The Learning Curve for Flank Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Calculi: A Single Surgeon's Experience

PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is conventionally conducted in the prone position. However, the prone position increases anesthesia-related morbidity and position changes lengthen the operation time. We report perioperative outcomes and the learning curve for flank PCNL on the basis of a single surgeon's experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study investigated 53 cases of flank PCNL performed for renal stones at our institution from April 2008 to September 2010. We compared mean operative time, stone-free rate, drop in hemoglobin level, length of hospital stay, complications, and need for additional procedures after the surgery. The 53 cases were divided into three groups by case number to compare therapeutic effect, stability, and the learning curve for flank position PCNL. RESULTS: The mean operation time for the 53 patients was 97.3+/-43.1 minutes. The mean operation time gradually decreased as the surgeon accumulated experience. From the 36th case, the mean operation time showed a statistically significant decrease to 72.2+/-24.1 minutes (p=0.003). The overall stone-free rate was 64.2% for all procedures (range, 61.1-76.5%). There were no significant differences in the drop in hemoglobin level, stone-free rate, re-treatment, hospital stay, or complication rate. There was no injury to the bowel or renal vessels, and no other major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Flank PCNL can be used to remove renal stones effectively while overcoming the disadvantages of the existing prone position PCNL. After 36 cases, the learning curve showed acquisition of surgical competence. The clinical experience reported here suggests that flank PCNL is a safe and feasible technique.ope

Thoracic cord compression caused by disk herniation in Scheuermann’s disease: A case report and review of the literature

We present the case of a 14-year-old male with Scheuermann’s disease and significant neurological deficit due to thoracic disk herniation at the apex of kyphosis. He was treated with an anterior decompression, anterior and posterior fusion in the same setting using plate, cage and a segmental instrumentation system. The patient had an excellent outcome with complete neurological recovery

Feasibility of percutaneous posterolateral spinal fusion with recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2): a comparison with standard methods using an animal model study

Background Context: The clinical application of recombinant bone morphogenetic protein in spinal surgery has been shown to be safe and effective. However, its use in minimally invasive spine surgery has been limited to anterior interbody fusion procedures. To date, no study has evaluated the feasibility of percutaneous posterolateral fusion in the spine utilizing recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of percutaneous posterolateral fusion in the spine utilizing rhBMP-2. Study Design: Animal study. Methods: This is an animal research model involving 32 New Zealand white rabbits stratified into 4 study groups: control, autogenous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), demineralized bone matrix (DBM), and rhBMP-2 groups, with 8 study subjects per group. The rhBMP-2 group was subdivided into the open technique (right side) and the percutaneous technique groups (left side). Fusion was graded at 6 weeks and 3 months after plain radiography, computed tomography, and clinical assessment with the following grading system: grade A, no bone formation; grade B, non-bridging bone formation; grade C, fusion; and grade D, fusion with ectopic bone formation. Results: No fusion was noted in the placebo and the DBM groups. However, in the DBM group, bone formation occurred in 37.5% of the subjects. The rhBMP-2 group had a higher fusion rate compared with the ICBG group at 6 weeks and 3 months. The fusion rate for the ICBG, the rhBMP-2 (open), and the rhBMP-2 (percutaneous) groups were 37.5%, 87.5%, and 50.0% at 6 weeks and 50.0%, 100.0%, and 62.5% at 3 months, respectively. Ectopic bone formation occurred in 12.5% of the cases in the rhBMP-2 (percutaneous) group and in 25.0% of the cases in the rhBMP-2 (open) group. Conclusions: Usage of rhBMP-2 is feasible for percutaneous posterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine in this animal model. However, a more precise delivery system might improve the fusion rate when the percutaneous technique is used. A significant rate of ectopic bone formation occurred when rhBMP-2 was used

Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb: An intervention development and feasibility study (The OPAL Study)

Background Hip and knee replacements are regularly performed for patients who work. There is little evidence about these patients’ needs and the factors influencing their return to work. There is a paucity of guidance to help patients return to work after surgery and a need for structured occupational advice to enable them to return to work safely and effectively. Objective(s) To develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work which is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip and knee replacements. To test the acceptability, practicality and feasibility of this intervention within current care frameworks Design An intervention mapping (IM) approach was used to develop the intervention. The research methods employed were: rapid evidence synthesis; qualitative interviews with patients and stakeholders; prospective cohort study; survey of clinical practice; modified Delphi consensus process. The developed intervention was implemented and assessed during the final feasibility stage of the IM process. Setting Orthopaedic departments within NHS secondary care. Participants Patients in work, and intending to return to work following primary elective hip and knee replacement surgery; healthcare professionals and employers. Interventions Occupational advice intervention. Main outcome measures Development of an occupational advice intervention. Fidelity of the developed intervention when delivered in a clinical setting. Patient and clinician perspectives of the intervention. Preliminary assessments of intervention effectiveness and cost. Results A cohort study (154 patients), 110 stakeholder interviews, survey of practice (152 respondents) and evidence synthesis provided the necessary information to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, personalized return to work plan and co-ordination from the healthcare team to support the delivery of 13 patient and 20 staff performance objectives (POs). To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks, employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work coordinator) and training resources were created. Feasibility was assessed in 21 of the 26 patients recruited from 3 NHS trusts. Adherence with the defined performance objectives was 75% for patient POs and 74% for staff POs. The intervention was generally well received although the short timeframe available for implementation and concurrent research evaluation led to some confusion amongst patients and those delivering the intervention regarding its purpose and the roles and responsibilities of key staff. Limitations Implementation and uptake of the intervention was not standardized and was limited by the study timeframe. Evaluation of the intervention involved a small number of patients which limited the ability to assess it. Conclusions The developed occupational advice intervention supports best practice. Evaluation demonstrated good rates of adherence against defined performance objectives. However, a number of operational and implementation issues require further attention Future work The intervention warrants a randomised controlled trial to assess its clinical and cost effectiveness to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery. This research should include the development of a robust implementation strategy to ensure adoption is sustained. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 15/28/02) Trial Registrations International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Trial ID: ISRCTN27426982 International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) Registration: CRD4201604523