BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide suspensions of elective surgeries due to reallocation of resources to the care of COVID-19 patients. Following resumption of elective cases, a significant proportion of patients continued to delay surgery, with many yet to reschedule, potentially prolonging their pain and impairment of function and causing detrimental long-term effects. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients who have and have not rescheduled their spine surgery procedures originally cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to evaluate the reasons for continued deferment of spine surgeries even after the lifting of the mandated suspension of elective surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective case series at a single institution PATIENT SAMPLE: Included were 133 patients seen at a single institution where spine surgery was canceled due to a state-mandated suspension of elective surgeries from March to June, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: The measures assessed included preoperative diagnoses and neurological dysfunction, surgical characteristics, reasons for surgery deferment, and PROMIS scores of pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function. METHODS: Patient electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients who had not rescheduled their canceled surgery as of January 31, 2021, and did not have a reason noted in their charts were called to determine the reason for continued surgery deferment. Patients were divided into three groups: early rescheduled (ER), late rescheduled (LR), and not rescheduled (NR). ER patients had a date of surgery (DOS) prior to the city's Phase 4 reopening on July 20, 2020; LR patients had a DOS on or after that date. Statistical analysis of the group findings included analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test, independent samples T-test, and chi-square analysis with significance set at p≤.05. RESULTS: Out of 133 patients, 47.4% (63) were in the ER, 15.8% (21) in the LR, and 36.8% (49) in the NR groups. Demographics and baseline PROMIS scores were similar between groups. LR had more levels fused (3.6) than ER (1.6), p= .018 on Tukey HSD. NR (2.1) did not have different mean levels fused than LR or ER, both p= >.05 on Tukey HSD. LR had more three column osteotomies (14.3%) than ER and (1.6%) and NR (2.0%) p=.022, and fewer lumbar microdiscectomies (0%) compared to ER (20.6%) and NR (10.2%), p=.039. Other surgical characteristics were similar

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: To compare short-term functional outcomes, reduction loss, and rates of surgery for distal radius fractures initially immobilized with a traditional sugar-tong splint versus clamshell splint freeing the elbow.Design: Prospective randomized trial.Setting: Level 1 trauma center.Patients: Eighty-nine consecutive patients sustaining distal radius fractures were enrolled between 2018 and 2020. Short-term first follow-up (1-2 weeks) radiographic parameters and 6 weeks for functional questionnaires were established to assess initial outcomes. Main Outcome Measures:The main outcome measures were reduction loss based on radiographic criteria, rate of surgery, and short-term patient functional outcome using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.Results: There were no differences noted in DASH scores (P-value = 0.8) or loss of reduction (P-value = 0.69), and splint type was not correlated with likelihood to have surgery (P = 0.22). A binomial regression model demonstrated splint type was not a significant predictor variable of loss of fracture reduction in the regression model. Conclusions:These results suggest both sugar-tong splint and clamshell splint construct are acceptable options in the acute management of distal radius fractures.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to explore the rate of proximal junctional failure (PJF) and functional outcomes of normative alignment goals compared with alignment targets based on age-appropriate physical function. METHODS Baseline relationships between age, pelvic incidence (PI), and a component of the T1 pelvic angle (TPA) within the fusion were analyzed in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients and compared with those of asymptomatic patients. Linear regression modeling was used to determine alignment based on PI and age in asymptomatic patients (normative alignment), and in ASD patients, alignment corresponding to age-appropriate functional status (functional alignment). A cohort of 288 ASD patients was split into two groups based on whether the patient was closer to their normative or functional alignment goal at their 6-week postoperative radiographic follow-up. The rates of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and PJF were determined for each cohort. RESULTS In the 288 ASD patients included in this pre- to postoperative analysis, there was no difference in baseline alignment or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between the normative alignment and functional alignment groups. At 6 weeks, patients with normative alignment had a smaller TPA (4.45° vs 14.1°) and PI minus lumbar lordosis (−7.24° vs 7.4°) (both p < 0.0001) and higher PJK (40% vs 27.2%, p = 0.03) and PJF (17% vs 6.8%, p = 0.008) rates than patients with functional alignment. CONCLUSIONS Correction in ASD patients to normative alignment resulted in higher rates of PJK and PJF without improvements in HRQOL. Correction in ASD patients to functional alignment that mirrors the physical function of their age-matched asymptomatic peers is recommended.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract