1.
Spine Surgery and Preoperative Hemoglobin, Hematocrit, and Hemoglobin A1c: A Systematic Review
Suresh KV, Wang K, Sethi I, Zhang B, Margalit A, Puvanesarajah V, Jain A
Global spine journal. 2021;:2192568220979821
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. OBJECTIVES Synthesize previous studies evaluating clinical utility of preoperative Hb/Hct and HbA1c in patients undergoing common spinal procedures: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical fusion (PCF), posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), and lumbar decompression (LD). METHODS We queried PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for literature on preoperative Hb/Hct and HbA1c and post-operative outcomes in adult patients undergoing ACDF, PCF, PLF, or LD surgeries. RESULTS Total of 4,307 publications were assessed. Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria. PCF AND ACDF Decreased preoperative Hb/Hct were significant predictors of increased postoperative morbidity, including return to operating room, pulmonary complications, transfusions, and increased length of stay (LOS). For increased HbA1c, there was significant increase in risk of postoperative infection and cost of hospital stay. PLF: Decreased Hb/Hct was reported to be associated with increased risk of postoperative cardiac events, blood transfusion, and increased LOS. Elevated HbA1c was associated with increased risk of infection as well as higher visual analogue scores (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores. LD: LOS and total episode of care cost were increased in patients with preoperative HbA1c elevation. CONCLUSION In adult patients undergoing spine surgery, preoperative Hb/Hct are clinically useful predictors for postoperative complications, transfusion rates, and LOS, and HbA1c is predictive for postoperative infection and functional outcomes. Using Hct values <35-38% and HbA1c >6.5%-6.9% for identifying patients at higher risk of postoperative complications is most supported by the literature. We recommend obtaining these labs as part of routine pre-operative risk stratification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III.
2.
Does the use of platelet-rich plasma at the time of surgery improve clinical outcomes in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair when compared with control cohorts? A systematic review of meta-analyses
Saltzman BM, Jain A, Campbell KA, Mascarenhas R, Romeo AA, Verma NN, Cole BJ
Arthroscopy. 2016;32((5)):906-18.
Abstract
PURPOSE The aims of the study were as follows: (1) to perform a systematic review of meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery and to determine its effect on retear rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to provide a framework for the analysis and interpretation of the best currently available evidence; and (3) to identify gaps within the literature where suggestions for continued investigational efforts would be valid. METHODS Literature searches were performed to identify meta-analyses examining arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs augmented with PRP versus control (no PRP). Clinical data were extracted and meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt scales. RESULTS Seven meta-analyses met inclusion and exclusion criteria. All were considered as being of similar quality with Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses scores >15 and Oxman scores of 7. A total of 3,193 overlapping patients treated were included with mean follow-up from 12 to 31 months. When compared with control patients, use of PRP at the time of rotator cuff repair did not result in significantly lower overall retear rates or improved clinical outcome scores. The following postoperative functional scores comparing PRP versus control were reported: Constant (no significant difference demonstrated with PRP use in 5 of 6 reporting meta-analyses), University of California - Los Angeles (no difference, 6 of 6), American Shoulder and Elbow Society (no difference, 4 of 4), and Simple Shoulder Test (no difference, 3 of 5). Subgroup analysis performed by 3 meta-analyses showed evidence of improved outcomes with solid PRP matrix versus liquid, small- and/or medium-sized versus large and/or massive tears, PRP application at the tendon-bone interface versus over tendon, and in the setting of double-row versus single-row rotator cuff. CONCLUSIONS The current highest level of evidence suggests that PRP use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair does not universally improve retear rates or affect clinical outcome scores. However, the effects of PRP use on retear rates trend toward beneficial outcomes if evaluated in the context of the following specific variables: use of a solid PRP matrix; application of PRP at the tendon-bone interface; in double-row repairs; and with small- and/or medium-sized rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.Copyright © 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.