Object Surgical site infection (SSI) after lumbar fusion results in significant patient morbidity and associated medical resource utilization. Minimally invasive (MI) techniques for posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (P/TLIF) were introduced with the goals of smaller wounds, less tissue trauma, reduced blood loss, and quicker postoperative recovery, while maintaining comparable surgical results. Studies with sufficient power to directly compare the incidence of SSI following MI versus open P/TLIF procedures have been lacking. Furthermore, the direct medical cost associated with the treatment of SSI following the P/TLIF procedure is poorly understood and has not been adequately assessed. Thus, the aim in the present study was to determine the incidence of perioperative SSI in patients undergoing MI versus open P/TLIF and the direct hospital cost associated with the diagnosis and management of SSI after P/TLIF as reported in a large administrative database. Methods The authors retrospectively reviewed hospital discharge and billing records from the Premier Perspective Database for 2003 to 2009 to identify patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MI or open P/TLIF for lumbar spondylotic disease, disc degeneration, or spondylolisthesis. The ICD-9-CM procedure codes were used to identify patients undergoing P/TLIF and those experiencing SSI. Infection-related costs were obtained from the total costs incurred by the hospital for SSI-related care provided during inpatient or hospital outpatient encounters. Results Five thousand one hundred seventy patients undergoing P/TLIF were identified. Demographic profiles, including the Charlson Comorbidity Index, were similar between MI and open cohorts. Overall, 292 patients (5.6%) experienced an SSI with a mean direct cost of $15,817 per SSI. For 1-level MI versus open P/TLIF, the incidence of SSI (38 [4.5%] vs 77 [4.8%], p = 0.77) and the mean SSI-associated cost per P/TLIF ($684 vs $724, p = 0.680) were similar. For 2-level MI versus open P/TLIF, the incidence of SSI (27 [4.6%] vs 150 [7.0%], p = 0.037) and mean SSI-associated cost per P/TLIF ($756 vs $1140, p = 0.030) were both significantly lower among MI-treated patients. In a multivariate model that accounted for differences in demographics and patient severity, open fusion was associated with a strong trend of increased incidence of SSI as compared with MI fusion (OR 1.469, 95% CI 0.959–2.250). Conclusions In this multihospital study, the MI technique was associated with a decreased incidence of perioperative SSI and a direct cost savings of $38,400 per 100 P/TLIF procedure when used in 2-level fusion. There was no significant difference in the incidence of SSIs between the open and MI cohorts for 1-level fusion procedures. The results of this study provide further evidence of the reduced patient morbidity and health care costs associated with MI P/TLIF.

The study results support the use of the KOOS subscales among patients with articular cartilage lesions.

This study found no significant difference in the incidence of CVEs between patients taking risperidone and those taking other atypical antipsychotics. Risperidone and all atypical antipsychotics were not associated with higher risk than two common treatment alternatives (haloperidol and benzodiazepines). These findings do not support the conclusion that risperidone is associated with a higher risk of CVE than other available treatment alternatives. The data also suggest that patient characteristics other than antipsychotic use are more significant predictors of CVEs. Given the relatively low rates of incident CVEs, a larger sample of patients with groups closely balanced on a wide spectrum of potential risk factors could provide a more precise assessment of risk.

No abstract

Objective:The purpose of this article is to describe and recommend patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with articular cartilage lesions undergoing cartilage repair interventions.Methods:Nonsystematic literature search identifying measures addressing pain and function evaluated for validity and psychometric properties in patients with articular cartilage lesions.Results:The knee-specific instruments, titled the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis and Outcome Score, both fulfill the basic requirements for reliability, validity, and responsiveness in cartilage repair patients. A major difference between them is that the former results in a single score and the latter results in 5 subscores. A single score is preferred for simplicity’s sake, whereas subscores allow for evaluation of separate constructs at all levels according to the International Classification of Functioning.Conclusions:Because there is no obvious superiority of either instrument at this time, both outcome measures are recommended for use in cartilage repair. Rescaling of the Lysholm Scoring Scale has been suggested, and confirmatory longitudinal studies are needed prior to recommending this scale for use in cartilage repair. Inclusion of a generic measure is feasible in cartilage repair studies and allows analysis of health-related quality of life and health economic outcomes. The Marx or Tegner Activity Rating Scales are feasible and have been evaluated in patients with knee injuries. However, activity measures require age and sex adjustment, and data are lacking in people with cartilage repair.