No abstract

➤ Cigarette smoking decreases bone mineral density and increases the risk of sustaining a fracture or tendon injury, with partial reversibility of these risks with long-term cessation of smoking. ➤ Cigarette smoking increases the risk for perioperative complications, nonunion and delayed union of fractures, infection, and soft-tissue and wound-healing complications. ➤ Brief preoperative cessation of smoking may mitigate these perioperative risks. ➤ Informed-consent discussions should include notification of the higher risk of perioperative complications with cigarette smoking and the benefits of temporary cessation of smoking.

Object A reported risk factor for adjacent-segment disease is injury to the superior facet joint from pedicle screw placement. Given that the facet joint is not typically visualized during percutaneous pedicle screw insertion, there is a concern for increased facet violation (FV) in minimally invasive fusion procedures. The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the incidence of FV among patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The impact of O-arm navigation compared with traditional fluoroscopy on FV in MITLIF is also assessed, as are risk factors for FV. Methods The authors identified a consecutive population of patients who underwent MITLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw placement, as well as a matched cohort of patients who underwent open TLIF. Postoperative CT imaging was assessed to determine intraarticular FV due to pedicle screw placement. Patients were stratified into minimally invasive and open TLIF groups. Within the MITLIF group, the authors performed a subanalysis of image guidance methods used in cases of FV. Two-tailed Student t-test, ANOVA, chi-square testing, and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 282 patients were identified, with a total of 564 superior pedicle screw placements. The MITLIF group consisted of 142 patients with 284 screw insertions. The open TLIF group consisted of 140 patients with 280 screw insertions. Overall, 21 (7.4%) of 282 patients experienced FV. A total of 21 screws violated a facet joint for a screw-based FV rate of 3.7% (21 of 564 screws). There were no significant differences between the MITLIF and open TLIF groups in the percentage of patients with FV (6.3% vs 8.6%) and or the percentage of screws with FV (3.2% vs 4.3%) (p = 0.475 and p = 0.484, respectively). Further stratifying the MI group into O-arm navigation and fluoroscopic guidance subgroups, the patient-based rates of FV were 10.8% (4 of 37 patients) and 4.8% (5 of 105 patients), respectively, and the screw-based rates of FV were 5.4% (4 of 74 screws) and 2.4% (5 of 210 screws), respectively. There was no significant difference between the subgroups with respect to patient-based or screw-based FV rates (p = 0.375 and p = 0.442, respectively). The O-arm group had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.021). BMI greater than 29.9 was independently associated with higher FV (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.65–8.53, p = 0.039). Conclusions The findings suggest that minimally invasive pedicle screw placement is not associated with higher rates of FV. Overall violation rates were similar in MITLIF and open TLIF. Higher BMI, however, was a risk factor for increased FV. The use of O-arm fluoroscopy with computer-assisted guidance did not significantly decrease the rate of FV.

S eparating issues of funding (i.e., who pays for health care) and delivery (i.e., who owns and administers the institutions providing care) helps to inform debates about health care systems. Funding for health care can come through private sources, primarily administered through insurance companies, or through public payment, by governments using tax dollars. Care can be delivered at private for-profit institutions that are owned by investors; private not-for-profit institutions that are owned by communities, religious organizations or philanthropic groups; or public health care institutions owned and administered by the government.Canadian hospitals are publicly funded. In terms of delivery, although they are commonly referred to as public institutions, Canadian hospitals are almost all owned and operated by private not-for-profit organizations.1 Canadian policy-makers continue to consider an expansion of private for-profit health care delivery, including private for-profit hospitals. 1 We have previously demonstrated higher risk-adjusted death rates among patients receiving care at private forprofit hospitals than among patients at private not-forprofit hospitals in a comprehensive systematic review. 2Uncertainty remains, however, about the economic implications of these forms of health care delivery. Studies evaluating the economics of health care delivery usually evaluate costs, charges or payments for care.3 From the perspective of a service provider, costs represent how much the provider paid to provide care, charges represent how much the provider billed the payer, and payments represent how much the provider received for the care received. In the context of publicly funded health care, the central policy question is how much government will pay for care delivered by private for-profit versus private notfor-profit providers. We therefore undertook a systematic for-profit hospitals have higher risk-adjusted mortality rates than those cared for at private not-for-profit hospitals. Uncertainty remains, however, about the economic implications of these forms of health care delivery. Since some policy-makers might still consider for-profit health care if expenditure savings were sufficiently large, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare payments for care at private forprofit and private not-for-profit hospitals. Methods: We used 6 search strategies to identify published and unpublished observational studies that directly compared the payments for care at private for-profit and private not-forprofit hospitals. We masked the study results before teams of 2 reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of all studies. We confirmed data or obtained additional data from all but 1 author. For each study, we calculated the payments for care at private for-profit hospitals relative to private notfor-profit hospitals and pooled the results using a random effects model. Results: Eight observational studies, involving more than 350 000 patients altogether and a median of 324 hospitals each, fu...