Is It Safe to Initiate Selective Cerebral Perfusion with Normothermia?

OBJECTIVE: Preceding selective cerebral perfusion (P-SCP) is a method whereby SCP and systemic perfusion start simultaneously, and the arch vessels are clamped. Cerebral circulation is isolated from systemic circulation to avoid cerebral embolization due to detachment of atherosclerotic material from the aorta, caused by the "sandblasting" effect of high-velocity jets of blood exiting the aortic cannula. However, neither the safety of SCP at normothermia nor the influence of extended SCP time has been sufficiently clarified. To clarify the safety of P-SCP, the comparison study of P-SCP and conventional SCP (C-SCP) was performed retrospectively. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients (C-SCP group: 29 patients; P-SCP: 28 patients) underwent surgery between 1992 and 2002. RESULTS: Nine (15.8%) in-hospital death occurred; 4 in the C-SCP group (13.8%) and 5 in the P-SCP group (17.9%) (NS). The SCP time was 136.6 +/- 68.5 minutes in the C-SCP group and 195.8 +/- 30.7 minutes in the P-SCP group (p < 0.05). One patient in each group exhibited postoperative neurological dysfunction. CONCLUSION: It may be little dangerous to initiate the SCP with normothermia. P-SCP may be useful in cases in which there is pedunculated atherosclerotic material, or mural thrombus in the ascending and arch aorta.     

Reoperative Surgery for Chronic Pancreatitis: Is It Safe?

Introduction Eleven percent to fifty-six percent of patients do not achieve adequate pain relief with initial operative treatment for chronic pancreatitis, and reoperations for recurrent or persistent pain are common. This study evaluates the influence of prior pancreatic procedures on operative morbidity for chronic pancreatitis. Methods The records of 336 consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD, n = 78), lateral pancreaticojejunostomy (LPJ, n = 152), distal pancreatectomy (DP, n = 83), transduodenal sphincteroplasty (SP, n = 20), and total pancreatectomy (TP, n = 3) for chronic pancreatitis were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Results Seventy-four patients underwent reoperation after failed prior pancreatic surgery. Patients with de novo pancreatic operations had a similar complication rate as those with reoperation (PD: 48% versus 65%, P > 0.05; LPJ: 23% versus 23%, P > 0.05; DP: 26% versus 28%, P > 0.05; SP: 21% versus 100%, P > 0.05). Major complications such as pancreatic leak or abdominal abscess were similar in the two groups. Minor complications such as delayed gastric emptying or wound infections were more common in the reoperation group. There was no difference in postoperative hospital length of stay. Conclusions Patients who undergo reoperative surgery for chronic pancreatitis have an increased risk for minor perioperative complications. The overall complication rate and the incidence of major complications are similar compared to de novo procedure. Reoperative surgery therefore appears feasible and safe in experienced hands.     

Overnight Admission After Total Ankle Replacement: Is It Safe?

To evaluate readmission, complication, and nonscheduled contact rates to the out-patient clinic within the first 3 months following total ankle replacement in patients planned for overnight admission. Data were collected retrospectively on all patients treated during the period the December 11, 2015 to the December 1, 2019 with 3 months of follow-up for all patients. In the study 116 patients were included. No difference in patient characteristics, readmission rates, complication rates or number of nonscheduled contacts to the outpatient clinic was found between patients discharged after 1 day when compared to those admitted >1 day. Around 58.6% was discharged as planned. The overall readmission and complication rates were 2.6% and 6.0% respectively, 20.7% had a nonscheduled contact to the out-patient clinic. No differences in prevalence of the different complications, reasons for readmission or reasons for contact to the out-patient clinic were found between overnight admission and inpatient admission. Total ankle placement with overnight admission is safe, but patient selection with a thorough plan for analgesics after discharge and optimal cast appliance is necessary.     

Outpatient Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: Is It Safe?

BackgroundIt is currently unknown if simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (si-BTKA) can also be safely performed in the outpatient setting. The primary aim of this study was to compare 30-day postoperative complication rates between outpatient and inpatient si-BTKA.MethodsAdults undergoing simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (si-BTKA) from 2015-2019 were queried using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Our primary analysis compared the rates of complications between outpatient si-BTKA and inpatient si-BTKA using bivariate comparisons and multivariable logistic regression of outpatient and inpatient cases controlling for differences in baseline demographics and comorbidities.ResultsFrom 2015 to 2019, the utilization of outpatient si-BTKA increased from 0.6% to 10.5%. Outpatient si-BTKA were found to have significantly lower odds of any complication (OR = 0.49), minor complication (OR = 0.50), and postoperative transfusion (OR = 0.66) compared to inpatient cases. Outpatient si-BTKA also had a significantly shorter operative time.ConclusionCompared to inpatient si-BTKA, patients who undergo outpatient si-BTKA do not demonstrate increased rates of any complication, severe complications, and minor complications within 30-days postoperatively. Further insight is needed on the effect of outpatient si-BTKA on long-term outcomes.     

Dual Mobility for Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Revision—Is It Safe?

BackgroundRevision of monoblock metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with high complication rates. Limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component extraction may mitigate these complications. However, the concern for polyethylene wear and osteolysis remains unsettled. This study investigates the results of DM conversion of monoblock MoM THA compared to formal acetabular revision.MethodsOne hundred forty-three revisions of monoblock MoM THA were reviewed. Twenty-nine were revisions to a DM construct, and 114 were complete revisions of the acetabular component. Mean patient age was 61, 54% were women. Components used, acetabular cup position, radiographic outcomes, serum metal ion levels, and HOOS Jr clinical outcome scores were investigated.ResultsAt 3.9 years of follow-up (range 2-5), there were 2 revisions (6.9%) in the DM cohort, 1 for instability and another for periprosthetic fracture. Among the formal acetabular revision group there was a 20% major complication rate (23/114) and 16% underwent revision surgery (18/114) for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (6%), deep infection (6%), dislocation (4%), acetabular fracture (3%), or delayed wound healing (6%). In the DM cohort, there were no radiographic signs of aseptic loosening, component migration, or polyethylene wear. One DM patient had a small posterior metadiaphyseal femur lesion that will require close monitoring. There were no other radiographic signs of osteolysis. There were no clinically significant elevations of serum metal ion levels. HOOS Jr scores were favorable.ConclusionLimited revision with conversion to DM is a viable treatment option for failed monoblock MoM THA with lower complication rates than formal revision. Limited revision to DM appears to be a safe option for revision of monoblock MoM THA with a cup in good position and an internal geometry free of sharp edges or articular surface damage. Longer follow-up is needed to demonstrate any potential wear implications of these articulations.     

Long-Term Consequences of Complex Living Renal Donation: Is It Safe?

Introduction

As there is a paucity of literature regarding the long-term outcomes of complex living donors, we conducted this study to assess the effect of kidney donation on the complex living kidney donor.

Operative Fixation of Hip Fractures in Nonagenarians: Is It Safe?

BackgroundWith the shift in hip fracture epidemiology toward older individuals as well as the shift in demographics toward nonagenarians, it is important to understand the outcomes of treatment for these patients.MethodsGeriatric patients (≥65 years old) who underwent surgery for hip fracture were identified in the 2005-2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database and stratified into 2 age groups: <90 and ≥90 years old (nonagenarians). Preoperative and procedural characteristics were compared. Multivariate regressions were used to compare risk for complications and 30-day readmissions. Risk factors for serious adverse events (SAEs) and 30-day mortality in nonagenarians were characterized.ResultsThis study included 51,327 <90 year olds and 15,798 nonagenarians. Overall rate of SAEs in nonagenarians was 19.89% while in <90 year olds was 14.80%. Multivariate analysis revealed higher risk for blood transfusion (relative risk [RR] = 1.21), death (RR = 1.74), pneumonia (RR = 1.24), and cardiac complications (RR = 1.33) in nonagenarians (all P < .001). Risk factors for SAEs in nonagenarians include American Society of Anesthesiologists ≥3, dependent functional status, admitted from nursing home/chronic/intermediate care, preoperative hypoalbuminemia, and male gender (all P < .05), but not time to surgery (P > .05). In fact, increased time to surgery in nonagenarians was associated with lower risk of 30-day mortality (RR = 0.90, P = .048).ConclusionOverall complication risk after hip fracture fixation in nonagenarians remains relatively low but higher than their younger counterparts. Interestingly, since time to surgery was not associated with adverse outcomes in nonagenarians, the commonly accepted 48-hour operative window may not be critical to this population. Additional time for preoperative medical optimization in this vulnerable population appears prudent.     

Is It Possible and Safe to Perform Acetabular-preserving Resections for Malignant Neoplasms of the Periacetabular Region?

Background

Primary malignant tumors located near the acetabulum are usually managed by resection of the tumor with wide margins that include the acetabulum. These resections are deemed P2 resections by the Enneking and Dunham classification. There are various methods to perform the subsequent hip reconstruction. Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to the best management. In general, patients undergoing resection at this level will have substantial levels of pain and disability as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system. We believe there is a subset of patients whose tumors in this location can be resected while preserving all or most of the weightbearing acetabulum using navigation and careful surgical planning.

Questions/purposes

(1) What complications were associated with this resection; (2) what oncological outcomes (histological margins and local recurrence) were achieved; and (3) what is the function achieved by these patients?

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients with periacetabular primary malignancy. From 2008 to 2014, we treated 12 patients who had periacetabular primary malignant tumors and in five, we performed resection with the weightbearing portion spared. During this period, our general indications to perform a resection that spared the acetabulum were the tumor with its resection margin not involving the weightbearing portion of the acetabulum. However, we did not perform this procedure in patients who had more cranial lesion involving the weightbearing portion or whose hip stability might be in question after the tumor excision. Three patients were women and the other two were men. Four were chondrosarcomas, whereas the other one was synovial sarcoma. Ages ranged from 46 to 60 years (average, 53 years). Minimum followup was 14 months (median, 37 months; range, 14–88 months); no patients were lost to followup before a 1-year minimum was achieved, and all patients have been seen within the last 9 months.

Results

There were no intraoperative or early postoperative complications. None of the five patients had a positive margin by histological assessment. No local recurrences were detected. The median functional score by MSTS was 28 out of 30 (range, 27–30).

Conclusions

The roof of the acetabulum is the weightbearing portion of the acetabulum. It also maintains the stability of the hip. With precise preoperative planning of the resection and accurate execution of the procedure, the hip-sparing approach through partial acetabular resection can be performed in selected patients with malignant periacetabular neoplasms. Navigation makes it possible to minimize the amount of bone resection. In this preliminary report of a small number of patients, we had adequate short-term local tumor control. We believe the function is good, but we do not have a comparison group of patients to document improved function.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.

     

Is SLN Biopsy Alone Safe in SLN Positive Breast Cancer Patients?

The Z0011 trial demonstrated no difference in overall survival (OS) and locoregional recurrence in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) randomized to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or no further surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate locoregional recurrence in a nonrandomized group of SLN positive patients, in whom cALND was not performed, that were retrospectively categorized by the Z0011 eligibility criteria. From two hospital breast cancer databases consisting of 656 consecutive SLN positive breast cancer patients, 88 patients, who did not undergo cALND, were identified. This population was categorized by the Z0011 inclusion criteria (e.g., eligible versus ineligible) and the groups were compared. Thirty‐four patients (38.6%) were retrospectively eligible for omitting cALND according to the Z0011 criteria and 54 (61.4%) were not. The median number of SLNs removed in both groups was 1 (range 1–5). The number of positive SLNs did not differ between the groups. Tumor size was slightly larger in the ineligible group (21 mm versus 19 mm) and 76% of patients in the ineligible group underwent a mastectomy. At a median follow‐up of 26 months (range 1–84 months), one axillary recurrence was observed in the ineligible group versus 0 in the eligible group. Axillary recurrence was low, even in patients who did not meet the Z0011 inclusion criteria. Future trials that randomize Z0011 ineligible patients are needed to investigate long‐term results.