Person:

Glotzbecker, Michael

Purpose The rate of infection in patients having growth sparing surgery for early onset scoliosis has been reported up to 25 % during the course of treatment. A recent study demonstrated significant variability in the approach to infection prevention in adolescent and neuromuscular scoliosis. The purpose of this study is to conduct a similar survey in order to understand approaches used by experienced pediatric spinal surgeons with regard to infection prevention in growth friendly spinal procedures. Materials and methods After preliminary internal testing of a survey by the authors, a final 21-question survey was created and approved by the authors and electronically distributed to all members of the Chest Wall Spinal Deformity Study Group and the Growing Spine Study Group (n = 57). A total of 40 responses were obtained (70 %). Results: Significant variability in practice was demonstrated across the majority of the questions answered. Several of the questions demonstrated relative equipoise between practices, including preoperative MRSA screening, preoperative chlorhexidine baths, postoperative antibiotic duration after insertion, use of topical antibiotics, use of drains, use of IV gram negative coverage or vancomycin, and skin preparation. Conclusion: Other studies have demonstrated that variability in practice may have a negative impact on clinical outcomes, so one could postulate that steps that can reduce variability in the current population may help improve outcomes in this population. Areas of clinical equipoise can be used to help design and direct multicenter studies with an ultimate goal of reducing infections in this population. Level of evidence Level V. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11832-014-0584-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose The purpose of this investigation is to present our institutional experience with fractures of the pediatric forearm with in situ intramedullary nails. Methods: Six patients treated at our institution for forearm fracture with in situ intramedullary implants between 2004 and 2013 were reviewed. Patient demographics, injury and radiographic characteristics, method of treatment, time to union, and complications were collected from the medical record. Results: 485 patients with forearm fractures were treated with intramedullary implants and six patients presented with a fracture with in situ implants (1.2 %). Fractures in all six patients resulted from a second traumatic event after radiographic healing but before implant removal at a mean of 13.0 months from the initial procedure. One patient had an adequately aligned fracture and was treated with casting without reduction. The remaining five patients (83 %) returned to the operating room for treatment. Two patients underwent rod removal and placement of new intramedullary implants, and two patients were treated with rod removal and plating without attempt at closed reduction. One patient underwent closed reduction in the operating room with successful re-bending of the radial implant and replacement of the ulna implant. All patients went on to uncomplicated radiographic union at a mean 3.6 months. Conclusions: The incidence of fracture of pediatric forearm with in situ intramedullary implants is low. This rare complication can be treated by several different methods, including revision TENS placement, revision to plate fixation, or in situ bending of rods, with the expectation for successful uncomplicated union.