Noise in Electron Devices

Contains reports on one research project.Lincoln Laboratory, Purchase Order DDL-B158Department of the ArmyDepartment of the NavyDepartment of the Air Force under Contract AF 19(122)-45

Foreword

As the Director of Undergraduate Medical Education for the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, I am thrilled to have this opportunity to introduce the inaugural issue of the Bone Bulletin. Through the activities of the DePalma Orthopaedic Society, medical students at SKMC have had an excellent venue to learn about orthopaedic surgery, and our surgeons here at Rothman Orthopaedics have enthusiastically mentored younger students interested in the field of orthopedic surgery. The DePalma leadership has worked hard on many initiatives in recent years: providing forums for orthopaedic faculty to speak about their work, assembling lists of orthopaedic programs where former students have trained, developing interview guides and guidance for rising senior students, and trying to encourage women and underrepresented minorities to become part of our orthopaedic family, just to name a few. Each year I have the pleasure of getting to know all the medical students at SKMC who are interested in a career in orthopedic surgery. I’ve had the opportunity to follow some of those students through residency training and into academic positions in orthopedic surgery. Some have risen to attending leadership positions in academic medical centers and national orthopaedic societies. They are bright, well-educated physicians who are motivated to accomplish great things in the world of orthopaedic surgery. This new journal is a testament to the energy, enthusiasm, and skills of our outstanding medical students at SKMC. I hope you enjoy reading their work as much as I enjoy being an advisor and mentor to them. Alan S. Hilibrand, MD, MBAThe Joseph and Marie Field Professor of Spinal Surgery Vice Chairman of Academic Affairs and Faculty Development Director of Undergraduate Medical Education Sidney Kimmel Medical College/ Rothman Orthopaedic

Semiconductor Noise

Contains research objectives and reports on one research project

Why are spine surgery patients lost to follow-up?

Long-term outcome studies are frequently hindered by a decreasing frequency of patient follow-up with the treating surgeon over time. Whether this attrition represents a “loss of faith” in their index surgeon or the realities of a geographically mobile society has never been assessed in a population of patients undergoing spinal surgery. The purpose of this article is to determine the frequency with which patients who have undergone prior surgery and develop new problems attempt to follow-up with their index spine surgeon. The study design was a population survey. All patients seen at two university-based spine centers over a 3-month period were surveyed regarding prior spine surgery. The questionnaire asked details of the previous operation, whether the patient had sought follow-up with their index surgeon, why the patient did not continue treatment with that surgeon, and whether the patient was satisfied with their prior treatment. Sixty-nine patients completed the survey. Prior operations were lumbar (53 patients) and cervical (16). When asked the reason for not seeing their prior surgeon, 10 patients (15%) stated that they (the patient) had moved and 16 (23%) responded that their surgeon no longer practiced in the area. Thirteen (19%) were unhappy with their previous care, 22 (32%) were seeking a second opinion, and 7 (10%) were told they needed more complex surgery. Thirty-seven (54%) discussed their symptoms with their original surgeon before seeking another surgeon. Although 32 patients (46%) had not discussed their new complaints with their index surgeon, only 3 patients (4%) chose not to return to their prior surgeon despite having the opportunity to do so. Forty-nine patients (71%) were satisfied with their prior surgical care, and 42 patients (61%) would undergo the index operation again. Most of the patients seen at the authors' practices after undergoing prior spine surgery elsewhere failed to follow up with their prior spine surgeon for geographical reasons. It appears that the majority of patients who develop new spinal complaints will seek out their treating surgeon when possible. This suggests that patient attrition over long-term follow-up may reflect a geographically mobile population rather than patient dissatisfaction with prior treatment

Clinical Outcomes After Four-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) demonstrates reliable improvement in neurologic symptoms associated with anterior compression of the cervical spine. There is a paucity of data on outcomes following 4-level ACDFs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes for patients undergoing 4-level ACDF. Methods: All 4-level ACDFs with at least 1-year clinical follow-up were identified. Clinical outcomes, including fusion rates, neurologic outcomes, and reoperation rates were determined. Results: Retrospective review of our institutional database revealed 25 patients who underwent 4-level ACDF with at least 1-year clinical follow-up. Average age was 57.5 years (range 38.2-75.0 years); 14 (56%) were male, and average body mass index was 30.2 kg/m Conclusions: Review of our institution\u27s experience demonstrated a low rate of revision cervical surgery for any reason of 8% at mean 19 months follow-up, and neurological examinations consistently improved, despite a high rate of radiographic nonunion (31%)

Semiconductor Noise

Contains reports on four research projects

Is It Real False Negative Finding in Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring during Corrective Surgery of Ankylosing Spondylitis? A Case Report

We performed L1 posterior vertebral columnar resection and posterior correction for Andersson's lesion and thoracolumbar kyphosis in an ankylosing spondylitis patient during motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring. We checked MEP intra-operatively, whenever a dangerous procedure for neural elements was performed, and no abnormal findings were seen during surgery. After the operation, we examined neurologic function in the recovery room; the patient showed a progressive neurologic deficit and no response to MEP. After emergency neural exploration and decompression surgery, the neurologic deficit was recovered. We questioned whether to acknowledge the results of this case as a false negative. We think the possible reason for this result may be delayed development of paralysis. So, we recommend that MEP monitoring should be performed not only after important operative steps but also after all steps, including skin suturing, for final confirmation

Noise in Electron Devices

Contains reports on three research projects.Lincoln Laboratory (Purchase Order DDL-B187)Department of the ArmyDepartment of the NavyDepartment of the Air Force under Contract AF19(122)-45