Surgeon Specialty Influences Referral Rate for Osteoporosis Management following Vertebral Compression Fractures

When Does Intervention End and Surgery Begin? The Role of Interventional Pain Management in the Treatment of Spine Pathology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent advances in the field of interventional pain management (IPM) involve minimally invasive procedures such as percutaneous lumbar decompression, interspinous spacer placement, interspinous-interlaminar fusion and sacroiliac joint fusion. These developments have received pushback from surgical professional societies, who state spinal instrumentation and arthrodesis should only be performed by spine surgeons. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the validity of this claim. A literature search was conducted on Google Scholar and PubMed databases. Articles were included which examined IPM in the following contexts: credentialing and procedural privileging guidelines, fellowship training and education, and procedural outcomes compared to those of surgical specialties. Our primary research question is: "Should interventionalists be performing decompression and fusion procedures?".

FINDINGS

Advanced percutaneous spine procedures are not universally incorporated into pain fellowship curriculums. Trainees attempt to compensate for these deficiencies through industry-led training, which has been criticized for lacking central regulation. There is also a paucity of studies comparing procedural outcomes between surgeons and interventionalists for complex spine procedures, including decompression and fusion. Pain fellowship curriculums have not kept pace with some of procedural advancements within the field. Interventionalists are also not trained to manage potential complications of spinal instrumentation and arthrodesis, which has been recognized as an essential requirement for procedural privileging. Decompression and fusion may therefore be outside the scope of an interventionalist's practice.

Association of skin autofluorescence with low bone density/osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) that abnormally accumulate in diabetic patients have been reported to damage bone health. We aimed to investigate the association between skin autofluorescence (SAF)-AGE_age (SAF - AGEs × age/100) and low bone density (LBD)/osteoporosis or major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This study was nested in the prospective REACTION (Risk Evaluation of Cancers in Chinese Diabetic Individuals) study and included 1214 eligible participants. SAF was used to measure skin AGEs (SAF-AGEs). Fracture events were determined by an in-person clinical follow-up. Binary logistic regression analysis, linear regression analysis, and a restricted cubic spline nested in logistic models were used to test outcomes.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of LBD/osteoporosis in middle-aged or elderly T2DM patients was 35.7% (n = 434), and the overall incidence of MOFs was 10.5% (n = 116). Logistic analysis showed a significantly positive relationship between quartiles of SAF-AGE_age and the risk of LBD/osteoporosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.34-3.03; OR 3.63, CI 2.44-5.39; and OR 6.51, CI 4.34-9.78) for the multivariate-adjusted models, respectively. SAF-AGE_age was associated with MOFs with a multivariate-adjusted OR of 1.02 (CI 0.52-2.02), 2.42 (CI 1.32-4.46), and 2.70 (CI 1.48-4.91), respectively. Stratified analyses showed that SAF-AGE_age was significantly associated with MOFs only in females, nonsmokers, nondrinkers, individuals with lower body mass index, and those without LBD/osteoporosis. Linear regression analyses showed that higher SAF-AGEs were associated with a higher level of serum N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (s-PINP) and serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking peptide of type I collagen (s-CTX), with a multivariate-adjusted OR of 1.02 (CI 0.24-1.80) and 6.30 (CI 1.77-10.83), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, SAF-AGE_age was positively associated with the prevalence of LBD/osteoporosis or MOFs in patients with T2DM. A positive association between SAF-AGEs and the level of s-PINP and s-CTX was found.

Patients undergoing surgical treatment for low-energy distal radius fractures are more likely to receive a referral and participate in a fracture liaison service program

INTRODUCTION

Patients often do not receive osteoporosis screening after a low-energy distal radius fracture (DRF). The effect of osteoporosis on the healing of DRFs remains a debate, and it is unclear if surgical treatment of this injury affects the referral and participation rates in a fracture liaison service (FLS) program. The purpose of this study is to report on a large cohort of low-energy DRFs and identify demographic, clinical, and treatment factors that affect referral and participation rates in an FLS program.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified patients over 50 years old who sustained a low-energy DRF between 2013 and 2018. Patients with high-energy or unknown injury mechanisms were excluded. The primary outcome was the effect of DRF surgical treatment on referral and participation rates in an FLS program. Secondary outcomes included patient demographic and clinical characteristic effects on referral and participation rates in an FLS program.

RESULTS

In total, 950 patients met inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty patients (24.2%) were referred and 149 (15.7%) participated in the FLS program. Patients who underwent surgery were more likely to be referred to the FLS (OR 1.893, CI 1.403-2.555, p < 0.001) and participate in the FLS program (OR 2.47, CI 1.723-3.542, p < 0.001) compared to patients who received non-operative treatment of their DRF.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo surgical treatment of a low-energy DRF are more likely to be referred and participate in a FLS program. Further study is needed to identify why surgical treatment may affect referral and participation rates.

Kyphoplasty and Vertebroplasty Performed by Surgeons versus Nonsurgeons: Trends in Procedure Rates, Complications, and Revisions

BACKGROUND

Vertebral compression fractures are the most common fragility fractures affecting osteoporotic patients. This study evaluated volume trends and outcomes across specialties performing cement augmentation procedures.

METHODS

Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes for vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty from 2010 to 2019. Patients were grouped by surgical providers (orthopedic surgery and neurological surgery) or nonsurgical providers (anesthesia, pain medicine, radiology, and physical medicine and rehabilitation). Outcomes recorded included reoperation rates and postoperative complications occurring within 30 days. Logistic regression was employed to account for potential confounding variables, and odds ratios were obtained.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met by 80,864 patients who received cement augmentation. Surgeon specialists performed 51.7% of all procedures. Of procedures carried out by nonsurgeon specialists, radiologists performed the most. Despite a stable number of procedures performed over the period, the percentage of procedures performed by surgeons decreased from 58.8% to 49.9% (P < 0.001). Patients with procedures performed by surgeons experienced lower odds of reoperation at 30 days (P < 0.001) and 1 year (P < 0.001), but 5-year and overall rates were not significant (P > 0.05). Surgical patients had lower odds of acute kidney injury (P < 0.004) and pulmonary embolism (odds ratio = 0.62, P < 0.001), yet increased odds of surgical site infection (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Kyphoplasties and vertebroplasties are increasingly performed by nonsurgeon specialists. Although early reoperation rates are higher for nonsurgeon specialists, 5-year and overall reoperation rates were similar. Differing complication rates may relate to patient selection rather than operative technique and can be investigated with future studies.

Efficacy and Safety of Eldecalcitol for Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Object

Eldecalcitol (ED-71) is a vitamin D analog for the treatment of osteoporosis. However, inconsistent results have been reported in this regard. Hence, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ED-71 for osteoporosis.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify potential trials from inception until April 2021. The investigated outcomes included bone mineral density and fractures at various sites, and potential adverse events. The pooled effect estimates were calculated using weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model.

Results

Eight RCTs involving 2368 patients were selected for the final meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that ED-71 were associated with a higher level of femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) (WMD: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.24-1.60; P = 0.008), while it had no significant effect on lumbar spine BMD (WMD: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.11 to 2.30; P = 0.076) and hip BMD (WMD: 1.12; 95% CI: -0.16 to 2.40; P = 0.088). Moreover, the use of ED-71 could protect against the risk of all osteoporotic fracture (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88; P = 0.003) and vertebral fracture (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98; P = 0.038), while it did not affect the risk of nonvertebral fracture (RR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.23-1.23; P = 0.140). The subgroup analyses found that the effects of ED-71 were superior to those of alfacalcidol on both BMD and fracture results. Moreover, the use of ED-71 plus bisphosphonate was associated with a greater improvement in BMD at various sites compared with bisphosphonate alone. Finally, ED-71 was associated with an increased risk of increased urine calcium level (RR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.33-2.15; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study found that the use of ED-71 could improve BMD and fractures at various sites, especially compared with alfacalcidol or a combination with bisphosphonate for patients with osteoporosis.

Systematic Review Registration

[http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021270536].

Practice Patterns of Spine Surgeons Regarding Osteoporosis: An International Survey

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis (OP) represents a great challenge for the spine surgeon. Despite having effective pharmacological treatments for OP and surgical technical innovations, the awareness of spine surgeons regarding OP seems low. The purpose of this research was to assess practice patterns on the diagnosis and treatment of spine surgeons regarding OP.

METHODS

An electronic survey of ten multiple-choice questions was administered to members of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). The survey asked about the specialty, the workplace, and practice patterns and attitudes regarding OP and spine fusion surgery, pseudoarthrosis, and vertebral compression fractures (VCF).

RESULTS

A total of 122 surgeons completed the survey. In patients with suspected OP, 31.4% of surgeons would refer the patient to the OP specialist before surgery and 21.5% chose to perform the surgery without additional studies. A 66.4% of respondents would modify the surgical strategy in the case of OP. The most popular surgical techniques elected were cemented augmented screws (77.9%) and long-segment instrumentation (45.1%). Regarding pseudoarthrosis, 29.5% of surgeons opted to refer to the OP specialist, and 23.8% didn't consider any additional studies Concerning VCF management, 41.32% of respondents would refer the patient for treatment of OP, and the most common therapeutic strategy was conservatively treatment for 4 to 6 weeks and vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty if no improvement (55.74%).There was a higher proportion of surgeons that would not consider preoperative studies or referring patients with suspected OP for spine surgery (χ2 = 4.48, P = .03) and pseudoarthrosis (χ2 = 9.5, P = .002) compared to VCF.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a greater awareness regarding optimizing OP management in VCF compared to patients with suspected OP for spine arthrodesis or pseudoarthrosis. There still opportunities for improvement for the timely diagnosis and treatment of OP in spine surgery patients.

Orthopedic surgeons' attitudes to osteoporosis investigation and management after minimal trauma fracture (MTF)

A study of orthopedic surgeons in rural and regional Southeast Australia to determine attitudes to investigation and management of osteoporosis found they believe follow-up in regard to osteoporosis after MTF is important; responsibility for follow-up diagnosis and management lies with primary health care and current communication systems are poor.

PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION

The investigation and treatment of osteoporosis after minimal trauma fracture (MTF) is regarded as sub-optimal. There is strong evidence of the benefit of identifying and treating osteoporosis after MTF, and there has been discussion of the possible role that orthopedic surgeons might play in the management of osteoporosis after MTF. The study surveyed orthopedic surgeons in rural and regional Southeast Australia to determine their attitudes to investigation and management of osteoporosis, the role health professionals should play, and the communication and co-ordination of follow-up care.

METHODS

A survey was developed and piloted prior to being posted to 69 orthopedic surgeons asking for their opinions about the general management of osteoporosis, and the roles and responsibilities of health professionals in dealing with osteoporosis following an MTF.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 42 participants (60.8%) with the majority of respondents agreeing that it is important to treat osteoporosis following MTF. Less than 15% of respondents felt that it was their responsibility to initiate discussion or treatment or investigation after MTF. No respondent felt that the coordination of osteoporosis care was good and 45% stated it was poor. Communication after discharge is mostly left to the hospital (30%), while 20% stated they did not follow up at all.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that many rural orthopedic surgeons believe that follow-up in regard to osteoporosis after MTF is important, that responsibility for follow-up diagnosis and management of osteoporosis lies with primary health care and the current communication systems are poor.