Background: Orthopaedic surgeons are exposed to high levels of radiation, which may lead to higher rates of cancer among orthopaedic surgeons. There are a series of techniques currently practiced to pin supracondylar humerus fractures including pinning the arm on the C-arm itself, using a plexiglass rectangle or a graphite floating arm board; however, the variation in radiation exposure to the surgeon is unknown. We aimed to determine how the position of the C-arm affects radiation exposure to the surgeon during the treatment of a pediatric supracondylar humerus fracture. Material and Methods: A simulated operating room was created to simulate a closed reduction and percutaneous pinning of a supracondylar humerus fracture. A phantom model was used to simulate the patient’s arm. We assessed performing the procedure with the arm on plexiglass, graphite, or on top of the C-arm image receptor. The C-arm was positioned either with the source down and image receptor up (standard position) or with the source up and image receptor down (inverted position). Radiation exposure was recorded from levels corresponding to the surgeon’s head, midline, and groin. The estimated effective dose equivalent was calculated to account for the varying radiation sensitivity of different organs. Results: We found the effective dose equivalent, or the overall body damage from radiation, was 5.4 to 7.8% higher than the surgeon when the C-arm was in the inverted position (source up, image receptor down). We did not find any differences in radiation exposure to the surgeon when the arm was supported on plexiglass versus graphite. Conclusion: The C-arm positioned in the standard fashion exposes the surgeon to less damaging radiation. Therefore, when the surgeon is standing, we recommend using the C-arm in the standard position. Clinical Relevance: Orthopaedic surgeons who stand should use the C-arm in the standard position to pin supracondylar humerus fractures to lower the risk of ionizing radiation exposure.

Background: A collaborative 2-surgeon approach is becoming increasingly popular in surgery but is not widely used for pediatric cervical spine fusions. The goal of this study is to present a large single-institution experience with pediatric cervical spinal fusion using a multidisciplinary 2-surgeon team, including a neurosurgeon and an orthopedic surgeon. This team-based approach has not been previously reported in the pediatric cervical spine literature. Methods: A single-institution review of pediatric cervical spine instrumentation and fusion performed by a surgical team composed of neurosurgery and orthopedics during 2002-2020 was performed. Demographics, presenting symptoms and indications, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were recorded. Particular focus was given to describe the primary surgical responsibility of the orthopedic surgeon and the neurosurgeon. Results: A total of 112 patients (54% male) with an average age of 12.1 (range 2-26) years met the inclusion criteria. The most common indications for surgery were os odontoideum with instability (n = 21) and trauma (n = 18). Syndromes were present in 44 (39%) cases. Fifty-five (49%) patients presented with preoperative neurological deficits (26 motor, 12 sensory, and 17 combined deficits). At the time of the last clinical follow-up, 44 (80%) of these patients had stabilization or resolution of their neurological deficit. There was 1 new postoperative neural deficit (1%). The average time between surgery and successful radiologic arthrodesis was 13.2 ± 10.6 mo. A total of 15 (13%) patients experienced complications within 90 days of surgery (2 intraoperative, 6 during admission, and 7 after discharge). Conclusions: A multidisciplinary 2-surgeon approach to pediatric cervical spine instrumentation and fusion provides a safe treatment option for complex pediatric cervical cases. It is hoped that this study could provide a model for other pediatric spine groups interested in implementing a multi-specialty 2-surgeon team to perform complex pediatric cervical spine fusions. Level of Evidence: Level IV-case series.

No abstract