Background: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a well-recognized procedure for its effectiveness in treating symptomatic early knee arthritis and malalignment. Although there are numerous systematic reviews evaluating the management and outcomes after HTO, there are few investigations on complications of this procedure. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to determine the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications associated with medial opening wedge and lateral closing wedge HTOs. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were queried for studies reporting complications associated with HTO with or without concomitant procedures. Data including patient characteristics, procedure type, concomitant procedures, follow-up time, and postoperative imaging were extracted. Rates of intra- and postoperative complications, reoperations, and conversion to arthroplasty were recorded. Results: A total of 71 studies were included for analysis, comprising 7836 patients. The overall intraoperative complication rate during HTO was 5.5% (range, 0%-29.3%), and the overall postoperative complication rate was 6.9% (range, 0%-26.6%). The most common intraoperative complication was lateral hinge fracture (incidence, 9.1%; range, 0%-30.4%) in medially based HTOs and peroneal nerve injury in laterally based HTOs (incidence, 3.2%; range, 0%-8.7%). The overall incidence of neurovascular injury after medially or laterally based HTOs was 1.1% (range, 0%-18.9%). The most common postoperative complication was superficial infection (incidence, 2.2%; range, 0%-13%). Of the included studies, 62 included postoperative radiographic analysis, and among those, the incidence of nonunion was 1.9% (range, 0%-15.5%), loss of correction was 1.2% (range, 0%-34.3%), and implant failure was 1.0% (range, 0%-10.2%). Among studies reporting revision surgeries, the overall reoperation rate was 15.5% (range, 0%-70.7%), with the most common type of reoperation being hardware removal (incidence, 10.0%; range, 0%-60%). Conclusion: Intraoperatively, medially based HTOs are associated with a 1 in 20 risk of lateral hinge fracture and laterally based HTOs with a 1 in 30 risk of peroneal nerve injury. Postoperative complication rates in the range of 10% to 15% can be expected, including infection (2.9%), loss of correction (1.2%), and nonunion (1.9%). Patients should also be counseled that the reoperation rate is approximately 15%, with hardware removal being the most common procedure.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Although oral anticancer medications (OAM) provide opportunity for treatment at home, challenges include prescription filling, monitoring side effects, safe handling, and adherence. We assessed understanding of and adherence to OAM in vulnerable patients. Methods This 2018 pilot study defined vulnerable patients based on Chinese language, older age (≥65 years), and subsidized insurance. All participants had a cancer diagnosis and were taking an OAM filled through the hospital’s specialty pharmacy. Participants reported on OAM taking (days per week, times per day, special instructions) and handling (handling, storage, disposal). The specialty pharmacist classified patient-reported responses about OAM taking and handling as adequate or inadequate. OAM regimens were classified by complexity. Results Of 61 eligible patients, 55 participated. Mean age was 68 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12) and 53% were female. Patient subgroups were: 27% Chinese, 64% ≥65 years, and 9% subsidized insurance. Forty-nine percent were on frontline therapy and median time on OAM was 1 year (Quartile 1 = 0.4, Quartile 3 = 1.7). Adequacy of OAM taking (30%) and handling (15%) were low; 15% had adequacy in both. Adequacy of OAM taking and handling did not vary by patient subgroup or regimen complexity. Mean patient-reported adherence was high (5.4, SD = 1, possible range 1–6) and did not vary by adequacy of OAM taking or handling. Conclusions Understanding of OAM taking and handling in this group of vulnerable patients was low and did not align with patient-reported adherence. Future interventions should ensure that patients understand how to safely take and handle OAM, thereby optimizing their therapeutic potential.

e18280 Background: Advancements in biopharmaceuticals have led to increasing availability and use of OAM. While oral medications allow patients (pts) to receive treatment at home, OAM use introduces new challenges related to prescription filling, monitoring for and reporting of side effects, safe medication handling, and adherence. We assessed understanding of and adherence to OAM in pts vulnerable to these home-based challenges. Methods: This 2018 pilot study defined vulnerable pts based on spoken language (Chinese), older age (≥65 yrs), and public insurance ( < 65 yrs). All pts had a cancer diagnosis, had been taking an OAM, and received prescriptions through the hospital’s specialty pharmacy. Prior to a clinic visit, pts completed patient-reported measures about OAM taking and handling. Clinical characteristics were extracted from medical records; medication information was extracted from pharmacy records. The study team’s specialty pharmacist (DH) classified patient-reported responses about OAM taking (days per week, times per day, special instructions) and handing (handling, storage, disposal) as adequate or inadequate. OAM regimens were classified by complexity based on number of drugs and schedule. Results: Of 61 eligible pts, 55 participated (90%). Mean age was 68 yrs (SD 12) and 53% were female. Pt subgroups were: 27% Chinese, 64% ≥65 yrs, and 9% < 65 yrs with public insurance. 33% had solid tumor and 67% had hematologic malignancy; tyrosine kinase inhibitor was the most OAM type (42%). 49% of pts were on front-line therapy and overall median time on OAM was 1 year (Q1 0.4, Q3 1.7). Adequacy of OAM taking (30%) and handling (15%) were low; only 15% had adequacy in both. Pt subgroup and regimen complexity did not vary by adequacy of OAM taking or handling. Patient-reported adherence was high 5.4 (SD 1) (possible range 1-6) and did not vary by adequacy of OAM taking or handling. Conclusions: Understanding of how OAM should be taken and handled in a group of vulnerable pts was strikingly low and did not align with pts’ self-reports of adherence. Future interventions are needed to ensure that pts understand how to safely take and handle OAM, thereby optimizing their therapeutic potential.