No abstract

Background: YouTube has become a popular source for patient education, though there are concerns regarding the quality and reliability of videos related to orthopaedic and neurosurgical procedures. This study aims to evaluate the credibility and educational content of videos on YouTube related to cervical fusion. Secondarily, the study aims to identify factors predictive of higher or lower quality videos.Methods: A YouTube query using the search terms ''cervical fusion'' was performed, and the first 50 videos were included for analysis. Reliability was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria. Educational quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and the Cervical Fusion Content Score (CFCS). Videos were stratified by content and source, and differences in JAMA, GQS, and CFCS scores were assessed. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify predictors of higher or lower JAMA, GQS, and CFCS scores. Statistical significance was established at P , 0.05.Results: Total number of views was 6 221 816 with a mean of 124 436.32 6 412 883.32 views per video. Physicians, academic, and medical sources had significantly higher mean JAMA scores (P ¼ 0.042). Exercise training and nonsurgical management videos had significantly higher mean CFCS scores (P ¼ 0.018). Videos by physicians (b ¼ 0.616; P ¼ 0.025) were independently associated with higher JAMA scores. Advertisements were significant predictors of worse CFCS (b ¼À3.978; P ¼ 0.030), and videos by commercial sources predicted significantly lower JAMA scores (b ¼ À1.326; P ¼ 0.006).Conclusions: While videos related to cervical fusion amassed a large viewership, they were poor in both quality and reliability. Videos by physicians were associated with higher reliability scores relative to other sources, whereas commercial sources and advertisements had significantly lower reliability and educational content scores. Currently, YouTube seems to be an unreliable source of information on cervical fusion for patients.Level of Evidence: 4. Clinical Relevance: The results of this study aid surgeons in counseling patients interested in cervical fusion, and suggest that publicly available videos regarding cervical fusion may not be an adequate tool for patient education at this time.

In accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, all industry payments to physicians in the United States have become publicly available. Previous research has indicated that orthopedic surgeons receive the greatest amount of industry compensation compared with other surgical subspecialists. However, the relationship between this compensation and research productivity is less clear. This study sought to investigate the relationship between consulting fees paid to orthopedic surgeons and academic productivity. Using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, this study identified 2555 orthopedic surgeons who received at least one industry consulting fee in 2015. Physicians who received total consulting fees of at least $20,000 (US) were stratified into the high payment group. The number of publications and the h-index for each physician were used as metrics of scholarly impact. Mean publication number and h-index for the high payment group were compared with all other physicians in the sample using an independent-samples t test. A total of 2555 orthopedic surgeons received consulting payments totaling $62,323,143 in 2015. The mean consulting payment was $24,393 (SD, $45,465). The publication number was greater for the high payment group (mean, 61.6; SD, 135.6) compared with all other physicians in the sample (mean, 36.1; SD, 95.6). Additionally, the mean h-index for the high payment group was 13.7 (SD, 14.3) compared with 10.0 (SD, 11.6) for all other orthopedic surgeons. These findings indicate that the orthopedic surgeons who receive more in industry consulting fees are also those who contribute most substantially to the body of orthopedic literature. [ Orthopedics . 2019; 42(3):137–142.]

Study Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Objective: The aim was to compare perioperative and radiographic outcomes between stand-alone and anterior plated 1 and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Summary of Background Data: ACDF with interbody spacer and separate plate/screw construct (PLATE) may be associated with a higher incidence of postoperative dysphagia, increased operative time, and other complications. Therefore, some have opted to utilize an interbody cage with integrated screws and no plate (CAGE) with good results. Materials and Methods: Patients with 1-level to 2-level degenerative disease were prospectively enrolled and randomized into 1 of 2 treatment arms consisting of either PLATE or CAGE reconstruction. Patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. Primary endpoints included improvement on patient-reported outcome metrics, construct integrity, cervical alignment, successful arthrodesis, and subsequent revision surgeries. Results: Forty-six patients were included: 12 with 1-level PLATE, 12 with 1-level CAGE, 12 with 2-level PLATE, and 10 with 2-level CAGE. For 1-level ACDF, PLATE patients reported worse swallow function on Swallowing Quality of Life Questionnaire at 6 weeks (P=0.050) and 6 months (P=0.042). Pseudarthrosis requiring revision was observed in one PLATE patient. For 2-level ACDF CAGE patients reported worse disability on neck disability index (P=0.037) at 6 weeks, as well as worse neck disability index (P=0.017) and visual analog scale neck (P=0.010) at 6 months. However, PLATE patients reported worse swallow function on Swallowing Quality of Life Questionnaire at 6 weeks (P=0.038). There were no differences in the rates of fusion, loss of disc height correction, subsidence, or in sagittal parameters between cohorts for both 1-level and 2-level ACDF. Conclusion: There was greater incidence of transient postoperative dysphagia in both single and 2-level PLATE cohorts. However, early postoperative outcomes were worse for 2-level CAGE in certain patient-reported metrics. This suggests that although anterior instrumentation may be associated with a higher likelihood of dysphagia, it may also lead to higher short-term stability and improved patient-reported outcomes for 2-level fusion.

Background Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (DCS) is a rare and aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. The purpose of this investigation was to describe our treatment and outcomes of 16 DCS patients at our institution and provide a review of the current literature. Methods This study was a retrospective review over a consecutive twenty-year period. Data including treatment details and outcomes were recorded. Results A total of 16 cases from 2000 to 2018 were identified. The median age (IQR) was 62 years (52; 69) and the majority of DCS arose in the femur (50%, n=8) and pelvis (25%, n=4). Fourteen (88%) cases underwent limb salvage/wide margin resection (n=13) or intralesional surgery (n=1). For all DCS, the median survival (IQR) was 46 months (12; 140), with both a five and ten-year probability of 32.1% (95% CI, 7.3% to 57.0%). At study conclusion, 81.3% (n=13) were deceased and 18.7% (n=3) were alive. Conclusions Our findings confirm the poor prognosis of DCS patients, with a five-year estimate of 32%. Together with existing literature, our data might help enable future strategic recommendation of these patients.