INTRODUCTIONOpen fractures of the tibia pose a challenge to orthopaedic and plastic surgeons. A retrospective observational review was conducted to evaluate the epidemiological factors and fracture outcomes in the Singapore context.

METHODSA nine-year period of open tibial shaft fractures presenting to our institution was reviewed. Demographic and management data were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed on the outcomes of length of hospital stay, number of operations, time to union and infection rates.

RESULTS323 fractures met our inclusion criteria (Gustilo [G] 1=53, G2=100, G3=170). Mean age of patients was 36.5 years, 91.3% were male and 40.9% were non-Singaporeans. 69.3% of fractures occurred from road traffic accidents and 21.7% from industrial accidents. Mean length of hospital stay was 28.7 days and number of operations was 4.29. Time to union was 10.7 months and overall infection rate was 20.7%. Infection rates were significantly higher in G3b/G3c compared to G3a (45.7% vs. 21.1%) patients. There was no significant reduction in infection rates when open tibial fractures were operated on within six hours of admission. Multiple injured patients required a longer time to union and hospital stay. There was an exponential cost increase with greater severity of fracture.

CONCLUSIONHigh Gustilo and AO classification injuries positively correlate with high non-union and infection rates, requiring multiple operations and long hospital stay. There is no benefit in performing surgery on open tibial fractures within six hours of presentation. A significant proportion of these patients would be polytraumatised, indirectly affecting fracture union.

Accidents, Occupational ; Accidents, Traffic ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Diaphyses ; surgery ; Female ; Fracture Healing ; Fractures, Open ; epidemiology ; surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Models, Statistical ; Orthopedics ; methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Singapore ; Tibial Fractures ; epidemiology ; surgery ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; Wound Infection ; prevention & control

INTRODUCTIONThe objective of this study was to examine the clinical outcome of single-level lumbar artificial disc replacement (ADR) compared to that of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD) in an Asian population.

METHODSThis was a retrospective review of 74 patients who had surgery performed for discogenic lower backs that involved only the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels. All the patients had lumbar DDD without radiculopathy or spondylolithesis, and concordant pain with discogram at the pathological level. The patients were divided into two groups--those who underwent ADR and those who underwent TLIF.

RESULTSA trend suggesting that the ADR group had better perioperative outcomes (less blood loss, shorter operating time, shorter hospital stay and shorter time to ambulation) than the TLIF group was observed. However, a trend indicating that surgical-approach-related complications occurred more frequently in the ADR group than the TLIF group was also observed. The rate of revision surgery was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONOur findings suggest that for the treatment of discogenic lower back pain, lumbar ADR has better perioperative outcomes and a similar revision rate when compared with TLIF. However, the use of ADR was associated with a higher incidence of surgical-approach-related complications. More studies with bigger cohort sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of ADR in lumbar DDD.

Adult ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration ; surgery ; Lumbar Vertebrae ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Singapore ; epidemiology ; Spinal Fusion ; methods ; Total Disc Replacement ; methods ; Treatment Outcome

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused pronounced strain on global healthcare systems, forcing the streamlining of clinical activities and conservation of health resources. There is a pressing need for institutions to present discipline-specific strategies for the management of COVID-19 patients. We present the comprehensive considerations at the National University Hospital, Singapore from the surgeon’s and anesthetist’s perspectives in the performance of spinal surgery in COVID-19 patients. These are based on national guidelines and overarching principles of protection for the healthcare workers (HCWs) and efficiency in surgical planning. The workflow begins with the emergency department screening that has been adapted to the local epidemiology of COVID-19 in order to identify suspected/confirmed cases. If patient history cannot be obtained, demographic, clinical, and imaging data are used. Designated orthopedic “contaminated teams” are available 24/7 with an activation time of <30 minutes for review. In cases where sub-specialty spine surgeons were required, these professionals were inducted into the “contaminated team” and quarantined until cleared to return to work. Indications for emergency spine surgery were determined pre-emptively. Preoperative surgical considerations included the minimization of manpower, limited dissection, reduced operative time, and judicious use of equipment, leading to reduced aerosolization. Anesthesia considerations include preoperative screening for COVID-19–related concerns that influence surgery, operating room process planning and induction, intraoperative, reversal, recovery, and resuscitation considerations. Focused multi-disciplinary preoperative briefing facilitates familiarization. Surgical, anesthetic, and postoperative workflows were designed to reduce the risk of transmission and protect HCWs while effectively performing spinal surgery. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated paradigm shifts in healthcare planning, hospital workflows, and operative protocols. The viral burden does not discriminate between surgeons and physicians, and it is crucial that we, as medical professionals, adapt practices to be malleable and fluid to address the ever-changing developments.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 288 patients (246 for final analysis) who underwent MSTS between 2005–2015. Data collected were demographics and peri/postoperative clinical and radiological features. Early and late radiological SF were defined as presentation before and after 3 months from index surgery, respectively. Univariate and multivariate models of competing risk regression analysis were designed to determine the risk factors for SF with death as a competing event. Results: We observed 14 SFs (5.7%) in 246 patients; 10 (4.1%) underwent revision surgery. Median survival was 13.4 months. The mean age was 58.8 years (range, 21–87 years); 48.4% were women. The median time to failure was 5 months (range, 1–60 months). Patients with SF were categorized into three groups: (1) SF when the primary implant was revised (n=5, 35.7%); (2) peri-construct progression of disease requiring extension (n=5, 35.7%); and (3) SFs that did not warrant revision (n=4, 28.5%). Four patients (28.5%) presented with early failure. SF commonly occurred at the implant-bone interface (9/14) and all patients had a spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) >7. Thirteen patients (92.8%) who developed failure had fixation spanning junctional regions. Multivariate competing risk regression showed that preoperative Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was a significant risk factor for implant failure (adjusted sub-hazard ratio, 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.63–30.07; p<0.0009). Conclusions The incidence of SF (5.7%) was low in patients undergoing MSTS although these patients did not undergo spinal fusion. Preoperative ambulators involved a 7 times higher risk of failure than non-ambulators. Preoperative SINS >7 and fixations spanning junctional regions were associated with SF. Majority of construct failures occurred at the implant-bone interface.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 288 patients (246 for final analysis) who underwent MSTS between 2005–2015. Data collected were demographics and peri/postoperative clinical and radiological features. Early and late radiological SF were defined as presentation before and after 3 months from index surgery, respectively. Univariate and multivariate models of competing risk regression analysis were designed to determine the risk factors for SF with death as a competing event. Results: We observed 14 SFs (5.7%) in 246 patients; 10 (4.1%) underwent revision surgery. Median survival was 13.4 months. The mean age was 58.8 years (range, 21–87 years); 48.4% were women. The median time to failure was 5 months (range, 1–60 months). Patients with SF were categorized into three groups: (1) SF when the primary implant was revised (n=5, 35.7%); (2) peri-construct progression of disease requiring extension (n=5, 35.7%); and (3) SFs that did not warrant revision (n=4, 28.5%). Four patients (28.5%) presented with early failure. SF commonly occurred at the implant-bone interface (9/14) and all patients had a spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) >7. Thirteen patients (92.8%) who developed failure had fixation spanning junctional regions. Multivariate competing risk regression showed that preoperative Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was a significant risk factor for implant failure (adjusted sub-hazard ratio, 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.63–30.07; p<0.0009). Conclusions The incidence of SF (5.7%) was low in patients undergoing MSTS although these patients did not undergo spinal fusion. Preoperative ambulators involved a 7 times higher risk of failure than non-ambulators. Preoperative SINS >7 and fixations spanning junctional regions were associated with SF. Majority of construct failures occurred at the implant-bone interface.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 199 patients with surgically treated thoracolumbar fractures operated between January 2007 and January 2018. The potential risk factors for the development of AEs as well as the development of common complications were evaluated by univariate analysis, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors predictive of the above. Results: The overall rate of AEs was 46.7%; 83 patients (41.7%) had nonsurgical AEs, whereas 24 (12.1%) had surgical adverse events. The most common AEs were urinary tract infections in 43 patients (21.6%), and hospital-acquired pneumonia in 21 patients (10.6%). On multivariate logistic regression, a Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity (TLICS) score of 8–10 (odds ratio [OR], 6.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.33–17.51), the presence of polytrauma (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.17–5.99), and undergoing open surgery (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.09–4.88) were significant risk factors for AEs. The absence of neurological deficit was associated with a lower rate of AEs (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.70). Conclusions This study suggests the presence of polytrauma, preoperative American Spinal Injury Association score, and TLICS score are predictive of AEs in patients with surgically treated thoracolumbar fractures. The results might also suggest a role for minimally invasive surgical methods in reducing AEs in these patients.