Who benefits more in osteoporotic fractures: Pedicle screw instrumentation or kyphoplasty for American Society of Anesthesiologists II/III patients?

Infiltration of local anesthetic in the Interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee "IPACK block" versus adductor canal block "ACB" for pain relief after open wedge high tibial osteotomy: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A high tibial osteotomy is usually associated with severe postoperative pain. Both adductor canal block (ACB) and interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee (IPACK) have been described as effective block techniques for providing analgesia after knee surgeries, with few comparisons in wedge osteotomy cases. We aim to compare the postoperative analgesic profile of the previously mentioned two block techniques in patients undergoing tibial osteotomies.

METHODS

Sixty patients were enrolled in this randomized prospective trial (30 received IPACK and 30 received ACB). Both blocks were installed before the spinal anesthesia after infiltration of 2 mL lidocaine 2%. Twenty mL of bupivacaine 0.25% mixed with dexamethasone as anesthetic adjuvant were used for both blocks. The postoperative analgesic profiles were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain scores were lower in the IPACK group, and that decrease was evident throughout the first 10 hours postoperatively. Additionally, the duration of analgesia was much prolonged with the same block (487.50±82.39 vs. 301.93±92.06 minutes with ACB). There was a significant decline in postoperative analgesic consumption (1.27±0.45 vs. 1.8±0.61 gm, P=0.000), and a significant increase in the ambulation distance (19.10±0.60 vs. 17.73±0.45 m, P=0.000) with a significant decline in the duration of hospitalization (43.27±7.61 vs. 54±8.35 hours) in the IPACK group compared to the ACB group.

CONCLUSIONS

IPACK is a superior block technique compared to ACB in patients undergoing high tibial osteotomy regarding postoperative analgesia, ambulation distance, and patient satisfaction with little rate of adverse events in both groups.

Impact of laparoscopic repair on type III/IV giant paraesophageal hernias: a single-center experience

PURPOSE

Giant paraesophageal hernia (GPEH) is a challenging problem for surgeons because of its high recurrence rate. This study was conducted to compare the outcomes in type IV vs. type III GPEHs after laparoscopic repair. Other outcomes included peri-operative morbidity and long-term quality of life.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 130 GPEH patients in a period between 2010 and 2019 underwent a tailored laparoscopic repair in our tertiary center with a minimum follow-up of 48 months. Operative steps included hernial sac excision, crural repair, relaxing incisions, and mesh cruroplasty with special indications.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 90 patients with type III and 40 patients with type IV GPEH. Type IV GPEH patients were older, more fragile, and scored worse on ASA classification, aside from having a more challenging surgical technique (wider crura, weaker muscles, increased need for release incisions, and mesh cruroplasty).Type IV GPEHs had a prolonged operative durations, and a higher conversion rate. Additionally, the same group showed increased morbidity, mortality, and re-operation rates. With a mean follow-up of 65 months (range 48-150 months), the incidence of recurrence was 20.7%, with an increased incidence in type IV GPEH (37.5% vs. 13.33% in type III GPEH). Type IV GPEH, low pre-operative albumin, larger crural defect, and low surgeon experience were significant risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic repair of GPEH.

CONCLUSION

Type IV GPEH has a higher peri-operative morbidity and recurrence rate; so, a more tailored laparoscopic repair with a high surgeon experience is needed.

Kyphoplasty versus percutaneous posterior instrumentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures with posterior wall injury: a propensity score matched cohort study

Background

Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) that present with posterior wall cortical injury pose a higher risk for instability. Surgical management includes standard cement augmentation techniques like balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) or percutaneous posterior instrumentation with pedicle screws (PS) or both. Neither treatment has yet demonstrated superiority, and posterior cement leakage is of special concern in these fractures.

Methods

At a single tertiary care center, 25 patients with 32 OVFs with posterior wall injury treated with percutaneous instrumentation and cement augmentation (PS group) were retrospectively included and matched (1:1) using propensity scores to 25 patients with 29 OVFs with posterior wall injury treated with standalone BKP (BKP group) from 2010 to 2018. Our primary study aim identified 30-day morbidity rates using a 4-point grading system by comparing BKP with and without percutaneous instrumentation with PS for the treatment of OVFs with posterior wall injury. Our secondary aims evaluated cement leakage, radiographic results, surgical time, length of stay (LOS), pain relief, and subsequent fractures.

Results

Overall 30-day morbidity was 34% and did not differ between groups (24% BKP vs. 44% PS groups, P=0.136). Most complications were mild (82.4%), requiring no interventions beyond drug treatment. In the PS group, a trend towards more mild complications was observed (16% vs. 40%, P=0.059). Moderate and severe complications affected 17.6% of all morbidity cases and were comparable between groups. Asymptomatic cement leakage into the spinal canal was noted in 2 (8%) BKP patients and symptomatic pulmonary cement embolism in 1 (4.8%) PS patient. Compared with baseline, all radiographic parameters significantly improved in both groups. In the BKP group, mean surgical times (52±32.9 vs. 164.9±48.4 minutes, P<0.001) and LOS (4.3±2.5 vs. 7±2.9 days, P<0.001) were significantly shorter, and use of opioids at discharge was significantly lower (52% vs. 84%, P=0.015). At 3-month follow-up, no differences between groups were seen in back pain, use of opioids, and occurrence of subsequent OVFs. Follow-up averaged 8.4 months.

Conclusions

Standalone BKP may be a viable option for the treatment of OVFs even in the presence of posterior wall cortical injury.

[Atraumatic fractures of the spine : Current strategies for diagnosis and treatment]

Atraumatic fractures of the spine are a common orthopedic disease condition that can be asymptomatic or associated with complaints of varying intensity and quality. The risk factors for such fracture forms are often metabolic and genetic diseases, which have a direct or indirect effect on bone metabolism and therefore secondarily affect the stability of the spinal vertebrae. Furthermore, benign and malignant tumors as well as infectious diseases can also be causative for atraumatic spinal fractures; however, those factors that are attributable to lifestyle habits should also not be underestimated. The treatment of affected patients is complex and nearly always interdisciplinary. In addition to purely symptom-oriented treatment concepts, orthoses in particular and when indicated surgical treatment procedures can be implemented. This article summarizes the important clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of atraumatic spinal fractures.