Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To assess the accuracy of O-arm-navigation-based pedicle screw insertion in dystrophic scoliosis secondary to NF-1 and compare it with free-hand pedicle screw insertion technique. Methods 32 patients with dystrophic NF-1-associated scoliosis were divided into two groups. A total of 92 pedicle screws were implanted in apical region (two vertebrae above and below the apex each) in 13 patients using O-arm-based navigation (O-arm group), and 121 screws were implanted in 19 patients using free-hand technique (free-hand group). The postoperative CT images were reviewed and analyzed for pedicle violation. The screw penetration was divided into four grades: grade 0 (ideal placement), grade 1 (penetration <2 mm), grade 2 (penetration between 2 and 4 mm), and grade 3 (penetration >4 mm). Results The accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement (grade 0, 1) was significantly higher in the O-arm group (79 %, 73/92) compared to 67 % (81/121) of the free-hand group ( P  = 0.045). Meanwhile, a significantly lower prevalence of grade 2–3 perforation was observed in the O-arm group (21 vs. 33 %, P  < 0.05), and the incidence of medial perforation was significantly minimized by using O-arm navigation compared to free-hand technique (2 vs. 15 %, P  < 0.01). Moreover, the implant density in apical region was significantly elevated by using O-arm navigation (58 vs. 42 %, P  < 0.001). Conclusion We reported 79 % accuracy of O-arm-based pedicle screw placement in dystrophic NF-1-associated scoliosis. O-arm navigation system does facilitate pedicle screw insertion in dystrophic NF-1-associated scoliosis, demonstrating superiorities in the safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement in comparison with free-hand technique.

PurposeTo explore the role of closed suction drain in multi-level posterior spinal surgery.MethodsWe performed prospective, open-label, randomised control, superiority trial with parallel design and 1:1 allocation. A total of 161 patients undergoing posterior spinal surgery involving more than one motion segment at a dedicated spine surgery department were randomly allocated into “drain” or “no-drain” groups, based on which surgical drain was employed at the end of surgery. After excluding six cases with intraoperative dural tear, the data of 80 patients in “drain” and 75 patients in “no-drain” group were analysed. Primary outcome was total perioperative blood loss (sum of intraoperative blood loss, volume of drain if present and volume aspirated if patient developed collection in relation to surgical wound). The secondary outcomes were transfusion requirements, wound healing and complications.ResultsBoth groups were comparable with respect to baseline characteristics. Total perioperative blood loss was significantly higher in “drain” group (716 ± 312.97 ml vs 377.9 ± 295.72 ml, p < 0.0001). Number and volume of post-operative aspirations were significantly higher in “no-drain” group whereas transfusion requirements were significantly higher in “drain” group. Except for one case of superficial wound inflammation in either group, there were no complications. Subgroup analysis revealed that the results were applicable for surgeries involving “two/three” levels and “more than three” levels.ConclusionsThe practice of not using closed surgical drains after multi-level posterior spinal surgery reduces post-operative blood loss and transfusion requirements. But this comes with the disadvantage of increased wound soakage and need for post-operative wound aspirations. The risks of benefits of “drain” and “no drain” must be carefully weighed and an informed choice be taken.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Background In recent decades, early rehabilitation after Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) repair has been proposed. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to compare different immobilisation durations in order to determine the optimal duration after open surgery for ATR repair. Methods This study included 1088 patients (mean age, 34.9 ± 5.9 years) who underwent open surgery for acute ATR repair. The patients were categorised into four groups (A, B, C, and D) according to postoperative immobilisation durations of 0, 2, 4, and 6 weeks, respectively. All patients received the same suture technique and a similar rehabilitation protocol after brace removal,; they were clinically examined at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 weeks postoperatively, with a final follow-up at a mean of 19.0 months. The primary outcome was the recovery time for the one-leg heel-rise height (OHRH). Secondary outcomes included the time required to return to light exercise (LE) and the recovery times for the range of motion (ROM). Data regarding the surgical duration, complications, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain, the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS), and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale score were also collected. Results The recovery times for OHRH, LE, and ROM were significantly shorter in groups A and B than in groups C and D ( P  < 0.001). The VAS scores decreased over time, reaching 0 in all groups by 10 weeks. The mean scores in groups A and B were higher than those in the other groups at 2 and 4 weeks ( P  < 0.001), whereas the opposite was true at 8 weeks ( P  < 0.001). ATRS and the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot scale score increased across all groups over time, showing significant between-group differences from weeks 6 to 16 ( P  < 0.001) and weeks 6 to 12 ( P  < 0.001). The mean scores were better in groups A and B than in groups C and D. Thirty-eight complications (3.5%) were observed, including 20 re-ruptures and 18 superficial infections. All complications were resolved at the last follow-up, with no significant between-group differences. Conclusions Immobilisation for 2 weeks after open surgery for ATR repair may be the optimal strategy for early rehabilitation with relatively minimal pain and other complications. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04663542).

Immersive virtual reality (IVR) is a form of distraction therapy that has shown potential as an analgesia and sedation sparing agent. This study assessed the effect of IVR on the self-administered sedation requirements of patients undergoing joint replacement surgery under regional anesthesia in a single center. This study was a single-center, randomized control trial at St Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Fifty patients undergoing elective total knee and total hip arthroplasty were randomized to IVR and Propofol patient-controlled sedation (PCS) or propofol PCS alone. The primary outcome measure was intra-operative propofol use. Secondary outcomes included pattern of propofol use over time, use of adjunct analgesia, unmet propofol demand, and patient satisfaction survey scores. Of 50 total patients, 25 received IVR in conjunction with PCS, and 25 received PCS alone. All patients received adjunct analgesia from the treating Anesthesiologist. Median propofol use/hour over the entire procedure in the control group was 40 (11.1, 93.9) mg/hour compared with 45 (0, 94.7) mg/hour in the IVR group (p = 0.90). There were no differences in patterns of propofol use over the course of each procedure. Adjusting for various baseline characteristics did not change the results. Postoperative satisfaction scores were equivalent in both groups. The VR intervention was well tolerated by all patients, with no report of major side effects. Key limitations were relatively small sample size, the non-blinded nature of the study, and use of adjunct analgesia. In patients receiving joint replacement surgery under regional anesthesia with PCS, IVR was well tolerated but did not decrease the overall sedation requirement.

Rehabilitation is crucial for postoperative patients with low back pain (LBP). However, the implementation of traditional clinic-based programs is limited in developing countries, such as China, because of the maldistribution of medical resources. Mobile phone-based programs may be a potential substitute for those who have no access to traditional rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of mobile phone-based rehabilitation systems in patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery. Patients who accepted spinal surgeries were recruited and randomized into 2 groups of rehabilitation treatments: (1) a mobile phone-based eHealth (electronic health) program (EH) or (2) usual care treatment (UC). The primary outcomes were (1) function and pain status assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and (2) the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were (1) general mental health and (2) quality of life (Likert scales, EuroQol-5 Dimension health questionnaire, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey). All the patients were assessed preoperatively and then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. A total of 168 of the 863 eligible patients were included and randomized in this study. Our analysis showed that the improvement of primary outcomes in the EH group was superior to the UC group at 24 months postoperatively (ODI mean 7.02, SD 3.10, P<.05; VAS mean 7.59, SD 3.42, P<.05). No significant difference of primary outcomes was found at other time points. A subgroup analysis showed that the improvements of the primary outcomes were more significant in those who completed 6 or more training sessions each week throughout the trial (the highest compliance group) compared with the UC group at 6 months (ODI mean 17.94, SD 5.24, P<.05; VAS mean 19.56, SD 5.27, P<.05), 12 months (ODI mean 13.39, SD 5.32, P<.05; VAS mean 14.35, SD 5.23, P<.05), and 24 months (ODI mean 18.80, SD 5.22, P<.05; VAS mean 21.56, SD 5.28, P<.05). This research demonstrated that a mobile phone-based telerehabilitation system is effective in self-managed rehabilitation for postoperative patients with LBP. The effectiveness of eHealth was more evident in participants with higher compliance. Future research should focus on improving patients' compliance. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-TRC-13003314; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=6245 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/766RAIDNc).

Purpose The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled study was to evaluate the long-term results after an acute Achilles tendon rupture in patients treated surgically or non-surgically. The focus was to evaluate whether any improvements occurred between the one and 2-year evaluation. Method Eighty-one patients (67 men, 14 women) with a mean (SD) age of 42 (9.1) were included in this study. Forty-two patients were treated surgically, and 39 treated non-surgically otherwise the treatment was identical for the two groups. All patients were evaluated using the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS), the Physical Activity Scale (PAS) and validated functional tests one and 2 years after injury. Results There were significant functional deficits on the injured side compared with the contralateral side 2 years after Achilles tendon rupture, regardless of treatment. Only minor improvements, even though statistically significant, occurred between the 1- and 2-year evaluations. The physical activity level remained significantly reduced as compared with prior to injury, but the ATRS mean was relatively high in both groups (89 and 90). Conclusion This long-term follow-up indicates that the majority of patients with an Achilles tendon rupture have not fully recovered (in regards to symptoms, physical activity level and function) 2 years after injury regardless of surgical or non-surgical treatment. Furthermore, only minor improvements occur between the 1- and 2-year evaluations. This indicates that to enhance the final outcome the focus should be on improvements in treatment within the first year. The patients appear to have adjusted to their impairments since the patient-reported outcome is relatively high in spite of functional deficits and lower activity level compared with pre-injury. Level of evidence Prospective randomized study, Level I.

Background Flexor tendon injuries are common and lead to over 3200 admissions for specialist surgical repair annually in England and Wales. Surgery to repair complete division of both flexor tendons in zone 2 of the hand is technically challenging. There is variation in surgical repair techniques with no high-quality evidence to support decision-making. In particular, the decision to repair both tendons or just one is contested. Surgery is followed by specialist rehabilitation, which takes at least 12 weeks. The resulting hand function can impact the patient’s income, life satisfaction, well-being, self-worth, and mental health. The FLARE trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of repairing the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) alone (intervention) versus the repair of both FDP and flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) (control) for the treatment of complete zone 2, single-digit flexor tendon injuries in adults. Methods A multi-centre, two-arm, blinded, non-inferiority, parallel group, randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic evaluation, and nested qualitative study. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive either repair of FDP alone or repair of both FDP and FDS. A total of 310 adults will be recruited from NHS Trusts within the UK, randomised at surgery, and followed up within 7 days, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the patient evaluation measure (PEM) administered 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include the PEM at other timepoints, Patient Related Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE), EuroQol 5 Dimensions Score (EQ-5D-5L), complications, total range of motion, grip strength, adherence to splint and therapy regimens, work outcomes, treatment and outcome satisfaction, and healthcare resource use. Discussion FLARE is designed with sufficient power and rigour to provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical repair methods for single-digit, complete zone 2 flexor tendon injuries in adults. If the repair of FDP alone is as beneficial to the patient as the repair of FDP and FDS, this could save the NHS £1.8 million annually through reduced time and material costs. Furthermore, the trial findings will facilitate better shared decision-making discussions between clinicians and patients. Trial registration ISRCTN 10918157. Prospectively registered: 12.01.2023.

Background Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a major public health problem. There are pros and cons of the available treatment alternatives (surgical or non-surgical) and it had been difficult to identify the best treatment modality. Aim To construct a statistical DA model to identify the optimum overall treatment in ASD. Methods From an international multicentre database of ASD patients (968 pts), 535 who had completed 1 year follow-up (371 non-surgical—NS, 164 surgical—S), constitute the population of this study. DA was structured in two main steps of: (1) baseline analysis (assessing the probabilities of outcomes, assessing the values of preference—utilities-, combining information on probability and utility and assigning the quality adjusted life expectancy (QALE) for each treatment) and (2) sensitivity analysis. Results Four hundred and thirty-two patients (309 NS, 123 S) had baseline and 1 year follow-up ODI measurements. Overall, 104 (24.1 %) were found to be improved (a decrease in ODI > 8 points), 225 (52.1 %) unchanged (−8 > ODI > 8) and 65 deteriorated. Surgery presented with a higher chance of improvement (54.2 %) versus NS (9.7 %). The overall QALE ranged from 56 to 69 (of 100 years) and demonstrated better final QALE in the NS group (60 vs. 65, P  = 0.0038), this group having started with higher QALE as well (56 vs. 65 years, P  < 0.0001). There were improvements in overall QALE in both groups but this was significant only in the surgical group (S from 56 to 60 years, P  < 0.0001; NS from 65 to 65 years, P  = 0.27). In addition, in the subgroup of patients with significant baseline disability (ODI > 25) surgery appeared to yield marginally better final QALE (58 vs. 56 years, P  = 0.1) despite very a similar baseline (54 vs. 54 years, P  = 0.93). Discussion and conclusions This study demonstrated that a single best treatment modality for ASD may not exist. Conservative treatment appears to yield higher (up to 6 %) QALE compared to surgery, most probably secondary to a higher baseline QALE. On the other hand, surgery provides a significantly higher increase in QALE. Especially in patients with significant disability at baseline, the final QALE tended higher in the S group (although not significant). Finally, chances of a relevant improvement at first year turned out to be significantly lower with NS treatment.