3 research outputs found

    The Use of the Lateral Tibial Line to Assess Ankle Alignment: A Preliminary Investigation

    No full text
    Category: Ankle; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Although the medial clear space (MCS) is commonly used to assess talar alignment and ankle stability, its measurement is variable with multiple reported “normal” values. We have observed that the lateral tibial shaft is a reliable landmark to assess talar alignment. The objective of the current investigation was to determine the normal relationship of the lateral tibia to the superolateral talus using a tangent drawn inferiorly from the lateral tibial shaft, which we refer to as the “lateral tibial line” (LTL). Methods: The relationship of the LTL to the superolateral talus was assessed and characterized on ninety-nine standing ankle mortise radiographs in uninjured patients. This relationship was quantified by measuring the distance (in millimeters) between the LTL and the superolateral talus. Additionally, the inter-observer reliability of the LTL measurement, determined by three reviewers, was recorded and compared to medial clear space measurements. Results: The median value for the lateral tibial line was -0.50 mm with an interquartile range of -1.4mm - 0.0mm. The LTL was within 1mm of the lateral talus in 176 of 297 reviewer measurements (59.3%). Moreover, it was either lateral to or was at most 1mm medial to the lateral talus in 90.9% of cases. The LTL measurement also demonstrated good inter-observer reliability (0.764, 95% CI: 0.670-0.834), similar to the measurement of MCS (0.742, 95% CI: 0.539-0.846). Conclusion: The LTL is easily measured with good reliability for assessing the anatomic relationship of the tibia and talus. It uncommonly fell more than 1 mm medial to the superolateral talus. In other words, it was uncommon for the talus to shift lateral to this line, as might be seen with displaced ankle fractures. These findings will hopefully serve as a standard for future studies evaluating the role of the LTL in assessing lateral displacement and stability of isolated fibula fractures

    Primary Care Physicians’ Preferences Regarding Communication from Orthopaedic Providers

    No full text
    Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Musculoskeletal consultations constitute a growing portion of primary care physician (PCP) referrals. Optimization of communication between PCPs and orthopaedists can potentially reduce the time PCPs spend in the electronic medical record (EMR). This, in turn, may help reduce burnout. However, little is known about the preferences of PCPs regarding communication from orthopaedic specialists. The current study therefore investigated the preferences of PCPs across a large health network regarding communication from orthopaedists. Methods: One hundred and seventy-five PCPs across 15 practices within our health network were surveyed. These providers universally used the Epic Systems EMR. PCPs were asked to report their years in practice, panel size, typical number of electronic clinical messages received each day, time spent in the EMR after normal clinical hours, and burnout level. Likert scales and top-box scores were used to assess the PCPs’ perceived importance of communication from orthopedists in specific clinical scenarios. PCPs were further asked to report their preferred method of communication in each scenario and overall interest in communication from orthopaedists. Regression analyses were performed to determine if any PCP characteristics are associated with communication preferences and overall PCP interest in communication from orthopaedists. Results: A total of 107 (61%) PCPs completed the survey. PCPs most commonly rated communication from orthopaedists as highly important when the orthopaedist needed information from the PCP. In this scenario, PCPs preferred to receive an Epic Staff Message. Other scenarios rated as important included: the decision for surgery, hospitalization, and a major clinical change. In these scenarios, a CC’d Chart rather than Staff Message was preferred. Increased EMR use after-hours was associated with diminished odds of having high interest in communication from orthopaedists (odds ratio=0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.48-0.88, P=0.005). Ninety-three PCPs (86.9%) reported spending at least 1 hour a day in Epic after normal clinical hours. Twenty-seven (25.2%) spent more than 3 hours. Forty-six PCPs (42.9%) reported experiencing at least one symptom of burnout. Conclusion: In the current study, there were distinct preferences among PCPs regarding clinical communication from orthopaedic surgeons. In addition, there was evidence of substantial burnout and after-hours work effort by PCPs. Our results may be helpful in optimizing communication between PCPs and orthopaedists, while also reducing time spent in the EMR by PCPs

    The utility of vertebral Hounsfield units as a prognostic indicator of adverse events following treatment of spinal epidural abscess

    No full text
    ABSTRACT: Background: Spinal epidural abscesses (SEAs) are a devastating condition with high levels of associated morbidity and mortality. Hounsfield units (HUs), a marker of radiodensity on CT scans, have previously been correlated with adverse events following spinal interventions. We evaluated whether HUs might also be associated with all-cause complications and/or mortality in this high-risk population. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was carried out within an academic health system in the United States. Adults diagnosed with a SEA between 2006 and 2021 and who also had a CT scan characterizing their SEA within 6 months of diagnosis were considered. HUs were abstracted from the 4 vertebral bodies nearest to, but not including, the infected levels. Our primary outcome was the presence of composite 90-day complications and HUs represented the primary predictor. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted adjusting for demographic and disease-specific confounders. In sensitivity testing, separate logistic regression analyses were conducted (1) in patients aged 65 and older and (2) with mortality as the primary outcome. Results: Our cohort consisted of 399 patients. The overall incidence of 90-day complications was 61.2% (n=244), with a 7.8% (n=31) 90-day mortality rate. Those experiencing complications were more likely to have undergone surgery to treat their SEA (58.6% vs. 46.5%; p=.018) but otherwise the cohorts were similar. HUs were not associated with composite 90-day complications (Odds ratio [OR] 1.00 [95% CI 1.00—1.00]; p=.842). Similar findings were noted in sensitivity testing. Conclusions: While HUs have previously been correlated with adverse events in certain clinical contexts, we found no evidence to suggest that HUs are associated with all-cause complications or mortality in patients with SEAs. Future research hoping to leverage 3-dimensional imaging as a prognostic measure in this patient population should focus on alternative targets. Level of Evidence: Level III; Observational Cohort study
    corecore