The primary objective is to compare revision rates for lumbar disc replacement (LDR) and fusion at the same or adjacent levels in Ontario, Canada. The secondary objectives include acute complications during hospitalization and in 30 days, and length of hospital stay. A population-based cohort study was conducted using health administrative databases including patients undergoing LDR or single level fusion between October 2005 to March 2018. Patients receiving LDR or fusion were identified using physician claims recorded in the Ontario Health Insurance Program database. Additional details of surgical procedure were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information hospital discharge abstract. Primary outcome measured was presence of revision surgery in the lumbar spine defined as operation greater than 30 days from index procedure. Secondary outcomes were immediate/ acute complications within the first 30 days of index operation. A total of 42,024 patients were included. Mean follow up in the LDR and fusion groups were 2943 and 2301 days, respectively. The rates of revision surgery at the same or adjacent levels were 4.7% in the LDR group and 11.1% in the fusion group (P=.003). Multivariate analysis identified risk factors for revision surgery as being female, hypertension, and lower surgeon volume. More patients in the fusion group had dural tears (p<.001), while the LDR group had more “other” complications (p=.037). The LDR group had a longer mean hospital stay (p=.018). In this study population, the LDR group had lower rates of revision compared to the fusion group. Caution is needed in concluding its significance due to lack of clinical variables and possible differences in indications between LDR and posterior decompression and fusion

Lumbar fusion surgery is an established procedure for the treatment of several spinal pathologies. Despite numerous techniques and existing devices, common surgical trends in lumbar fusion surgery are scarcely investigated. The purpose of this Canada-based study was to provide a descriptive portrait of current surgeons’ practice and implant preferences in lumbar fusion surgery while comparing findings to similar investigations performed in the United Kingdom. Canadian Spine Society (CSS) members were sampled using an online questionnaire which was based on previous investigations performed in the United Kingdom. Fifteen questions addressed the various aspects of surgeons’ practice: fusion techniques, implant preferences, and bone grafting procedures. Responses were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics. Of 139 eligible CSS members, 41 spinal surgeons completed the survey (29.5%). The most common fusion approach was via transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) with 87.8% performing at least one procedure in the previous year. In keeping with this, 24 surgeons (58.5%) had performed 11 to 50 cases in that time frame. Eighty-six percent had performed no lumbar artificial disc replacements over their last year of practice. There was clear consistency on the relevance of a patient specific management (73.2%) on the preferred fusion approach. The most preferred method was pedicle screw fixation (78%). The use of stand-alone cages was not supported by any respondents. With regards to the cage material, titanium cages were the most used (41.5%). Published clinical outcome data was the most important variable in dictating implant choice (87.8%). Cage thickness was considered the most important aspect of cage geometry and hyperlordotic cages were preferred at the lower lumbar levels. Autograft bone graft was most commonly preferred (61.0%). Amongst the synthetic options, DBX/DBM graft (64.1%) in injectable paste form (47.5%) was preferred. In conclusion, findings from this study are in partial agreement with previous work from the United Kingdom, but highlight the variance of practice within Canada and the need for large-scale clinical studies aimed to set specific guidelines for certain pathologies or patient categories

Introduction. Circular frames for ankle fusion are usually reserved for complex clinical scenarios. Current literature is heterogenous and difficult to interpret. We aimed to study the indications and outcomes of this procedure in detail. Materials & Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed based on a prospective database of frame surgeries performed in a tertiary institution. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing complex ankle fusion with circular frames between 2005 and 2020, with a minimum 12-month follow up. Data were collected on patient demographics, surgical indications, comorbidities, surgical procedures, external fixator time (EFT), length of stay (LOS), radiological and clinical outcomes, and adverse events. Factors influencing radiological and clinical outcomes were analysed. Results. 47 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of three years. The mean age at time of surgery was 63.6 years. Patients had a median of two previous surgeries. The median LOS was 8.5 days, and median EFT was 237 days. Where simultaneous limb lengthening was performed, the average lengthening was 2.9cm, increasing the EFT by an average of 4 months. Primary and final union rates were 91.5% and 95.7% respectively. At last follow-up, ASAMI bone scores were excellent or good in 87.2%. ASAMI functional scores were good in 79.1%. Patient satisfaction was 83.7%. 97.7% of patients experienced adverse events, most commonly pin-site related, with major complications in 30.2% and re-operations in 60.5%. There were 3 amputations. Adverse events were associated with increased age, poor soft tissue condition, severe deformities, subtalar fusions, peripheral neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, and prolonged EFT. Conclusions. Complex ankle fusion using circular frames can achieve good outcomes in complicated clinical scenarios, however patients can expect a prolonged time in the frame and high rates of adverse events. Multiple risk factors were identified for poorer outcomes, which should be considered in patient counselling and prognostication

Study design. Prospective randomized study. Objective. Primary aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with posterolateral (interlaminar) instrumented lumbar fusion (PLF) in adult low grade (Meyerding 1 & 2) spondylolisthesis patients. Background data. Theoretically, TLIF has better radiological result than PLF in spondylolisthesis in most of the studies. Method. 24 patients of low grade adult spondylolisthesis were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: group 1- PLF and group 2-TLIF. Study period was between August 2010 to March 2013. All patients were operated by a single surgeon (CN). Posterior decompression was performed in all patients. Average follow up period was 18.4 months. Quality of life was accessed with Visual analogue scale and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index. Fusion was assessed radiologically by CT scan and X-ray. Result. Though fusion was significantly better in TLIF group, clinical outcome including relief of back pain and neurogenic claudication were better in PLF group. Rate of complication was also lower in PLF group. Conclusion. Considering the low complication rate and similar or better clinical results, posterolateral instrumented lumbar fusion is the better option in low grade adult spondylolisthesis

Aim. Acute post-surgical infection is one of the most serious complications after instrumented thoracolumbar fusion with an incidence of 0.7%-12%. Acute infection can lead to an increase in morbidity, mortality, and economic costs for the healthcare system. The main objective of our study was to determine the variables associated with a higher risk of acute infection after thoracolumbar instrumentation in our center. Methods. We conducted an observational case-control study including instrumented fusions of the thoracolumbar spine performed between 2015 and 2021 at our institution. We included patients with thoracolumbar fusions after a fracture or for the treatment of degenerative pathology. We analyzed demographic variables related to the surgical procedure, the causative microorganism of infection, the outcome of infection treatment, and complications. We performed a descriptive analysis of all variables and a univariate comparison of cases and controls. The dichotomous variables were compared using the Fisher test, while the quantitative variables were compared using the Student's T-test. A p-value of <0.05 is taken into account to consider the statistical significance. SPSS v25 Windows program was used for statistical analyses. Results. 455 patients were included, 53% were male with a mean age of 60 years. 35% of patients had a BMI (Body Mass Index) >30, 21.1% were classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) >3, 15.8% were diabetic, and 2.6% were under chronic corticosteroid treatment. In 34.1% of the fusions, the procedure lasted more than 3 hours. We identified 26 post-surgical acute infections (5.7%). Patients with an infection had a higher prevalence of diabetes (14.7% vs 34.6% p=0.012), chronic corticosteroid treatment (2.1% vs 11.5% p=0.026), and a higher percentage of surgeries with duration > 3 hours (32.4% vs. 61.1%, p=0.019). A trend towards significance was also observed in patients classified as ASA >3 (20.3% vs. 34.6%, p=0.088), and BMI >30 (33.8% vs. 53.8%, p=0.054). No significant differences were observed in the rest of the variables studied. The most frequent causative microorganism was S.epidermidis (38%), followed by S.aureus (34%) and polymicrobial infections (34%). Conclusions. There is a significant increase in infection in diabetic patients, patients with chronic corticosteroid treatment, and in surgeries lasting > 3 hours

The paper describes various surgical techniques and devices for: nucleus pulpous replacement and total lumbar disc arthroplasty/L TDR, as well as other dynamic-system preservation motion stabilization/fixation without fusion techniques (ISS-ILS, DF/semirigid (based on screw & rods)) vs. fusion. Coverage includes indications and contraindications, surgical approaches, and the latest constructs and clinical trial results

In multilevel posterior cervical instrumented fusions, extending the fusion across the cervico-thoracic junction at T1 or T2 (CTJ) has been associated with decreased rate of re-operation and pseudarthrosis but with longer surgical time and increased blood loss. The impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs) remains unclear. The primary objective was to determine whether extending the fusion through the CTJ influenced PROs at 3 and 12 months after surgery. Secondary objectives were to compare the number of patients reaching the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the PROs and mJOA, operative time duration, intra-operative blood loss (IOBL), length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, adverse events (AEs), re-operation within 12 months of the surgery, and patient satisfaction. This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a multicenter observational cohort study of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Patients who underwent a posterior instrumented fusion of 4 levels of greater (between C2-T2) between January 2015 and October 2020 with 12 months follow-up were included. PROS (NDI, EQ5D, SF-12 PCS and MCS, NRS arm and neck pain) and mJOA were compared using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline differences. Patient demographics, comorbidities and surgical details were abstracted. Percentafe of patient reaching MCID for these outcomes was compared using chi-square test. Operative duration, IOBL, AEs, re-operation, discharge disposittion, LOS and satisfaction were compared using chi-square test for categorical variables and independent samples t-tests for continuous variables. A total of 206 patients were included in this study (105 patients not crossing the CTJ and 101 crossing the CTJ). Patients who underwent a construct extending through the CTJ were more likely to be female and had worse baseline EQ5D and NDI scores (p> 0.05). When adjusted for baseline difference, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for the PROs and mJOA at 3 and 12 months. Surgical duration was longer (p 0.05). Satisfaction with the surgery was high in both groups but significantly different at 12 months (80% versus 72%, p= 0.042 for the group not crossing the CTJ and the group crossing the CTJ, respectively). The percentage of patients reaching MCID for the NDI score was 55% in the non-crossing group versus 69% in the group extending through the CTJ (p= 0.06). Up to 12 months after the surgery, there was no statistically significant differences in PROs between posterior construct extended to or not extended to the upper thoracic spine. The adverse event profile did not differ significantly, but longer surgical time and blood loss were associated with construct extending across the CTJ

There is a paucity of published Canadian literature comparing lumbar total disc arthroplasty (LDA) to fusion on patient outcomes in degenerative spondylosis. The purpose of this study is to quantify and compare the long-term patient reported outcomes following LDA and matched-fusion procedures. We conducted a matched-cohort study comparing consecutive patients enrolled by CSORN who underwent standalone primary LDA or hybrid techniques for degenerative disk disease between 2015–2019. Fusion patients were included by a primary diagnosis of degenerative disk disease, chief complaint of back pain, who received a primary fusion irrespective of technique. Fusion patients were matched by number of involved levels of surgery to LDA counterparts. Outcome scores and patient satisfaction were assessed preoperatively and 2-years postoperatively. 97 patients (39-female, 58-male) underwent LDA or hybrid construct up to 4 levels. 94 patients (52-female, 42-male) underwent a lumbar fusion were selected based on inclusion criteria. 36 LDA and 57 Fusion patients underwent a 1-level surgery. 39 LDA and 25 Fusion patients underwent 2-level surgery. 18 LDA and 7 Fusion patients underwent 3-level surgery. 4 LDA and 5 Fusion patients underwent a 4-level procedure. Slight differences in average cohort age were found (LDA-43.4yrs, Fusion-49.8yrs, p<0.01). Cohort preoperative-BMI (LDA-27.0kg/m. 2. , Fusion-27.9kg/m. 2. , p=0.29) and total comorbidities (LDA-2.6, Fusion-2.1, p=0.05) demonstrated no clinically significant differences. At 2 year follow-up, no differences were found in ODI improvement (LDA-20.32pts, Fusion-17.02pts, p=0.36), numerical back-pain improvement (LDA-3.5pts, Fusion-3.06pts, p=0.40), numerical leg-pain improvement (LDA-1.67pts, Fusion-1.87pts, p=0.76), and Health Scale improvement (LDA-17.12, Fusion-10.73, p=0.20) between cohorts. Similar positive findings were found in subgroups stratified by number of surgical levels. Satisfaction rate at 2 years was 86.7% and 82.4% for LDA and Fusion patients respectively. There didn't appear to be significant differences in outcomes or satisfaction through 2 years comparing patients who underwent LDA (whether used in isolation or as part of a hybrid construct) for debilitating degenerative disk disease and isolated spinal fusion for back dominant pain

The main challenges in hip arthrodesis takedown include the decision to perform fusion takedown and the technical difficulties of doing so. In addition to the functional disadvantages of hip fusion, the long-term effects of hip arthrodesis include low back pain and in some cases ipsilateral knee pain. Indications for fusion conversion to THA include arthrodesis malposition, pseudoarthrosis, and ipsilateral knee, low back, contralateral hip problems, and functional disadvantages of ipsilateral hip fusion. When deciding whether or not to take down fusion, consider the severity of the current problem, risks of takedown and likely benefits of takedown. Best results of fusion takedown occur if abductor function is likely to be present. If the abductors are not likely to function well, dearthrodesis may still help, but the patient will have a profound Trendelenburg or Duchenne gait and risk of hip instability will be higher. Abductor assessment can be performed by determining if the abductors contract on physical exam and determining if the previous form of fusion spared the abductors and greater trochanter. EMG and MRI also can be performed to assess the abductors, but value in this setting is unproven. Before dearthrodesis establish realistic expectations: most patients will gain hip motion—but not normal motion, most will see improvement in back/knee pain, but many will become cane-dependent for life. The main technical issues to overcome involve exposure, femoral neck osteotomy, acetabular preparation, and femoral fixation. Exposure can be conventional posterior, anterolateral or direct anterior with an in-situ femoral neck cut. In complex cases, a transtrochanteric approach is often helpful. The in-situ neck cut is facilitated by fluoroscopy or intraoperative radiograph to make sure the cut is at the correct level and at the correct angle. Be careful not to angle into the pelvis with the cut. Acetabular preparation is more complex because anatomic landmarks often are absent or distorted. Try to find landmarks including ischium, ilium, teardrop, and fovea. Confirm location with fluoroscopy as reaming commences and during reaming. Depth of reaming can be improved by using the fovea (if present) and teardrop on fluoroscopy. Cup fixation is usually an uncemented cup, fixed with multiple screws because bone quality typically is compromised. Femoral fixation is at the surgeon's discretion, recognizing the proximal bone may be distorted in some cases. Postoperative management includes protected weight bearing as needed and heterotopic bone prophylaxis in selected patients

Longstanding un-united scaphoid fractures or scapholunate insufficiency can progress to degenerative wrist osteoarthritis (termed scaphoid non-union advanced collapse (SNAC) or scapho-lunate advanced collapse (SLAC) respectively). Scaphoid excision and partial wrist fusion is a well-established procedure for the surgical treatment of this condition. In this study we present a novel technique and mid-term results, where fusion is reserved for the luno-capitate and triquetro-hamate joints, commonly referred to as bicolumnar fusion. The purpose of this study was to report functional and radiological outcomes in a series of patients who underwent this surgical technique. This was a prospective study of 23 consecutive patients (25 wrists) who underwent a bicolumnar carpal fusion from January 2014 to January 2017 due to a stage 2 or 3 SNAC/SLAC wrist, with a minimum follow-up of one year. In all cases two retrograde cannulated headless compression screws were used for inter-carpal fixation. The clinical assessment consisted of range of motion, grip and pinch strength that were compared with the unaffected contralateral side where possible. Patient-reported outcome measures, including the DASH and PRWE scores were analysed. The radiographic assessment parameters consisted of fusion state and the appearance of the radio-lunate joint space. We also examined the relationship between the capito-lunate fusion angle and wrist range of motion, comparing wrists fused with a capito-lunate angle greater than 20° of extension with wrists fused in a neutral position. The average follow-up was 2.9 years. The mean wrist extension was 41°, flexion 36° and radial-ulnar deviation arc was 43° (70%, 52% and 63% of contralateral side respectively). Grip strength was 40 kg and pinch strength was 8.9 kg, both 93% of contralateral side. Residual pain for activities of daily living was 1.4 (VAS). The mean DASH and PRWE scores were 19±16 and 29±18 respectively. There were three cases of non-union (fusion rate of 88%). Two wrists were converted to total wrist arthroplasty and one partial fusion was revised and healed successfully. Patients with an extended capito-lunate fusion angle trended toward more wrist extension but this did not reach statistical significance (P= 0.07). Wrist flexion did not differ between groups. Radio-lunate joint space narrowing progressed in 2 patients but did not affect their functional outcome. After bicolumnar carpal fusion using retrograde headless screws, patients in this series maintained a functional flexion-extension arc of motion, with grip-pinch strength that was close to normal. These functional outcomes and fusion rates were comparable with standard 4-corner fusion technique. A capito-lunate fusion angle greater than 20° may provide more wrist extension but further investigation is required to establish this effect. This technique has the advantage that compression screws are placed in a retrograde fashion, which does not violate the proximal articular surface of the lunate, preserving the residual load-bearing articulation. Moreover, the hardware is completely contained, with no revision surgery for hardware removal required in this series

Introduction. Aim was to compare the functional outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with stand-alone tricotical iliac crest auto graft verses stand-alone PEEK cage. Material and methods. Prospectively collected data of 60 patients in each group was compared. Results. There was statistically significant improvement noted in postoperative Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at one year follow up for both the groups. Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the autograft group when compared with the PEEK cage group. Among the 94 patients who underwent single level non-instrumented ACDF only 4 (4.25%) had psuedoarthrosis. The fusion rate for single level ACDF in our series was 95.74%. Among the 25 patients operated for two level non-instrumented ACDF, 6 patients (24.00%) had pseudoarthrosis. The fusion rate for two levels ACDF in our series is 76.00%. There was no significant difference in fusion rates of the PEEK cage when compared to auto graft group. Conclusion. Fusion rates in ACDF are independent of interbody graft material. Fusion rates for single level ACDF is significantly higher than two levels ACDF. ACDF with PEEK is the fusion technique of choice with fewer complications and better functional recovery

Introduction. Aim was to compare the functional outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with stand-alone tricotical iliac crest auto graft verses stand-alone PEEK cage. Material and methods. Prospectively collected data of 60 patients in each group was compared. Results. There was statistically significant improvement noted in postoperative Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at one year follow up for both the groups. Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the autograft group when compared with the PEEK cage group. Among the 94 patients who underwent single level non-instrumented ACDF only 4 (4.25%) had psuedoarthrosis. The fusion rate for single level ACDF in our series was 95.74%. Among the 25 patients operated for two level non-instrumented ACDF, 6 patients (24.00%) had pseudoarthrosis. The fusion rate for two levels ACDF in our series is 76.00%. There was no significant difference in fusion rates of the PEEK cage when compared to auto graft group. Conclusion. Fusion rates in ACDF are independent of interbody graft material. Fusion rates for single level ACDF is significantly higher than two levels ACDF. ACDF with PEEK is the fusion technique of choice with fewer complications and better functional recovery

Introduction. We present a case of a 49-year-old patient who initially presented in May 2020 with an open pilon fracture. Managed with initial debridement, fixation and flap - who subsequently underwent circular frame application for failure of fixation, requiring a transport to fusion frame who developed beta-haemolytic streptococcus A within the site of the proximal corticotomy. Materials & Methods. A systematic review of the literature was conducted searching EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane library for all articles discussing infected bone regenerate- a paucity of information was found. Abstracts were independently reviewed by 2 authors (LH and LT). In total, there were 16 papers, and then subsequently analysed we identified two case reports regarding infected regenerate. Results. Developing an infection in a regenerate is highly rare with very few reported cases within the published literature. The literature identified risk factors for an infected regenerate, with open fracture and smoking being the two consistent factors. The open fracture deep infection rate is cited at 10% in most publications, this is at the site of the open fracture and not within the regenerate. Conclusions. Infection within the regenerate during distraction osteogenesis is highly unusual, with only two other published papers in the literature to the best of our knowledge. This should be borne in mind when managing patients with infection of unknown sources in cases of distraction osteogenesis

Hip fusion is an uncommon procedure. Hip fusion takedown, therefore, is equally an uncommon procedure. What is of considerable interest is that the results, which I achieved in 20 cases in a paper published in 1987 are considerably superior to the results, which I am achieving today. This suggests that no simple case is now fused. It also equally suggests that there is little sense in looking at literature more than 10 or 15 years old on fusion takedowns as the two conditions are likely completely different. Most patients do not like a hip fusion. There are long-term problems with low back pain, ipsilateral global instability and contralateral patellofemoral osteoarthritis. A stiff hip produces a poor quality of life, especially in a tall person. The main problem in doing a hip fusion takedown is the condition of the abductors muscles. If fused before growth was complete, there may be pelvic hypoplasia. If the pelvis is small, the glutei will also be small. Sometimes, the glutei may have undergone fatty degeneration. This can be assessed by means of an MRI. If the abductors were damaged during fusion, a limp may persist. Other problems are that leg lengthening is difficult to achieve any longstanding hip fusion. Lengthening of 1–2 cm is usually about all that can safely be achieved. If the hip was fused in childhood, there is likely to be femoral hypoplasia. There is also likely absence of proximal cancellous bone and the proximal femur is a thin brittle cortical tube. The greater trochanter should not be detached as it is difficult to obtain union under such circumstances. The approach, which I prefer for a fusion takedown is an anterior Smith Peterson. The glutei are slid off the pelvis sidewall and then the upper part of the fusion can be exposed, blunt Hohmans can then be passed around the femoral neck prior to transection. Obviously, if any AO cobra plate has been used for a fusion, a trochanteric osteotomy may be required to preserve any glutei left. Old hardware can be removed either concurrently or as an interval procedure. In 1986, I published the results of 20 cases with a five to 40-year fusion time (mean 19). I used a variety of implants. Flexion was achieved to 90 degrees at 12 months in about 88% of people. Seventy-five percent ceased to limp by year one, although the elderly limp when tired. One patient was dissatisfied with the procedure. One was revised for pain. I have reviewed the cases done in the last 20 years. These were 28 cases, two bilateral. Seven were spontaneous fusions. Twenty-one were formal hip fusions. One was an AO fusion with a cobra plate. There were various intra-operative complications including two calcar cracks, which were wired, three femoral shaft fractures, which necessitated the use of long stems. There was one drop foot, which recovered. At review, a limp was absent in 20%, mild in 12% and severe, i.e. Trendelenburg positive in 68%. Harris hip scores were excellent in 28%, good in 32%, fair in 16% and poor in 24%. Four patients only, however, continued to use canes. The eventual range of movement was good. In 80%, more than 90 degrees of flexion was obtained, but it took up to two years to obtain maximum flexion. In 12%, the range of motion was poor at being 50 degrees to 85 degrees. The range of motion was poor, i.e. less than 45 degrees in one bilateral case of athrogryposis. This was a stiff arthrogrypotic. Further surgery is required in several cases. An ipsilateral total knee replacement and one a supracondylar femoral osteotomy. One cup loosened and was revised at seven years and one liner was exchanged at ten years

Intraoperative range of motion (ROM) radiographs are routinely taken during scaphoidectomy and four corner fusion surgery (S4CF) at our institution. It is not known if intraoperative ROM predicts postoperative ROM. We hypothesize that patients with a greater intra-operativeROM would have an improved postoperative ROM at one year, but that this arc would be less than that achieved intra- operatively. We retrospectively reviewed 56 patients that had undergone S4CF at our institution in the past 10 years. Patients less than 18, those who underwent the procedure for reasons other than arthritis, those less than one year from surgery, and those that had since undergone wrist arthrodesis were excluded. Intraoperative ROM was measured from fluoroscopic images taken in flexion and extension at the time of surgery. Patients that met criteria were then invited to take part in a virtual assessment and their ROM was measured using a goniometer. T-tests were used to measure differences between intraoperative and postoperative ROM, Pearson Correlation was used to measure associations, and linear regression was conducted to assess whether intraoperative ROM predicts postoperative ROM. Nineteen patients, two of whom had bilateral surgery, agreed to participate. Mean age was 54 and 14 were male and 5 were male. In the majority, surgical indication was scapholunate advanced collapse; however, two of the participants had scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse. No difference was observed between intraoperative and postoperative flexion. On average there was an increase of seven degrees of extension and 12° arc of motion postoperatively with p values reaching significance Correlation between intr-operative and postoperative ROM did not reach statistical significance for flexion, extension, or arc of motion. There were no statistically significant correlations between intraoperative and postoperative ROM. Intraoperative ROM radiographs are not useful at predicting postoperative ROM. Postoperative extension and arc of motion did increase from that measured intraoperatively

The main challenges in hip arthrodesis takedown include the decision to perform fusion takedown and the technical difficulties of doing so. In addition to the functional disadvantages of hip fusion, the long-term effects of hip arthrodesis include low back pain and in some cases ipsilateral knee pain. Indications for fusion conversion to THA include arthrodesis malposition, pseudoarthrosis, and ipsilateral knee, low back, contralateral hip problems, and functional disadvantages of ipsilateral hip fusion. When deciding whether or not to take down a fusion, consider the severity of the current problem, risks of takedown and likely benefits of takedown. Best results of fusion takedown occur if abductor function is likely to be present. If the abductors are not likely to function well, dearthrodesis may still help, but the patient will have a profound Trendelenburg or Duchenne gait and risk of hip instability will be higher. Abductor assessment can be performed by determining if the abductors contract on physical exam and determining if the previous form of fusion spared the abductors and greater trochanter. EMG and MRI also can be performed to assess the abductors, but value in this setting is unproven. Before dearthrodesis establish realistic expectations: most patients will gain hip motion—but not normal motion, most will see improvement in back/knee pain, but many will become cane-dependent for life. The main technical issues to overcome involve exposure, femoral neck osteotomy, acetabular preparation, and femoral fixation. Exposure can be conventional posterior, anterolateral or direct anterior with an in situ femoral neck cut. In complex cases, a transtrochanteric approach is often helpful. The in situ neck cut is facilitated by fluoroscopy or intra-operative radiograph to make sure the cut is at the correct level and at the correct angle. Be careful not to angle into the pelvis with the cut. Acetabular preparation is more complex because anatomic landmarks often are absent or distorted. Try to find landmarks including ischium, ilium, teardrop, and fovea. Confirm location with fluoroscopy as reaming commences and during reaming. Depth of reaming can be improved by using the fovea (if present) and teardrop on fluoroscopy. Cup fixation is usually an uncemented cup, fixed with multiple screws because bone quality typically is compromised. Femoral fixation is at the surgeon's discretion, recognizing the proximal bone may be distorted in some cases. Post-operative management includes protected weight bearing as needed and heterotopic bone prophylaxis in selected patients

The purpose of this study was to define the risk and incidence of eventual ankle arthroplasty or fusion after documented ankle fracture in a large cohort, and compare that rate to matched healthy patients from the general population. The Ontario health insurance plan (OHIP) physician billing database, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) Physician Database, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) databases, Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) and Same Day Surgery (SDS) were used to identify patients treated surgically and non-surgically for ankle fractures. Each patient was matched to four individuals from the general population (13.5 million) with no documented prior treatment for ankle fracture, according to age, sex, income, and urban/rural residence. Fusion and replacement incidence was compared using time-to-event analysis (Kaplan-Meier). A Cox Proportional Hazards model was used to explore the influence of patient, provider and surgical factors on time to surgery. We identified 45,444 (58.8% female, mean age 48.7 years) and 140, 629 (53.9% female, mean age 47.1 years) patients who had undergone open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or non-operative management of an ankle fracture (NOA), respectively. Among ORIF patients, n=237 (0.5%) and n=69 (0.15%) patients underwent fusion or arthroplasty after a median 2.8 and 6.9 years, respectively. Among non-operatively treated ankle fractures, n=198 (0.14%) and n=36 (0.03%) patients underwent fusion or arthroplasty after a median of 3.2 and 5.6 years, respectively. Surgical treatment (vs. non-operatively treated fracture), older age, greater co-morbidity and a history of infection post fracture significantly increased the risk of eventual fusion or arthroplasty (HR 3.6 (3.1–4.3), p < 0 .001, HR 1.01 (1.01–1.02), p=0.009, HR 1.2 (1.1–1.3), p < 0 .001, HR 11.3 (6.8–18.7), p < 0 .001, respectively). Compared to matched controls, the risk of fusion/arthroplasty was not independent of time, following an exponential decay pattern. ORIF patient risk was 20 times greater than the general population in the first three years post-ORIF, and approached the risk of non-operatively treated patients (HR 4.5 (95CI: 3.5–5.8), p < 0 .0001) by approximately 14 years out from injury on time and comorbidity adjusted KM curves. Rates of fusion/arthroplasty are very low after ORIF and non-operative treatment of an ankle fracture in the general population of a public healthcare system. Utilization patterns suggest fusion is more common earlier, and arthroplasty remote, which may be a factor of patient age, injury severity, and complications from initial injury/surgery. Patients who underwent ORIF have >20 times the risk of fusion/arthroplasty in the short-term, however, the risk decreases over time eventually approaching that of non-operatively treated patients (∼4.5x the general population) when compared to non-fractured controls

Surgical site infections (SSIs) after spinal fusion surgery increase healthcare costs, morbidity and mortality. Routine measures of obesity fail to consider site specific fat distribution. We aimed to assess the association between the spine adipose index and deep surgical site infection and determine a threshold value for spine adipose index that can assist in preoperative risk stratification in patients undergoing posterior instrumented lumbar fusion (PILF). A multicentre retrospective case-control study was completed. We reviewed patients who underwent PILF from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018. All patients developing a deep primary incisional or organ-space SSI within 90 days of surgery as per US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention criteria were identified. We gathered potential pre-operative and intra-operative deep infection risk factors for each patient. Spine adipose index was measured on pre-operative mid-sagittal cuts of T2 weighted MRI scans. Each measurement was repeated twice by three authors in a blinded fashion, with each series of measurement separated by a period of at least six weeks. Forty-two patients were included in final analysis, with twenty-one cases and twenty-one matched controls. The spine adipose index was significantly greater in patients developing deep SSI (p =0.029), and this relationship was maintained after adjusting for confounders (p=0.046). Risk of developing deep SSI following PILF surgery was increased 2.0-fold when the spine adipose index was ≥0.51. The spine adipose index had excellent (ICC >0.9; p <0.001) inter- and intra-observer reliabilities. The spine adipose index is a novel radiographic measure and an independent risk factor for developing deep SSI, with 0.51 being the ideal threshold value for pre-operative risk stratification in patients undergoing PILF surgery

Background. Prospective study to compare patient reported outcome measures (PROM) for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion using HA-coated screw (HACS) vs triangular titanium dowel (TTD). First study of its kind in English literature. Methods. 40 patients underwent percutaneous SIJ stabilisation using HACS and TTD was used in 70 patients. Patients were followed up closely and outcome scores were collected prospectively. PROMs were collected preoperatively and 12 months after surgery. Short Form (SF)-36, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D-5L and Majeed Pelvic Scores were collected. Shapiro-wilk test was used to determine normality of data. Mann-whitney U test was used to compared non-parametric data and Independent sample T test for parametric data. Results. 33 patients in HACS group and 61 in TTD group completed follow-up. There was no significant difference in all preoperative PROMs in both groups hence the data was considered comparable. All postoperative PROMs were significantly higher in the TTD group. In the HACS group, 21 patients (63%) had lysis around the screw and a sub-group analysis showed that improvement in PROMs was significantly less in patients with lysis around the screw. 4 patients with lysis around the screw were offered revision due to ongoing pain. Revision was successful in only 1 patient. In TTD group only 5 patients (8.2 %) patients had radiological evidence of lysis. Relative risk of developing lysis was 6.7 times higher in HACS group. Conclusion. Percutaneous SIJ fixation procedure has been shown to have good clinical outcomes and TTD leads to significantly better patient reported outcomes compared to HACS. There is a 6.7 time higher risk of lysis with use of HACS and lysis is a risk factor for poor outcomes

The purpose of this study is to evaluate risk factors for distal construct failure (DCF) in posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). We observed an increased rate of DCF when the pedicle screw in the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) was not parallel to the superior endplate of the LIV, however this has not been well studied in the literature. We hypothesise a more inferiorly angled LIV screw predisposes to failure and aim to find the critical angle that predisposes to failure. A retrospective cohort study was performed on all patients who underwent PSIF for AIS at the Starship Hospital spine unit from 2010 to 2020. On a lateral radiograph, the angle between the superior endplate of the LIV was measured against its pedicle screw trajectory. Data on demographics, Cobb angle, Lenke classification, instrumentation density, rod protrusion from the most inferior screw, implants and reasons for revision were collected. Of 256 patients, 10.9% (28) required at least one revision. The rate of DCF was 4.6% of all cases (12 of 260) and 25.7% of revisions were due to DCF. The mean trajectory angle of DCF patients compared to all others was 13.3° (95%CI 9.2° to 17.4°) vs 7.6° (7° to 8.2°), p=0.0002. The critical angle established is 11°, p=0.0076. Lenke 5 and C curves, lower preoperative Cobb angle, titanium only rod constructs and one surgeon had higher failure rates than their counterparts. 9.6% of rods protruding less than 3mm from its distal screw disengaged. We conclude excessive inferior trajectory of the LIV screw increases the rate of DCF and a screw trajectory greater than 11° predisposes to failure. This is one factor that can be controlled by the surgeon intraoperatively and by avoiding malposition of the LIV screw, a quarter of revisions can potentially be eliminated