Study Design: Population-based analysis of administrative discharge records from California, Florida, and New York inpatient, ambulatory, and emergency department settings between 2005 and 2011, utilizing Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data. Objective: We aimed to compare, and characterize rates of reoperation and readmission among patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with surgical decompression alone versus fusion. Summary of Background Data: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with stenosis can be treated by decompression with or without fusion. Fusion has traditionally been preferred. We hypothesized that rates of reoperation after decompression alone would be higher than after fusion. Materials and Methods: We undertook a population-based analysis of administrative discharge records from California, Florida, and New York inpatient, ambulatory, and emergency department settings between 2005 and 2011, with Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data. We identified all patients who had degenerative spondylolisthesis who were treated with decompression alone or with fusion and compared their rates of reoperation at 1, 3, and 5 years from the index operation. We used descriptive statistics and a hierarchical logistic regression model to generate risk-adjusted odds of all-cause readmissions. Results: Our study consisted of 75,024 patients with spondylolisthesis; 6712 (8.95%) of them underwent decompression alone and 68,312 (91.05%) of them underwent fusion. Rates of reoperation were higher for decompression versus fusion at 1 year; 6.87% versus 5.53% (P≤0.001), but at 3 years; 13.86% versus 12.91% (P=0.18) and 5 years; 16.9% versus 17.7% (P=0.398) years rates of reoperation were not statistically different. Patients treated with decompression alone that had a second operation tended to have the operation sooner 512.6 versus 567.4 days (P=0.008). Conclusions: Our study suggests that treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with fusion or decompression alone results in similar rates of reoperation at 5 years. This medium term data indicate that decompression alone may be a viable treatment for some patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Background A well-reduced femoral neck fracture is more likely to heal than a poorly reduced one, and increasing the quality of the surgical exposure makes it easier to achieve anatomic fracture reduction. Two open approaches are in common use for femoral neck fractures, the modified Smith-Petersen and Watson-Jones; however, to our knowledge, the quality of exposure of the femoral neck exposure provided by each approach has not been investigated. Questions/purposes (1) What is the respective area of exposed femoral neck afforded by the Watson-Jones and modified Smith-Petersen approaches? (2) Is there a difference in the ability to visualize and/or palpate important anatomic landmarks provided by the Watson-Jones and modified Smith-Petersen approaches? Methods Ten fresh-frozen human pelvi underwent both modified Smith-Petersen (utilizing the caudal extent of the standard Smith-Petersen interval distal to the anterosuperior iliac spine and parallel to the palpable interval between the tensor fascia lata and the sartorius) and Watson-Jones approaches. Dissections were performed by three fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologists with extensive experience in both approaches. Exposure (in cm²) was quantified with calibrated digital photographs and specialized software. Modified Smith-Petersen approaches were analyzed before and after rectus femoris tenotomy. The ability to visualize and palpate seven clinically relevant anatomic structures (the labrum, femoral head, subcapital femoral neck, basicervical femoral neck, greater trochanter, lesser trochanter, and medial femoral neck) was also recorded. The quantified area of the exposed proximal femur was utilized to compare which approach afforded the largest field of view of the femoral neck and articular surface for assessment of femoral neck fracture and associated femoral head injury. The ability to visualize and palpate surrounding structures was assessed so that we could better understand which approach afforded the ability to assess structures that are relevant to femoral neck fracture reduction and fixation. Results After controlling for age, body mass index, height, and sex, we found the modified Smith-Petersen approach provided a mean of 2.36 cm² (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-4.28 cm²; p = 0.015) additional exposure without rectus femoris tenotomy (p = 0.015) and 3.33 cm² (95% CI, 1.42-5.24 cm²; p = 0.001) additional exposure with a tenotomy compared with the Watson-Jones approach. The labrum, femoral head, subcapital femoral neck, basicervical femoral neck, and greater trochanter were reliably visible and palpable in both approaches. The lesser trochanter was palpable in all of the modified Smith-Petersen and none of the Watson-Jones approaches (p < 0.001). All modified Smith-Petersen approaches (10 of 10) provided visualization and palpation of the medial femoral neck, whereas visualization of the medial femoral neck was only possible in one of 10 Watson-Jones approaches (p < 0.001) and palpation was possible in eight of 10 Watson-Jones versus all 10 modified Smith-Petersen approaches (p = 0.470). Conclusions In the hands of surgeons experienced with both surgical approaches to the femoral neck, the modified Smith-Petersen approach, with or without rectus femoris tenotomy, provides superior exposure of the femoral neck and articular surface as well as visualization and palpation of clinically relevant proximal femoral anatomic landmarks compared with the Watson-Jones approach. Clinical Relevance Open reduction and internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture is typically performed in a young patient (< 60 years old) with the objective of obtaining anatomic reduction that would not be possible by closed manipulation, thus enhancing healing potential. In the hands of surgeons experienced in both approaches, the modified Smith-Petersen approach offers improved direct access for reduction and fixation. Higher quality reductions and fixation are expected to translate to improved healing potential and outcomes. Although our experimental results are promising, further clinical studies are needed to verify if this larger exposure area imparts increased quality of reduction, healing, and improved outcomes compared with other approaches. The learning curve for the exposure is unclear, but the approach has broad applications and is frequently used in other subspecialties such as for direct anterior THA and pediatric septic hip drainage. Surgeons treating femoral neck fractures with open reduction and fixation should familiarize themselves with the modified Smith-Petersen approach.

A wide range of implants are used in the treatment of pediatric fractures, including wires, plates, screws, flexible rods, rigid rods, and external fixation devices. Pediatric bones differ from adult bones both mechanically and biologically, including the potential for remodeling. Implants used in pediatric trauma patients present a unique set of circumstances regarding indications, risks, timing of implant removal, weight-bearing restrictions, and long-term sequelae. Indications for implant removal include wire/pin fixation, when substantial growth remains, and infection. When considering implant removal, the risks and benefits must be assessed. The primary risk of implant removal is refracture. The timing of implant removal varies widely from several weeks to a year or more with the option of retention depending on the fracture, type of implant, and skeletal maturity of the patient.

Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly popular, with patients and families more likely to utilize LLM when conducting internet-based research about scoliosis. For this reason, it is vital to understand the abilities and limitations of this technology in disseminating accurate medical information. We used an expert panel to compare LLM-generated and professional society-authored answers to frequently asked questions about pediatric scoliosis. We used three publicly available LLMs to generate answers to 15 frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding pediatric scoliosis. The FAQs were derived from the Scoliosis Research Society, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and the Pediatric Spine Foundation. We gave minimal training to the LLM other than specifying the response length and requesting answers at a 5th-grade reading level. A 15-question survey was distributed to an expert panel composed of pediatric spine surgeons. To determine readability, responses were inputted into an open-source calculator. The panel members were presented with an AI and a physician-generated response to a FAQ and asked to select which they preferred. They were then asked to individually grade the accuracy of responses on a Likert scale. The panel members had a mean of 8.9 years of experience post-fellowship (range: 3-23 years). The panel reported nearly equivalent agreement between AI-generated and physician-generated answers. The expert panel favored professional society-written responses for 40% of questions, AI for 40%, ranked responses equally good for 13%, and saw a tie between AI and “equally good” for 7%. For two professional society–generated and three AI-generated responses, the error bars of the expert panel mean score for accuracy and appropriateness fell below neutral, indicating a lack of consensus and mixed opinions with the response. Based on the expert panel review, AI delivered accurate and appropriate answers as frequently as professional society–authored FAQ answers from professional society websites. AI and professional society websites were equally likely to generate answers with which the expert panel disagreed. (1) Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for generating medical information online, necessitating an evaluation of their accuracy and effectiveness compared with traditional sources. (2) An expert panel of physicians compared artificial intelligence (AI)-generated answers with professional society–authored answers to pediatric scoliosis frequently asked questions, finding that both types of answers were equally favored in terms of accuracy and appropriateness. (3) The panel reported a similar rate of disagreement with AI-generated and professional society–generated answers, indicating that both had areas of controversy. (4) Over half of the expert panel members felt they could distinguish between AI-generated and professional society–generated answers but this did not relate to their preferences. (5) While AI can support medical information dissemination, further research and improvements are needed to address its limitations and ensure high-quality, accessible patient education. IV

Study Design.: Retrospective Cohort. Objective.: To evaluate the effect of computer-assisted navigation (NAV) on rates of complications and reoperations after spinal fusion (SF) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) using a nationally representative claims database. Summary of Background Data.: Significant controversy surrounds the reported benefits of NAV in SF for AIS. Previous studies have demonstrated decreased rates of pedicle screw breaches with NAV compared to free-hand methods but no impact on complication rates. Thus, the clinical utility of NAV remains uncertain. Methods.: Analyses were performed using the IBM MarketScan databases. Patients aged 10 to 18 undergoing SF for AIS were grouped by use of NAV. Patients with nonidiopathic scoliosis were excluded. Univariate and risk-adjusted multivariate analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were neurological complications, any medical complications, and reoperations. Secondary outcomes included adjusted total reimbursements and length of stay. Results.: A total of 12,046 patients undergoing SF for AIS were identified, and 8640 had 90-day follow-up. NAV was used in 467 patients (5.4%), increasing from 2007 to 2015. After risk adjustment, the odds for any complication within 90 days were lower with NAV (OR = 0.61, P = 0.025), but neurological complications were unrelated to NAV (P = 0.742). NAV was not associated with reoperation within 90 days (P = 0.757) or 2 years (P = 0.095). We observed a $25,038 increase in adjusted total reimbursements (P < 0.001) and a 0.32-day decrease in length of stay (P = 0.022) with use of NAV. Conclusion.: In this national sample, NAV was associated with a lower rate of total complications but no change in rates of neurological complications or reoperations. In addition, NAV was associated with a large increase in total payments, despite a modest decrease in hospital stay. Considering the increasing popularity of NAV, this study provides important context regarding the utility of NAV for AIS. Level of Evidence: 3

Intraoperative arthrograms are commonly used in conjunction with closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) of pediatric lateral condyle fractures of the humerus. The authors sought to determine how arthrograms affect management of these fractures. They reviewed all lateral condyle fractures treated surgically at a pediatric level I trauma center from 2008 to 2014. They stratified patients managed with and without an arthrogram as well as by timing of arthrogram. The authors compared injury parameters, initial and postoperative fracture displacement, and complications between groups. They identified 107 patients who were taken to the operating room for attempted closed reduction, which they classified as either CRPP without arthrogram or arthrogram first and then a decision to treat open or with CRPP. Fifty-eight (54.21%) underwent CRPP without arthrogram and 49 (45.79%) underwent arthrogram. Of those who had arthrograms, 27 (25.23%) were prior to fixation and 22 (20.56%) were after fixation. There was no difference in age, weight, or preoperative displacement among the groups. Mean postoperative displacement was significantly lower in the no arthrogram group vs the arthrogram group (0.91 mm vs 1.68 mm; P <.0001), but it did not differ based on timing of arthrogram ( P =.836). Arthrograms changed management in 4 (8%) of 49 patients who had them. There was no statistical difference in the rate of changed management by timing of arthrogram (before vs after fixation, 14.8% vs 0%; P =.060). The authors demonstrated that arthrograms may be useful for assessing final fracture alignment after CRPP, but are unlikely to result in a treatment change and are not associated with improved postoperative alignment. [ Orthopedics . 2020; 43(1):30–35.]