Survival Outcomes and Factors Associated with Revision Surgery for Metastatic Disease of the Spine

Study Design. Retrospective review of a prospective database. Objective. Certain subset of patients undergoing surgical treatment for spinal metastasis will require a revision surgery in their disease course; however, factors predictive of revision surgery and survival outcomes are largely unknown. The goal of this study is to report on survival outcomes as well as factors predictive of revision surgery in this unique patient population. Methods. A total of 55 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included from January 2010 to December 2015. Twelve (22%) of these patients underwent a revision surgery. Patient and tumor characteristics were summarized and survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results. Both the revision and the nonrevision groups were similarly matched with respect to spine disease burden, neurological status at time of initial presentation, primary malignancy types, and the use of adjuvant treatment modalities. Tumor progression (66.7%) was the most common reason for necessitating a revision followed by nonunion (16.7%), wound dehiscence (8.3%), and construct failure (8.3%). Following multivariate model selection procedures, smokers were found to have 3.5 times increased odds of undergoing revision compared to nonsmokers (p = 0.05). Analysis of survival curves showed that the median survival in the revision group was 3.0 years (95% CI: 1.5, 4.1), while the median survival in the nonrevision group was 1.5 years (95% CI: 1.1, 2.3; log-rank test, p = 0.105). Conclusion. Despite aggressive treatment, tumor progression is the most common reason for revision surgery. Smoking is an independent risk factor for revision. Revision surgery should be considered in patients when indicated as it does not appear to detrimentally affect survival

Influence of Resident Education in Correctly Diagnosing Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Background. One-third of all extremity soft tissue sarcomas are misdiagnosed and inappropriately excised without proper preoperative diagnosis and planning. This study aimed at examining the clinical judgment of residents in both general and orthopaedic surgery and at determining whether resident education plays a role in appropriately managing unknown soft tissue masses. Methods. A case-based survey was used to assess clinical decisions, practice patterns, and demographics. Aggregate response for all of the clinical cases by each respondent was correlated with the selections made for practice patterns and demographic data. Results. A total of 381 responses were returned. A higher percentage of respondents from the orthopaedic group (84.2%) noted having a dedicated STS rotation as compared to the general surgery group (35.8%) P<0.001. Depth, size, and location of the mass, rate of growth, and imaging characteristics were considered to be important factors. Each additional year of training resulted in 10% increased odds of selecting the correct clinical decision for both groups. Conclusion. Our study showed that current residents in both orthopaedic surgery and general surgery are able to appropriately identify patients with suspicious masses. Continuing education in sarcoma care should be implemented beyond the years of residency training

Sarcopenia Does Not Affect Survival or Outcomes in Soft-Tissue Sarcoma

Background and Objective. Sarcopenia is associated with decreased survival and increased complications in carcinoma patients. We hypothesized that sarcopenic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) patients would have decreased survival, increased incidence of wound complications, and increased length of postresection hospital stay (LOS). Methods. A retrospective, single-center review of 137 patients treated surgically for STS was conducted. Sarcopenia was assessed by measuring the cross-sectional area of bilateral psoas muscles (total psoas muscle area, TPA) at the level of the third lumbar vertebrae on a pretreatment axial computed tomography scan. TPA was then adjusted for height (cm2/m2). The association between height-adjusted TPA and survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazard model. A logistical model was used to assess the association between height-adjusted TPA and wound complications. A linear model was used to assess the association between height-adjusted TPA and LOS. Results. Height-adjusted TPA was not an independent predictor of overall survival (p=0.746). Patient age (p=0.02) and tumor size (p=0.009) and grade (p=0.001) were independent predictors of overall survival. Height-adjusted TPA was not a predictor of increased hospital LOS (p=0.66), greater incidence of postoperative infection (p=0.56), or other wound complications (p=0.14). Conclusions. Sarcopenia does not appear to impact overall survival, LOS, or wound complications in patients with STS

The Role of Constraint in Revision Total Knee Replacement for Instability: Full Component Revision Vs Isolated Polyethylene Exchange in Selected Patients

Background: Instability is a common indication for revision after total knee arthroplasty. Replacement of multiple components is the current standard, but isolated polyethylene liner exchange (IPE) may present a less-morbid alternative. This study aims to determine (1) whether IPE results in similar rerevision frequency to component revision in select patients with symptomatic instability and (2) the effect of increasing constraint on the outcome. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 117 patients revised for symptomatic total knee arthroplasty instability from January 2016 to December 2017. The component revision (60 patients) or IPE (57 patients) cohorts were further stratified based on whether constraint was increased or not. The primary objective was to compare rerevision rates 2 years after component revision vs IPE. The secondary objectives consisted of evaluating reasons for rerevision, preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures, and range of motion. Results: The rerevision rate was 18%, with no statistical difference between component and IPE cohorts. Cases where level of constraint increased due to revision, a significantly lower rate of rerevision was detected (9 of 77) (12%) than in cases where constraint did not increase (12 of 39) (31%) (P=0.012). This association was also noted in the component revision cohort but not in the IPE cohort (P=0.011). Conclusions: Rerevision occurred at similar frequencies 2 years after IPE or component revision for total knee arthroplasty instability. For component revision, increased constraint was associated with significantly fewer rerevisions