Study Design. Retrospective database analysis. Objective. To identify nationwide temporal trends in management of geriatric odontoid fractures and to compare comorbidities, inpatient complications, hospital characteristics, and cost between patients receiving operative versus nonoperative management. Summary of Background Data. The treatment of geriatric odontoid fractures remains controversial with some studies demonstrating decreased mortality and improved functional outcomes associated with operative management and significant morbidity associated with halo devices during nonoperative management. Methods. Patients between ages 65 to 90 years with odontoid fractures who underwent operative or nonoperative management between the years 2003 and 2017 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Year of injury, demographic variables, comorbidities, inpatient complications, mortality, length of stay, inpatient cost, and hospital characteristics were compared between operative and nonoperative treatment groups. Results. Thirty two thousand four hundred nineteen patients (average age 77 yr, 54% female) were included in the final analysis. Operative treatment occurred in 21,954 (67%) patients and nonoperative treatment occurred in 10,465 (32%). In 2003, operative treatment occurred in 46% of patients and nearly doubled to 86% in 2017, with an average increase of 3.7% per year (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing operative management had a lower prevalence of at least one major medical comorbidity (76% vs. 83%, P < 0.001). Patients undergoing operative treatment demonstrated higher odds of developing most complications, particularly pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal (P < 0.01). Inpatient mortality was 3.6% in patients receiving operative treatment and 5.9% in patients receiving nonoperative treatment (P < 0.001). Average cost per episode of care during the study period was $131,855 for operative treatment and $65,374 for nonoperative treatment (P < 0.001). Conclusion. This study demonstrates a clear national paradigm shift in the management of geriatric odontoid fractures, wherein operative management nearly doubled from 46% in 2003 to 86% in 2017. Level of Evidence: 3

Study Design: Review. Objective: Venothromboembolic (VTE) complications, composed of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are commonly observed in the perioperative setting. There are approximately 500 000 postoperative VTE cases annually in the United States and orthopedic procedures contribute significantly to this incidence. Data on the use of VTE prophylaxis in elective spinal surgery is sparse. This review aims to provide an updated consensus within the literature defining the risk factors, diagnosis, and the safety profile of routine use of pharmacological prophylaxis for VTE in elective spine surgery patients. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings relating to current identified risk factors for VTE, diagnostic methods, and prophylactic intervention and safety in elective spine surgery. Results: VTE prophylaxis use is still widely contested in elective spine surgery patients. The outlined benefits of mechanical prophylaxis compared with chemical prophylaxis varies among practitioners. Conclusion: The benefits of any form of VTE prophylaxis continues to remain a controversial topic in the elective spine surgery setting. A specific set of guidelines for implementing prophylaxis is yet to be determined. As more risk factors for thromboembolic events are identified, the complexity surrounding intervention selection increases. The benefits of prophylaxis must also continue to be balanced against the increased risk of bleeding events and neurologic injury.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is prevalent among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) soccer players. Controversy remains regarding the effect of the surface type on the rate of ACL injury in soccer players, considering differences in sex, type of athletic exposure, and level of competition. Hypothesis: Natural grass surfaces would be associated with decreased ACL injury rate in NCAA soccer players. Sex, type of athletic exposure (match vs practice), and level of competition (Division I-III) would affect the relationship between playing surface and ACL injury rates. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Using the NCAA Injury Surveillance System (ISS) database, we calculated the incidence rate of ACL injury in men and women from 2004-2005 through 2013-2014 seasons. The incidence was normalized against athletic exposure (AE). Additional data collected were sex, athletic activity at time of injury (match vs practice), and level of competition (NCAA division) to stratify the analysis. Statistical comparisons were made by calculating incidence rate ratios (IRR). Statistical significance was set at an alpha of .05. Results: There were 30,831,779 weighted AEs during the study period. The overall injury rate was 1.12 ACL injuries per 10,000 AEs (95% CI, 1.08-1.16). Women comprised 57% of the match data (10,261 games) and 55% of practice data (26,664 practices). The overall injury rate was significantly higher on natural grass (1.16/10,000 AEs; 95% CI, 1.12-1.20) compared with artificial turf (0.92/10,000 AEs [95% CI, 0.84-1.01]; IRR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.14-1.38]) ( P < .0001). This relationship was demonstrated consistently across all subanalyses, including stratification by NCAA division and sex. The injury rate on natural grass (0.52/10,000 AEs; 95% CI, 1.11-1.26) was significantly greater than the injury incidence during practice on artificial turf (0.06/10,000 AEs; 95% CI, 0.043-0.096). Players were 8.67 times more likely to sustain an ACL injury during practice on natural grass compared with practice on artificial turf (95% CI, 5.43-12.13; P < .0001). No significant difference was found in injury rates between matches played on grass versus turf (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.03; P = .15). Conclusion: NCAA soccer players who practice on natural grass have increased risk of ACL injury compared with the risk of those practicing on an artificial surface, regardless of sex or NCAA division of play. No difference in risk of ACL injury between playing surfaces was detected during matches. Further research is necessary to examine the effect of multiple factors when evaluating the effect of the surface type on the risk of ACL injury in soccer players.

No abstract