% vs. 8%). Two patients in the surgical group and one in the crossover group experienced superficial wound infections, while two patients in the crossover group and one in the surgical group experienced new-onset postoperative neuropathic pain. Two patients in the surgical group also had a recurrence of their herniation; one underwent further surgery for it 250 days after the initial procedure, and the other did not.

The secondary outcomes of the study were disability score, physical health, mental health, back pain intensity, satisfaction with treatment, and employment status. All these showed differences that favored the surgical intervention, but “the absence of a prespecified plan for adjustment for multiple comparisons does not allow for clinical inferences from secondary outcomes.”

The authors noted that some previous randomized trials have shown that surgery was better than conservative care among patients with lumbar disc herniation for the first 6 months, but those trials largely focused on patients who had had symptoms for less than 4 months at the time of the intervention. The results of these trials had also been mixed; some trials in patients with shorter duration of symptoms found little or no benefit of surgery over conservative care.

“The decision about whether to recommend discectomy or nonsurgical treatment in this population is controversial because a longer duration of symptoms has been correlated with a poorer outcome associated with lumbar discectomy in some studies,” they wrote. “However, patients may prefer to avoid surgery if they think that nonsurgical treatment could be successful or if they anticipate a risk from surgery.”

There was the risk for selection bias in the study, the authors said, because both surgeons and patients might have been less inclined to go with nonsurgical care in cases of more severe sciatic pain. However they said patients did not have the option of choosing to have surgery at the center outside the trial, which should have minimized that risk.

The authors of the editorial noted that while the study limited itself to patients who had had symptoms for 4-12 months, it didn’t account for other clinical factors that might impact the outcome of discectomy, such as the size of disc herniation or extent of nerve compression.

They also pointed out that questions still remained about which patients were more likely to benefit from immediate surgical intervention and how long nonsurgical care should be trialed before recommending surgery.

The study was supported by a grant from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Kang reported grants from Pfizer, personal fees from DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), nonfinancial support from Stryker, owning stock in ALung and Cardiorobotics, and serving on a scientific advisory board for OnPoint Surgical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Schoenfeld reported grants from the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Defense, outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Bailey C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1093-102.

Microdiscectomy could significantly reduce pain intensity at 6 months in people with chronic sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, a randomized controlled trial has found.

Catherine Yeulet/Thinkstock

Researchers reported the outcomes of a single-center trial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which 128 patients with chronic sciatica resulting from lumbar disc herniation were randomized either to microdiscectomy or 6 months of standardized nonoperative care, followed by surgery if required.

Chris S. Bailey, MD, of the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University in Toronto, Ontario, and coauthors wrote that, while the majority of patients with sciatica from acute herniation of the lumbar disc improve with conservative care, there is little study comparing surgery with conservative care in patients whose symptoms have lasted longer than 3 months.

In this study, all patients had experienced unilateral radiculopathy for 4-12 months. Those randomized to surgery were operated on a median of 3.1 weeks after enrollment, while those randomized to nonsurgical treatment received education on exercise, functioning, and the use of oral analgesics, as well as active physiotherapy and epidural glucocorticoid injections if needed.

At 6 months, the surgical group showed significantly lower visual analog scale scores for leg-pain intensity, compared with the nonsurgical group (2.8 vs. 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4; P < .001) and the difference persisted at 1 year (2.6 vs. 4.7).

In an editorial accompanying the study, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, MD, and James D. Kang, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the results in this group of patients with persistent sciatica as “encouraging,” and suggested the improvement may be because the surgery achieves more rapid decompression of the compressed nerve.

“Patients in the current trial who were assigned to undergo surgery received the intervention relatively quickly, at a median of 3 weeks, and it is reasonable to conclude that expeditious removal of the nerve compression minimized the potential for long-term persistence of pain,” they wrote.

Among the 64 patients who were randomized to nonsurgical treatment, 22 (34%) crossed over to undergo surgery at a median of 11 months after enrollment in the study. These patients tended to be younger at baseline, and less likely to have an asymmetrical decrease in reflexes.

The intention-to-treat analysis found a similar rate of surgical adverse events in the group initially randomized to surgery and the group who crossed over to have surgery (6% vs. 8%). Two patients in the surgical group and one in the crossover group experienced superficial wound infections, while two patients in the crossover group and one in the surgical group experienced new-onset postoperative neuropathic pain. Two patients in the surgical group also had a recurrence of their herniation; one underwent further surgery for it 250 days after the initial procedure, and the other did not.

The secondary outcomes of the study were disability score, physical health, mental health, back pain intensity, satisfaction with treatment, and employment status. All these showed differences that favored the surgical intervention, but “the absence of a prespecified plan for adjustment for multiple comparisons does not allow for clinical inferences from secondary outcomes.”

The authors noted that some previous randomized trials have shown that surgery was better than conservative care among patients with lumbar disc herniation for the first 6 months, but those trials largely focused on patients who had had symptoms for less than 4 months at the time of the intervention. The results of these trials had also been mixed; some trials in patients with shorter duration of symptoms found little or no benefit of surgery over conservative care.

“The decision about whether to recommend discectomy or nonsurgical treatment in this population is controversial because a longer duration of symptoms has been correlated with a poorer outcome associated with lumbar discectomy in some studies,” they wrote. “However, patients may prefer to avoid surgery if they think that nonsurgical treatment could be successful or if they anticipate a risk from surgery.”

There was the risk for selection bias in the study, the authors said, because both surgeons and patients might have been less inclined to go with nonsurgical care in cases of more severe sciatic pain. However they said patients did not have the option of choosing to have surgery at the center outside the trial, which should have minimized that risk.

The authors of the editorial noted that while the study limited itself to patients who had had symptoms for 4-12 months, it didn’t account for other clinical factors that might impact the outcome of discectomy, such as the size of disc herniation or extent of nerve compression.

They also pointed out that questions still remained about which patients were more likely to benefit from immediate surgical intervention and how long nonsurgical care should be trialed before recommending surgery.

The study was supported by a grant from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Kang reported grants from Pfizer, personal fees from DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), nonfinancial support from Stryker, owning stock in ALung and Cardiorobotics, and serving on a scientific advisory board for OnPoint Surgical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Schoenfeld reported grants from the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Defense, outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Bailey C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1093-102.

Microdiscectomy could significantly reduce pain intensity at 6 months in people with chronic sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, a randomized controlled trial has found.

Catherine Yeulet/Thinkstock

Researchers reported the outcomes of a single-center trial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which 128 patients with chronic sciatica resulting from lumbar disc herniation were randomized either to microdiscectomy or 6 months of standardized nonoperative care, followed by surgery if required.

Chris S. Bailey, MD, of the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University in Toronto, Ontario, and coauthors wrote that, while the majority of patients with sciatica from acute herniation of the lumbar disc improve with conservative care, there is little study comparing surgery with conservative care in patients whose symptoms have lasted longer than 3 months.

In this study, all patients had experienced unilateral radiculopathy for 4-12 months. Those randomized to surgery were operated on a median of 3.1 weeks after enrollment, while those randomized to nonsurgical treatment received education on exercise, functioning, and the use of oral analgesics, as well as active physiotherapy and epidural glucocorticoid injections if needed.

At 6 months, the surgical group showed significantly lower visual analog scale scores for leg-pain intensity, compared with the nonsurgical group (2.8 vs. 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4; P < .001) and the difference persisted at 1 year (2.6 vs. 4.7).

In an editorial accompanying the study, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, MD, and James D. Kang, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the results in this group of patients with persistent sciatica as “encouraging,” and suggested the improvement may be because the surgery achieves more rapid decompression of the compressed nerve.

“Patients in the current trial who were assigned to undergo surgery received the intervention relatively quickly, at a median of 3 weeks, and it is reasonable to conclude that expeditious removal of the nerve compression minimized the potential for long-term persistence of pain,” they wrote.

Among the 64 patients who were randomized to nonsurgical treatment, 22 (34%) crossed over to undergo surgery at a median of 11 months after enrollment in the study. These patients tended to be younger at baseline, and less likely to have an asymmetrical decrease in reflexes.

The intention-to-treat analysis found a similar rate of surgical adverse events in the group initially randomized to surgery and the group who crossed over to have surgery (6% vs. 8%). Two patients in the surgical group and one in the crossover group experienced superficial wound infections, while two patients in the crossover group and one in the surgical group experienced new-onset postoperative neuropathic pain. Two patients in the surgical group also had a recurrence of their herniation; one underwent further surgery for it 250 days after the initial procedure, and the other did not.

The secondary outcomes of the study were disability score, physical health, mental health, back pain intensity, satisfaction with treatment, and employment status. All these showed differences that favored the surgical intervention, but “the absence of a prespecified plan for adjustment for multiple comparisons does not allow for clinical inferences from secondary outcomes.”

The authors noted that some previous randomized trials have shown that surgery was better than conservative care among patients with lumbar disc herniation for the first 6 months, but those trials largely focused on patients who had had symptoms for less than 4 months at the time of the intervention. The results of these trials had also been mixed; some trials in patients with shorter duration of symptoms found little or no benefit of surgery over conservative care.

“The decision about whether to recommend discectomy or nonsurgical treatment in this population is controversial because a longer duration of symptoms has been correlated with a poorer outcome associated with lumbar discectomy in some studies,” they wrote. “However, patients may prefer to avoid surgery if they think that nonsurgical treatment could be successful or if they anticipate a risk from surgery.”

There was the risk for selection bias in the study, the authors said, because both surgeons and patients might have been less inclined to go with nonsurgical care in cases of more severe sciatic pain. However they said patients did not have the option of choosing to have surgery at the center outside the trial, which should have minimized that risk.

The authors of the editorial noted that while the study limited itself to patients who had had symptoms for 4-12 months, it didn’t account for other clinical factors that might impact the outcome of discectomy, such as the size of disc herniation or extent of nerve compression.

They also pointed out that questions still remained about which patients were more likely to benefit from immediate surgical intervention and how long nonsurgical care should be trialed before recommending surgery.

The study was supported by a grant from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Kang reported grants from Pfizer, personal fees from DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), nonfinancial support from Stryker, owning stock in ALung and Cardiorobotics, and serving on a scientific advisory board for OnPoint Surgical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Schoenfeld reported grants from the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Defense, outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Bailey C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1093-102.

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

February 14, 2020 – A surgical magnetic rod system used to treat scoliosis in children has a high failure rate, necessitating multiple surgeries and causing significant morbidity in these young patients, new research suggests.

The Magnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) rod system (NuVasive), which was developed to replace traditional rods because of their high failure rate, has itself turned out to have a less than stellar success rate.

Researchers found that the most common complications associated with the MAGEC rod system are failure of the distraction mechanism used to stretch soft tissues to make space for bone growth, as well as rod fracture.

“This rod system fails very often compared to any standard spinal implant,” study investigator Aakash Agarwal, PhD, director of research at Spinal Balance Inc and adjunct professor of bioengineering at the University of Toledo, in Ohio, told Medscape Medical News.

The relatively high frequency of such adverse events is of “great concern,” said Agarwal, who recommended that neurosurgeons use more gradual distractions to minimize stress on spinal rods.

The study was published online October 19 in Spine Surgery and Related Research.
 

A Mainstay of Treatment

Scoliosis refers to the lateral curving of the spine, usually in the thoracic or thoracolumbar region. The degree of scoliosis is typically determined with x-rays.

Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) occurs in children younger than 5 years. It occurs more often in boys than girls. Although only about 1 or 2 in 10,000 children develop the condition, it can be severe, sometimes interfering with normal organ development.

Surgical intervention is required when bracing and casting fail to stop progression of the scoliotic curve. The aim of the surgery is to allow growth of the spine and ribcage and to correct and limit the extent of spinal deformity, said Agarwal.

Only children with adequate potential for spine and ribcage growth are candidates for the surgery. The age of eligible patients can vary but is typically up to about age 10 for girls and age 12 or 13 for boys, said Agarwal.

Although other surgical techniques are sometimes used, the distraction-based mechanism has been the mainstay of surgical intervention in EOS for more than a decade, he noted.

“The concept uses distraction, or stretching of the spine, to create additional soft-tissue space between the vertebrae for the bone to gradually grow into,” he said.

This has traditionally been achieved by putting two rods – proximally and distally – in each side of the spine. The attachment points of the rods must be repeatedly loosened and pushed apart.

Traditional growth rods are subject to risk of fracture and autofusion, which is stiffening of soft tissues in vertebral segments caused by trauma to the spine with excessive distraction.

Trauma Nightmare

The major problem with traditional growth rods is the need for invasive surgery every 6 to 12 months, said Agarwal.

“The trauma of repeated surgery is a nightmare for both the patients and the surgeons, from increased complications with each subsequent surgery to infections and unplanned surgeries,” he said.

This limitation led to the development of the titanium-based MAGEC rods. This noninvasive magnetic distraction system allows the rod to be expanded from outside the body using a remote control.

This approach results in a “drastic reduction” in the number of consecutive surgeries and has the potential to reduce growth rod fracture and autofusion, said Agarwal.

The system also allows for more gradual distractions of the growth rods.

“With the MAGEC system, you can stretch the spine a little bit every week without invasive surgery,” said Agarwal.

His own research showed that smaller and more frequent distractions result in much less stress in the rods. He suggests, for example, a distraction of 1.5-2.0 mm every month, rather than 4.5-6.0 mm every 3 months.

In the United States, the MAGEC system is used for all children undergoing distraction-based corrections. But in developing countries, at least 70% of patients still undergo surgery using traditional growth rods, owing to the very high initial cost associated with MAGEC rods, said Agarwal.

He believes traditional rods should not be used at all. In regions where MAGEC rods are unaffordable or inaccessible, surgeons should use alternative surgical techniques, he said.

“Given the variety of surgeon options, use of traditional growth rods isn’t justified,” he said.

For this new study, Agarwal and his colleagues searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database to identify relevant adverse events. Operated through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, MAUDE is a voluntary reporting system for adverse events involving medical devices.

Of the 163 reports related to the MAGEC system through June of last year, 129 were for failures of the distraction mechanism, 24 were for rod fracture, and 10 were for other medical complications, such as infection and tissue necrosis.

Bare Minimum

These reports are “just the bare minimum,” said Agarwal. “For example, tissue necrosis – or metallosis due to wear – is present in almost all cases with MAGEC,” but these cases aren’t reported because of “absence of clinical symptoms.”

Agarwal called these MAGEC-related complications “very worrisome.”

“Every single failure of rod fracture or noninvasive distraction mechanism failure in MAGEC leads to another open surgery. And with each surgery, the risk of other complications, such as infection, goes up very significantly,” he said.

He added that the failure of the distraction of the growth rods reduces the overall efficacy of the device.

“Newer studies even question if there is a real quality-of-life difference with use of MAGEC rods over the myriad of other options,” he said.

He stressed the need for better technical and clinical controls to avoid such adverse events – for example, more frequent use of minimum distraction.

The researchers also retrieved MAUDE data on the top five failures associated with standard instrumentation used in spinal fusion. These included pedicle screw breakage post surgery (336 reports), set screw damage during surgery (257), rod breakage post surgery (175), interbody cage breakage during surgery (118), and pedicle screw breakage during surgery (75).

The rates of adverse events involving the MAGEC rods, which are used in relatively rare surgical procedures, “seem high” in comparison, said Agarwal.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Lee Tan, MD, assistant professor of neurologic surgery, University of California, San Francisco, praised the authors for conducting an “interesting” study on the complications and mode of failure related to MAGEC rods in scoliosis correction using a large database.

“They identified distraction mechanism failure and pedicle screw breakage as the most common device-related complication and standard instrumentation-related complication, respectively,” said Tan.

“This is very useful information during patient education and preoperative counseling. It also identifies the areas for improvement and innovation on this important topic. I commend the authors for their excellent work,” he said.

The study received no funding. Agarwal has received royalties from and consults for Spinal Balance and is an editorial board member for Clinical Spine Surgery and Spine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

February 14, 2020 – A surgical magnetic rod system used to treat scoliosis in children has a high failure rate, necessitating multiple surgeries and causing significant morbidity in these young patients, new research suggests.

The Magnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) rod system (NuVasive), which was developed to replace traditional rods because of their high failure rate, has itself turned out to have a less than stellar success rate.

Researchers found that the most common complications associated with the MAGEC rod system are failure of the distraction mechanism used to stretch soft tissues to make space for bone growth, as well as rod fracture.

“This rod system fails very often compared to any standard spinal implant,” study investigator Aakash Agarwal, PhD, director of research at Spinal Balance Inc and adjunct professor of bioengineering at the University of Toledo, in Ohio, told Medscape Medical News.

The relatively high frequency of such adverse events is of “great concern,” said Agarwal, who recommended that neurosurgeons use more gradual distractions to minimize stress on spinal rods.

The study was published online October 19 in Spine Surgery and Related Research.
 

A Mainstay of Treatment

Scoliosis refers to the lateral curving of the spine, usually in the thoracic or thoracolumbar region. The degree of scoliosis is typically determined with x-rays.

Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) occurs in children younger than 5 years. It occurs more often in boys than girls. Although only about 1 or 2 in 10,000 children develop the condition, it can be severe, sometimes interfering with normal organ development.

Surgical intervention is required when bracing and casting fail to stop progression of the scoliotic curve. The aim of the surgery is to allow growth of the spine and ribcage and to correct and limit the extent of spinal deformity, said Agarwal.

Only children with adequate potential for spine and ribcage growth are candidates for the surgery. The age of eligible patients can vary but is typically up to about age 10 for girls and age 12 or 13 for boys, said Agarwal.

Although other surgical techniques are sometimes used, the distraction-based mechanism has been the mainstay of surgical intervention in EOS for more than a decade, he noted.

“The concept uses distraction, or stretching of the spine, to create additional soft-tissue space between the vertebrae for the bone to gradually grow into,” he said.

This has traditionally been achieved by putting two rods – proximally and distally – in each side of the spine. The attachment points of the rods must be repeatedly loosened and pushed apart.

Traditional growth rods are subject to risk of fracture and autofusion, which is stiffening of soft tissues in vertebral segments caused by trauma to the spine with excessive distraction.

Trauma Nightmare

The major problem with traditional growth rods is the need for invasive surgery every 6 to 12 months, said Agarwal.

“The trauma of repeated surgery is a nightmare for both the patients and the surgeons, from increased complications with each subsequent surgery to infections and unplanned surgeries,” he said.

This limitation led to the development of the titanium-based MAGEC rods. This noninvasive magnetic distraction system allows the rod to be expanded from outside the body using a remote control.

This approach results in a “drastic reduction” in the number of consecutive surgeries and has the potential to reduce growth rod fracture and autofusion, said Agarwal.

The system also allows for more gradual distractions of the growth rods.

“With the MAGEC system, you can stretch the spine a little bit every week without invasive surgery,” said Agarwal.

His own research showed that smaller and more frequent distractions result in much less stress in the rods. He suggests, for example, a distraction of 1.5-2.0 mm every month, rather than 4.5-6.0 mm every 3 months.

In the United States, the MAGEC system is used for all children undergoing distraction-based corrections. But in developing countries, at least 70% of patients still undergo surgery using traditional growth rods, owing to the very high initial cost associated with MAGEC rods, said Agarwal.

He believes traditional rods should not be used at all. In regions where MAGEC rods are unaffordable or inaccessible, surgeons should use alternative surgical techniques, he said.

“Given the variety of surgeon options, use of traditional growth rods isn’t justified,” he said.

For this new study, Agarwal and his colleagues searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database to identify relevant adverse events. Operated through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, MAUDE is a voluntary reporting system for adverse events involving medical devices.

Of the 163 reports related to the MAGEC system through June of last year, 129 were for failures of the distraction mechanism, 24 were for rod fracture, and 10 were for other medical complications, such as infection and tissue necrosis.

Bare Minimum

These reports are “just the bare minimum,” said Agarwal. “For example, tissue necrosis – or metallosis due to wear – is present in almost all cases with MAGEC,” but these cases aren’t reported because of “absence of clinical symptoms.”

Agarwal called these MAGEC-related complications “very worrisome.”

“Every single failure of rod fracture or noninvasive distraction mechanism failure in MAGEC leads to another open surgery. And with each surgery, the risk of other complications, such as infection, goes up very significantly,” he said.

He added that the failure of the distraction of the growth rods reduces the overall efficacy of the device.

“Newer studies even question if there is a real quality-of-life difference with use of MAGEC rods over the myriad of other options,” he said.

He stressed the need for better technical and clinical controls to avoid such adverse events – for example, more frequent use of minimum distraction.

The researchers also retrieved MAUDE data on the top five failures associated with standard instrumentation used in spinal fusion. These included pedicle screw breakage post surgery (336 reports), set screw damage during surgery (257), rod breakage post surgery (175), interbody cage breakage during surgery (118), and pedicle screw breakage during surgery (75).

The rates of adverse events involving the MAGEC rods, which are used in relatively rare surgical procedures, “seem high” in comparison, said Agarwal.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Lee Tan, MD, assistant professor of neurologic surgery, University of California, San Francisco, praised the authors for conducting an “interesting” study on the complications and mode of failure related to MAGEC rods in scoliosis correction using a large database.

“They identified distraction mechanism failure and pedicle screw breakage as the most common device-related complication and standard instrumentation-related complication, respectively,” said Tan.

“This is very useful information during patient education and preoperative counseling. It also identifies the areas for improvement and innovation on this important topic. I commend the authors for their excellent work,” he said.

The study received no funding. Agarwal has received royalties from and consults for Spinal Balance and is an editorial board member for Clinical Spine Surgery and Spine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

February 14, 2020 – A surgical magnetic rod system used to treat scoliosis in children has a high failure rate, necessitating multiple surgeries and causing significant morbidity in these young patients, new research suggests.

The Magnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) rod system (NuVasive), which was developed to replace traditional rods because of their high failure rate, has itself turned out to have a less than stellar success rate.

Researchers found that the most common complications associated with the MAGEC rod system are failure of the distraction mechanism used to stretch soft tissues to make space for bone growth, as well as rod fracture.

“This rod system fails very often compared to any standard spinal implant,” study investigator Aakash Agarwal, PhD, director of research at Spinal Balance Inc and adjunct professor of bioengineering at the University of Toledo, in Ohio, told Medscape Medical News.

The relatively high frequency of such adverse events is of “great concern,” said Agarwal, who recommended that neurosurgeons use more gradual distractions to minimize stress on spinal rods.

The study was published online October 19 in Spine Surgery and Related Research.
 

A Mainstay of Treatment

Scoliosis refers to the lateral curving of the spine, usually in the thoracic or thoracolumbar region. The degree of scoliosis is typically determined with x-rays.

Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) occurs in children younger than 5 years. It occurs more often in boys than girls. Although only about 1 or 2 in 10,000 children develop the condition, it can be severe, sometimes interfering with normal organ development.

Surgical intervention is required when bracing and casting fail to stop progression of the scoliotic curve. The aim of the surgery is to allow growth of the spine and ribcage and to correct and limit the extent of spinal deformity, said Agarwal.

Only children with adequate potential for spine and ribcage growth are candidates for the surgery. The age of eligible patients can vary but is typically up to about age 10 for girls and age 12 or 13 for boys, said Agarwal.

Although other surgical techniques are sometimes used, the distraction-based mechanism has been the mainstay of surgical intervention in EOS for more than a decade, he noted.

“The concept uses distraction, or stretching of the spine, to create additional soft-tissue space between the vertebrae for the bone to gradually grow into,” he said.

This has traditionally been achieved by putting two rods – proximally and distally – in each side of the spine. The attachment points of the rods must be repeatedly loosened and pushed apart.

Traditional growth rods are subject to risk of fracture and autofusion, which is stiffening of soft tissues in vertebral segments caused by trauma to the spine with excessive distraction.

Trauma Nightmare

The major problem with traditional growth rods is the need for invasive surgery every 6 to 12 months, said Agarwal.

“The trauma of repeated surgery is a nightmare for both the patients and the surgeons, from increased complications with each subsequent surgery to infections and unplanned surgeries,” he said.

This limitation led to the development of the titanium-based MAGEC rods. This noninvasive magnetic distraction system allows the rod to be expanded from outside the body using a remote control.

This approach results in a “drastic reduction” in the number of consecutive surgeries and has the potential to reduce growth rod fracture and autofusion, said Agarwal.

The system also allows for more gradual distractions of the growth rods.

“With the MAGEC system, you can stretch the spine a little bit every week without invasive surgery,” said Agarwal.

His own research showed that smaller and more frequent distractions result in much less stress in the rods. He suggests, for example, a distraction of 1.5-2.0 mm every month, rather than 4.5-6.0 mm every 3 months.

In the United States, the MAGEC system is used for all children undergoing distraction-based corrections. But in developing countries, at least 70% of patients still undergo surgery using traditional growth rods, owing to the very high initial cost associated with MAGEC rods, said Agarwal.

He believes traditional rods should not be used at all. In regions where MAGEC rods are unaffordable or inaccessible, surgeons should use alternative surgical techniques, he said.

“Given the variety of surgeon options, use of traditional growth rods isn’t justified,” he said.

For this new study, Agarwal and his colleagues searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database to identify relevant adverse events. Operated through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, MAUDE is a voluntary reporting system for adverse events involving medical devices.

Of the 163 reports related to the MAGEC system through June of last year, 129 were for failures of the distraction mechanism, 24 were for rod fracture, and 10 were for other medical complications, such as infection and tissue necrosis.

Bare Minimum

These reports are “just the bare minimum,” said Agarwal. “For example, tissue necrosis – or metallosis due to wear – is present in almost all cases with MAGEC,” but these cases aren’t reported because of “absence of clinical symptoms.”

Agarwal called these MAGEC-related complications “very worrisome.”

“Every single failure of rod fracture or noninvasive distraction mechanism failure in MAGEC leads to another open surgery. And with each surgery, the risk of other complications, such as infection, goes up very significantly,” he said.

He added that the failure of the distraction of the growth rods reduces the overall efficacy of the device.

“Newer studies even question if there is a real quality-of-life difference with use of MAGEC rods over the myriad of other options,” he said.

He stressed the need for better technical and clinical controls to avoid such adverse events – for example, more frequent use of minimum distraction.

The researchers also retrieved MAUDE data on the top five failures associated with standard instrumentation used in spinal fusion. These included pedicle screw breakage post surgery (336 reports), set screw damage during surgery (257), rod breakage post surgery (175), interbody cage breakage during surgery (118), and pedicle screw breakage during surgery (75).

The rates of adverse events involving the MAGEC rods, which are used in relatively rare surgical procedures, “seem high” in comparison, said Agarwal.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Lee Tan, MD, assistant professor of neurologic surgery, University of California, San Francisco, praised the authors for conducting an “interesting” study on the complications and mode of failure related to MAGEC rods in scoliosis correction using a large database.

“They identified distraction mechanism failure and pedicle screw breakage as the most common device-related complication and standard instrumentation-related complication, respectively,” said Tan.

“This is very useful information during patient education and preoperative counseling. It also identifies the areas for improvement and innovation on this important topic. I commend the authors for their excellent work,” he said.

The study received no funding. Agarwal has received royalties from and consults for Spinal Balance and is an editorial board member for Clinical Spine Surgery and Spine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

There were fewer complications with outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center than in the hospital, according to a review from the University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic, Memphis.

“In carefully selected patients, the ASC [ambulatory surgery center] seems to be a safe alternative to the inpatient hospital setting,” concluded investigators led by led by Marcus Ford, MD, a Campbell Clinic orthopedic surgeon.

He and his colleagues have been doing outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) since 2009, and “based on the subjective success,” recently increased the number of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties performed in their ASC.

They wanted to make sure, however, that their impression of good outpatient UKA results was supported by the data, so they compared outcomes in 48 UKA patients treated at their ASC with 48 treated in the hospital. The operations were done by two surgeons using the same technique and same medial UKA implant.

“Naturally, surgeons select those patients who are deemed physically and mentally capable of succeeding with an accelerated discharge plan” for outpatient service, the investigators wrote. To address that potential selection bias, the team matched their subjects by age and comorbidities.

There was only one minor complication in the outpatient group, a superficial stitch abscess. No patient needed a second operation, and all went home the same day.

It was different on the inpatient side. The average length of stay was 2.9 days, and there were four major complications: a deep venous thrombosis, a pulmonary embolus, an acute postoperative infection, and a periprosthetic fracture. All four required hospital readmission, and two patients needed a second operation.

The report didn’t directly address the reasons for the differences, but Dr. Ford and colleagues did note that they “believe that the ASC allows the surgeon greater direct control of perioperative variables that can impact patient outcome.”

Patients were in their late 50s, on average, and there were more women than men in both groups. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification score was 1.94 and mean body mass index was 34.3 kg/m² in the outpatient group, compared with a mean physical status classification score of 2.08 and mean body mass index of 32.9 kg/m² in the inpatient group. The differences were not statistically significant.

No funding source was reported. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ford M et al. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Jan;51[1]:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.08.001

Dementia patients undergoing hip fracture surgery had higher functional status with more intensive postsurgery rehabilitation, according to a recent Japanese study in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Ingram Pub.l

Looking at 43,506 patients cared for at 1,053 hospitals, Kazuaki Uda, MPH, and colleagues of the University of Tokyo found that scores on the Barthel Index, a measure of functional status, climbed significantly as the frequency and duration of postoperative rehabilitation increased. There was also a statistically significant, but small, association with improved functional status and early initiation of rehabilitation.

“Our results suggest that additional days of rehabilitation or an additional 20 minutes for each daily rehabilitation session in acute-care hospitals may provide better functional outcomes for patients with dementia,” concluded Mr. Uda and coinvestigators.

The Barthel Index (BI) measures independence in performing 10 activities of daily living (ADLs), including feeding, bathing, grooming, and dressing; bowel, bladder, and toileting; and transfers, mobility, and stair use. Each ADL is rate 0, 5, 10, or, for some, 15 points, and higher scores indicate more independence.

Compared with patients who received 3 days or fewer of rehabilitation weekly, patients receiving 3-4 days of rehabilitation saw an improvement of 2.62 on the BI. For those receiving 4-5 days, 5-6 days, and 6 or more days of rehabilitation, BI scores were higher by 5.83, 7.56, and 9.16, respectively. The results were statistically significant for all but the 3-4 day rehabilitation group.

Similarly, patients who received longer periods of rehabilitation saw more improvement in functional status. Compared with those who received 20-39 minutes per day of rehabilitation, those who received 40-59 minutes of therapy saw an increase of 4.37 on the BI, and those receiving an hour or more of therapy saw BI scores rise by 6.60 – both significant increases.

These results included a multivariable analysis that accounted for a number of patient characteristics such as comorbidities and body mass index, as well as fracture, fixation, and anesthesia type, and the interval from injury to surgery.

Representing the data in another way, the investigators found that “each increase in the average units of rehabilitation (units per day) was associated with a 5.46 increase in the BI.”

This retrospective cohort study, when placed in the context of previous work, suggests that “patients with cognitive impairment may benefit from rehabilitation for functional gains after hip fracture surgery in both acute and postacute settings,” the investigators wrote. They noted, however, that patients with dementia have often been excluded from larger outcome studies of hip fracture rehabilitation.

Patients in this study had a median 21-day inpatient stay after admission for their hip fracture, so much of the rehabilitation included as inpatient care in the Japanese schema would be delivered in the outpatient setting in the United States, where the mean inpatient length of stay after hip fracture is about 5 days.

Patients aged 65 years and older were included in the study if they had a prefracture diagnosis of dementia and sustained a hip fracture that was surgically repaired. Patients with multiple fracture sites, those with incomplete data, and those who didn’t undergo surgery or died in the hospital were excluded from the study. Almost two-thirds of patients (65.7%) were aged 85 years or older, and about a third (36.6%) were living in nursing facilities at the time of fracture. About 60% of patients were assessed as having mild dementia – a classification requiring little assistance with ADLs – before admission.

The authors noted that their study broke out timing, duration, and frequency of rehabilitation separately, unlike some previous work. They posited that longer or more frequent rounds of rehabilitation may be particularly effective in patients with dementia, who may face some communication barriers and require reteaching.

The study was unrandomized by design, and unmeasured confounders may have affected the results, they noted. Also, the study wasn’t designed to detect whether patient factors such as premorbid functional status, level of dementia, or living situation affected the timing, duration, and intensity of rehabilitation they were provided. The investigators recommended randomized studies to validate the effect of early, intensive rehabilitation for hip fracture surgery in patients with dementia.

The study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. The authors reported that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Uda K et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:2301-7.

Dementia patients undergoing hip fracture surgery had higher functional status with more intensive postsurgery rehabilitation, according to a recent Japanese study in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Ingram Pub.l

Looking at 43,506 patients cared for at 1,053 hospitals, Kazuaki Uda, MPH, and colleagues of the University of Tokyo found that scores on the Barthel Index, a measure of functional status, climbed significantly as the frequency and duration of postoperative rehabilitation increased. There was also a statistically significant, but small, association with improved functional status and early initiation of rehabilitation.

“Our results suggest that additional days of rehabilitation or an additional 20 minutes for each daily rehabilitation session in acute-care hospitals may provide better functional outcomes for patients with dementia,” concluded Mr. Uda and coinvestigators.

The Barthel Index (BI) measures independence in performing 10 activities of daily living (ADLs), including feeding, bathing, grooming, and dressing; bowel, bladder, and toileting; and transfers, mobility, and stair use. Each ADL is rate 0, 5, 10, or, for some, 15 points, and higher scores indicate more independence.

Compared with patients who received 3 days or fewer of rehabilitation weekly, patients receiving 3-4 days of rehabilitation saw an improvement of 2.62 on the BI. For those receiving 4-5 days, 5-6 days, and 6 or more days of rehabilitation, BI scores were higher by 5.83, 7.56, and 9.16, respectively. The results were statistically significant for all but the 3-4 day rehabilitation group.

Similarly, patients who received longer periods of rehabilitation saw more improvement in functional status. Compared with those who received 20-39 minutes per day of rehabilitation, those who received 40-59 minutes of therapy saw an increase of 4.37 on the BI, and those receiving an hour or more of therapy saw BI scores rise by 6.60 – both significant increases.

These results included a multivariable analysis that accounted for a number of patient characteristics such as comorbidities and body mass index, as well as fracture, fixation, and anesthesia type, and the interval from injury to surgery.

Representing the data in another way, the investigators found that “each increase in the average units of rehabilitation (units per day) was associated with a 5.46 increase in the BI.”

This retrospective cohort study, when placed in the context of previous work, suggests that “patients with cognitive impairment may benefit from rehabilitation for functional gains after hip fracture surgery in both acute and postacute settings,” the investigators wrote. They noted, however, that patients with dementia have often been excluded from larger outcome studies of hip fracture rehabilitation.

Patients in this study had a median 21-day inpatient stay after admission for their hip fracture, so much of the rehabilitation included as inpatient care in the Japanese schema would be delivered in the outpatient setting in the United States, where the mean inpatient length of stay after hip fracture is about 5 days.

Patients aged 65 years and older were included in the study if they had a prefracture diagnosis of dementia and sustained a hip fracture that was surgically repaired. Patients with multiple fracture sites, those with incomplete data, and those who didn’t undergo surgery or died in the hospital were excluded from the study. Almost two-thirds of patients (65.7%) were aged 85 years or older, and about a third (36.6%) were living in nursing facilities at the time of fracture. About 60% of patients were assessed as having mild dementia – a classification requiring little assistance with ADLs – before admission.

The authors noted that their study broke out timing, duration, and frequency of rehabilitation separately, unlike some previous work. They posited that longer or more frequent rounds of rehabilitation may be particularly effective in patients with dementia, who may face some communication barriers and require reteaching.

The study was unrandomized by design, and unmeasured confounders may have affected the results, they noted. Also, the study wasn’t designed to detect whether patient factors such as premorbid functional status, level of dementia, or living situation affected the timing, duration, and intensity of rehabilitation they were provided. The investigators recommended randomized studies to validate the effect of early, intensive rehabilitation for hip fracture surgery in patients with dementia.

The study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. The authors reported that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Uda K et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:2301-7.

Dementia patients undergoing hip fracture surgery had higher functional status with more intensive postsurgery rehabilitation, according to a recent Japanese study in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Ingram Pub.l

Looking at 43,506 patients cared for at 1,053 hospitals, Kazuaki Uda, MPH, and colleagues of the University of Tokyo found that scores on the Barthel Index, a measure of functional status, climbed significantly as the frequency and duration of postoperative rehabilitation increased. There was also a statistically significant, but small, association with improved functional status and early initiation of rehabilitation.

“Our results suggest that additional days of rehabilitation or an additional 20 minutes for each daily rehabilitation session in acute-care hospitals may provide better functional outcomes for patients with dementia,” concluded Mr. Uda and coinvestigators.

The Barthel Index (BI) measures independence in performing 10 activities of daily living (ADLs), including feeding, bathing, grooming, and dressing; bowel, bladder, and toileting; and transfers, mobility, and stair use. Each ADL is rate 0, 5, 10, or, for some, 15 points, and higher scores indicate more independence.

Compared with patients who received 3 days or fewer of rehabilitation weekly, patients receiving 3-4 days of rehabilitation saw an improvement of 2.62 on the BI. For those receiving 4-5 days, 5-6 days, and 6 or more days of rehabilitation, BI scores were higher by 5.83, 7.56, and 9.16, respectively. The results were statistically significant for all but the 3-4 day rehabilitation group.

Similarly, patients who received longer periods of rehabilitation saw more improvement in functional status. Compared with those who received 20-39 minutes per day of rehabilitation, those who received 40-59 minutes of therapy saw an increase of 4.37 on the BI, and those receiving an hour or more of therapy saw BI scores rise by 6.60 – both significant increases.

These results included a multivariable analysis that accounted for a number of patient characteristics such as comorbidities and body mass index, as well as fracture, fixation, and anesthesia type, and the interval from injury to surgery.

Representing the data in another way, the investigators found that “each increase in the average units of rehabilitation (units per day) was associated with a 5.46 increase in the BI.”

This retrospective cohort study, when placed in the context of previous work, suggests that “patients with cognitive impairment may benefit from rehabilitation for functional gains after hip fracture surgery in both acute and postacute settings,” the investigators wrote. They noted, however, that patients with dementia have often been excluded from larger outcome studies of hip fracture rehabilitation.

Patients in this study had a median 21-day inpatient stay after admission for their hip fracture, so much of the rehabilitation included as inpatient care in the Japanese schema would be delivered in the outpatient setting in the United States, where the mean inpatient length of stay after hip fracture is about 5 days.

Patients aged 65 years and older were included in the study if they had a prefracture diagnosis of dementia and sustained a hip fracture that was surgically repaired. Patients with multiple fracture sites, those with incomplete data, and those who didn’t undergo surgery or died in the hospital were excluded from the study. Almost two-thirds of patients (65.7%) were aged 85 years or older, and about a third (36.6%) were living in nursing facilities at the time of fracture. About 60% of patients were assessed as having mild dementia – a classification requiring little assistance with ADLs – before admission.

The authors noted that their study broke out timing, duration, and frequency of rehabilitation separately, unlike some previous work. They posited that longer or more frequent rounds of rehabilitation may be particularly effective in patients with dementia, who may face some communication barriers and require reteaching.

The study was unrandomized by design, and unmeasured confounders may have affected the results, they noted. Also, the study wasn’t designed to detect whether patient factors such as premorbid functional status, level of dementia, or living situation affected the timing, duration, and intensity of rehabilitation they were provided. The investigators recommended randomized studies to validate the effect of early, intensive rehabilitation for hip fracture surgery in patients with dementia.

The study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. The authors reported that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Uda K et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:2301-7.