A New Harvest Site for Bone Graft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Surgery

During revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery, femoral interference screws frequently require removal. This may lead to significant tunnel widening and possible graft fixation failure as a result. Solutions include drilling the revision tunnel in a different location, using stacked interference screws, or using bone graft to fill the defect. Autogenous iliac crest graft and allograft are both used, but there are significant comorbidities associated with each. We developed a new technique for harvesting autogenous bone graft that avoids many of the complications associated with other graft sources. By use of the existing surgical incision from the initial harvest of the bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft, bone from the medial tibial metaphyseal safe zone is harvested via an OATS tube harvester (Arthrex, Naples, FL). A bone plug 1 mm larger in size than the femoral defect is harvested and arthroscopically inserted via a press-fit technique. At 3 months after bone grafting, patients undergo revision ACL reconstruction. The proximal tibial metaphysis is a safe bone graft harvest site in revision ACL surgery and offers an effective method for filling large bony defects, allowing anatomic reconstruction of the ACL after bone healing has occurred. Furthermore, it eliminates the problems associated with allograft or use of a remote graft donor site.     

Challenges in accessing multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities in Canada

PURPOSE: The objective of this survey was to examine the services offered by multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MPTFs) across Canada and to compare access to care at these MPTFs. METHODS: A MPTF was defined as a clinic that advertised specialized multidisciplinary services for the diagnosis and management of patients with chronic pain, having a minimum of three different health care disciplines (including at least one medical speciality) available and integrated within the facility. The search method included approaching all hospital and rehabilitation centre administrators in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board or similar body in each province. Designated investigators were responsible for confirming and supplementing MPTFs from the preliminary list for each province. Administrative leads at each eligible MPTF were asked to complete a detailed questionnaire regarding their MPTF infrastructure, clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities. RESULTS: Completed survey forms were received from 102 MPTFs (response rate 85%) with 80% concentrated in major cities, and none in Prince Edward Island and the Territories. The MPTFs offer a wide variety of treatments including non-pharmacological modalities such as interventional, physical and psychological therapy. The median wait time for a first appointment in public MPTFs is six months, which is approximately 12 times longer than non-public MPTFs. Eighteen pain fellowship programs exist in Canadian MPTFs and 64% engage in some form of research activities CONCLUSION: Canadian MPTFs are unable to meet clinical demands of patients suffering from chronic pain, both in terms of regional accessibility and reasonable wait time for patients' first appointment.     

Changes to osteoporosis prevalence according to method of risk assessment.

The impact of clinical risk factor-based absolute risk methods on the prevalence of high risk for osteoporotic fracture is unknown. We applied absolute risk methods to 6646 subjects and found that the prevalence of elderly women deemed to be at high risk increased substantially, whereas the overall prevalence was highly dependent on the threshold used to designate high risk. INTRODUCTION: Many groups have advocated using absolute risk methods that incorporate clinical risk factors to target patients for osteoporosis therapy. We examined how the application of such absolute risk classification systems influences the prevalence of those considered to be at high risk for osteoporotic fracture and compared these systems to one based solely on BMD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 6646 subjects from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos), a prospective, randomly selected, population-based cohort, we assessed three different systems for determining prevalence of high risk for osteoporotic fracture: a BMD-based system; a simplified risk factor system incorporating age, sex, BMD, and two clinical risk factors; and a comprehensive system, incorporating age, sex, BMD, and seven clinical risk factors. The 10-year absolute risks of incident fragility fracture were compared across systems using three different high-risk thresholds. RESULTS: The prevalence of a T score < or = -2.5 was 18.8% (95% CI: 17.7-19.9%) in women and 3.9% (95% CI: 3.0-4.7%) in men. Using a 15% 10-year risk of fracture threshold, the prevalence of women at high risk increased to 46.9% (95% CI: 45.4-48.4) and 42.5% (95% CI: 41.1-43.9) when the comprehensive and simplified risk factor classification systems were used, respectively. Using a 25% 10-year absolute risk threshold, the prevalence of high risk was similar to that of the BMD-based system, whereas the 20% threshold gave intermediate rates. All thresholds analyzed resulted in an increased prevalence of older women at high risk for fracture, whereas only the 15% 10-year risk of fracture threshold resulted in an increase in the prevalence of men at high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The application of risk factor-based systems results in an increased prevalence of older women at high risk. The prevalence of individuals at high risk may increase with changes to the methods used to determine those who are eligible for therapy. These data have important implications for the pattern of care and costs of treating osteoporotic fractures.