Ashley M. Rosenberg

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.Purpose: This study investigated the impact of cage material on subsidence and segmental lordosis following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), comparing polyetheretherketone (PEEK), titanium, and ceramic synthetic cages, as well as structural allografts.Overview of Literature: Subsidence following ACDF surgery can negatively impact clinical outcomes. Although extensively studied, the relationship between cage type and subsidence remains unclear due to conflicting data and inconsistent control for confounders, underscoring the need for multivariable analysis to determine material-specific effects.Methods: Retrospective study of 120 patients (223 fusion levels) who underwent ACDF between 2016 and 2021. Spacer types included structural allografts, PEEK, titanium, and ceramic cages. Radiographic measurements of subsidence were obtained from immediate (≤8 weeks) and long-term (≥6 months) postoperative lateral cervical radiographs. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the association between spacer type and subsidence, adjusting for patient demographics, surgical levels, smoking history, and osteopenia.Results: The mean age of patients was 53.6±10.9 years and 41.7% were male; 47.5% had a smoking history and 20.8% had osteopenia. There were 38 one-level (31.7%), 61 two-level (50.8%), and 21 three-level fusions (17.5%). Spacer distribution included 62 structural allografts (51.7%), 27 PEEK (22.5%), 20 titanium (16.7%), and 11 ceramic (9.2%) cages. On multivariable analysis, PEEK cages were associated with significantly less anterior subsidence (β=−0.972, p <0.001) and posterior subsidence (β=−0.666, p=0.001) compared to allografts, and greater preservation of segmental lordosis (β=1.393, p=0.024). No significant differences in subsidence were found between titanium, ceramic, and allograft spacers.Conclusions: PEEK cages showed reduced subsidence and better preservation of cervical lordosis compared to structural allografts, while titanium and ceramic cages did not differ significantly from structural allografts. These results suggest that PEEK cages may help minimize subsidence-related complications and improve outcomes.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are common among active patients and can be managed with primary repair or reconstruction. The most important predictor of good outcomes after primary repair is a more proximal tear location. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guides surgical decision making, but the accuracy of MRI in identifying tear location is understudied. Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of preoperative MRI in identifying ACL tear location. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction or repair by 2 surgeons at a single, urban academic medical center between 2019 and 2024 were collected. Exclusion criteria included previous ACL surgery and inadequate preoperative or intraoperative imaging. The location of the ACL tear on preoperative MRI scan was retrospectively graded using the modified Sherman classification in a blinded manner. Reference diagnosis was the tear location as noted in the surgeon’s operative note and confirmed with arthroscopic images. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of MRI for predicting intraoperative tear type. Results: A total of 203 patients were included in this study. MRI accurately predicted the ACL tear type seen arthroscopically only 35.5% (72/203) of the time. When MRI did not match the arthroscopic diagnosis, the MRI was within 1 classification grade 74.8% (98/131) of the time. Of the incorrect gradings, 71.0% (93/131) were overclassifications (MRI tear classification more distal than found during arthroscopy). MRI was more sensitive in detecting proximal third (type II) and midsubstance (type III) tears (43.7% and 51.6%, respectively) than it was for detecting proximal avulsion (type I) tears (2.5%). Conclusion: MRI was unreliable for determining the precise location of an ACL tear. MRI tended to overestimate how distal a tear was compared with arthroscopic findings, which may influence patient counseling, preoperative planning, and surgical decision making.

Rabex-5 (also called RabGEF1), a protein originally characterized for its Rab5 GEF function, also has an A20-like E3 ubiquitin ligase domain. We and others reported that Rabex-5 E3 activity promotes Ras mono- and di-ubiquitination to inhibit Ras signaling in Drosophila and mammals. Subsequently, we reported that Rabex-5 inhibits Notch signaling in the Drosophila hematopoietic system. Here we report genetic interactions using Rabex-5 transgenes encoding domain-specific mutations that show that Rabex-5 requires an intact E3 domain to inhibit Notch signaling in the epithelial tissue of the developing wing. Surprisingly, we discovered that Rabex-5 with an impaired E3 domain but active Rab5 GEF domain suppresses Notch loss-of-function phenotypes and enhances both Notch duplication phenotypes and activated Ras phenotypes consistent with a model that the Rab5 GEF activity of Rabex-5 might positively regulate Ras and Notch. Positive and negative regulation of developmental signaling by its different catalytic domains could allow Rabex-5 to precisely coordinate developmental signaling to fine-tune patterning. Finally, we report that Rabex-5 also inhibits the overgrowth due to loss of PTEN or activation of PI3K but not activation of AKT. Inhibition of Ras, Notch, and PI3K signaling may explain why Rabex-5 is deleted in some cancers. Paradoxically, Rabex-5 is reported to be an oncogene in other cancers. We propose that Rabex-5 acts as a tumor suppressor via its E3 activity to inhibit Ras, Notch, and PI3K signaling and as an oncogene via its Rab5 GEF activity to enhance Ras and Notch signaling.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines.Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy.Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response.Conclusion: ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Background: Demand for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis has dramatically increased in recent years despite conflicting evidence regarding its efficacy and highly variable pricing in the top orthopaedic centers in the United States, because PRP is typically not covered by insurance. A previous study investigating the mean price of PRP injections obtained information only from centers advertising online the availability of PRP injections. Thus, there is a need for further clarification of the overall availability and variability in cost of PRP injections in the orthopaedic community as well as an analysis of relevant regional demographic and hospital characteristics that could be associated with PRP pricing. Questions/purposes: Our study purposes were to (1) report the availability and price variation of knee PRP injections at top-ranked United States orthopaedic centers, (2) characterize the availability of pricing information for a PRP injection over the telephone, (3) determine whether hospital characteristics (Orthopaedic Score [U.S. News & World Report measure of hospital orthopaedic department performance], size, teaching status, and rural-urban status) were associated with PRP injection availability and pricing, and (4) characterize the price variation, if it exists, of PRP injections in three metropolitan areas and individual institutions. Methods: In this prospective study, a scripted telephone call to publicly listed clinic telephone numbers was used to determine the availability and price estimate (amount to be paid by the patient) of a PRP injection for knee osteoarthritis from the top 25 hospitals from each United States Census region selected from the U.S. News & World Report ranking of best hospitals for orthopaedics. Univariable analyses examined factors associated with PRP injection availability and willingness to disclose pricing, differences across regions, and the association between hospital characteristics (Orthopaedic Score, size, teaching status, and rural-urban status) and pricing. The Orthopaedic Score is a score assigned to each hospital by U.S. News & World Report as a measure of hospital performance based partly on patient outcomes, with higher scores indicating better outcomes. Results: Overall, 87% (87 of 100) of respondents stated they offered PRP injections. Pricing ranged from USD 350 to USD 2815 (median USD 800) per injection, with the highest prices in the Northeast. The largest price range was in the Midwest, where more than two-thirds of PRP injections given at hospitals that disclosed pricing cost USD 500 to USD 1000. Of the hospitals that offered PRP injections, 68% (59 of 87) were willing to disclose price information over the telephone. PRP injection pricing was inversely correlated with hospital Orthopaedic Score (-3% price change [95% CI -5% to -1%]; p = 0.01) and not associated with any of the other hospital characteristics that were studied, such as patient population median income and total hospital expenses. An intracity analysis revealed wide variations in PRP pricing in all metropolitan areas that were analyzed, ranging from a minimum of USD 300 within 10 miles of metropolitan area B to a maximum of USD 1269 within 20 miles of metropolitan area C. Conclusion: We found that although PRP injections are widely available, pricing continues to be a substantial financial burden on patients, with large price variability among institutions. We also found that if patients are willing to shop around in a metropolitan area, there is potential to save a meaningful amount of money. Clinical Relevance: As public interest in biologics in orthopaedic surgery increases, knowledge of its pricing should be clarified to consumers. The debated efficacy of PRP injections, combined with our findings that it is an expensive out-of-pocket procedure, suggests that PRP has limited cost-effectiveness, with variable, discrete pricing. As such, the price of PRP injections should be clearly disclosed to patients so they can make informed healthcare decisions.

Objectives: The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for sports-related injuries is a hotly- debated topic. PRP is a cash-pay procedure that is not covered by insurance, and it is actively advertised for a number of different indications, some without supporting evidence. Yet, an increasing number of patients are asking their physicians for PRP injections. The aim of this study is to better understand patients’ knowledge of PRP and willingness to pay out of pocket. Methods: This ongoing Institutional Review Board-approved prospective study included patients presenting with a new chief complaint at a sports medicine orthopedic office in a large urban academic health system. Patients completed an anonymous survey prior to evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon. The survey collected demographic information, clinical information, knowledge of PRP, willingness to pay for PRP based on expected percentage pain reduction, and motivators behind willingness to pay. Two cohorts included: 1) patients who had heard of PRP and 2) patients who had not. The latter group was given a short educational excerpt on PRP. Two-tailed Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests evaluated pain scores and willingness to pay for PRP between the cohorts. Spearman rank correlation tests evaluated correlations between household income and willingness to pay. Results: To date, we have enrolled 32 patients of which 37.5% had previous orthopedic surgery, 43.75% had seen another medical provider for their current symptoms and 37.5% had previously heard of PRP. Patients who had heard of PRP (versus those that had not) reported lower median pain scores (median 4.75 versus 5.0 out of 10), the same hindrance of daily activities (median 3.0 out of 5), and longer duration of symptoms (median 5.0 months versus 1.0 month), although not statistically significant. Patients were willing to pay more for a greater anticipated reduction in pain: median of $50, $250, and $500 for 25%, 50% and 100% reduction in pain, respectively (Table 1) (p<0.05). Patients who had heard of PRP were willing to pay more for PRP (median $500 versus $200; Table 1); this was not statistically significant. There was no correlation between patients’ income and willingness to pay. Finally, regarding willingness to pay for a given percent reduction in pain, patients reported their top three motivators to be symptoms affecting their day-to-day life, desire to try non-surgical interventions, and desire to return to normal activity (Table 1). For patients who had not heard of PRP, after being informed of PRP these patients reported physician trust as the greatest motivator behind their willingness to pay (Table 1). Conclusions: This ongoing study demonstrates the correlation between willingness to pay and perceived effectiveness of PRP while also noting motivators to pay. Moreover, we were also able to demonstrate some differences between patients who had heard of PRP versus those that had not. These data may be further refined with ongoing enrollment and will provide important insights into patients’ knowledge and how this impacts decision-making in the context of PRP injections. [Table: see text]

Objective: Subsidence following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) may lead to disruptions of cervical alignment and lordosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of subsidence on segmental, regional, and global lordosis.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study performed between 2016–2021 at a single institution. All measurements were performed using lateral cervical radiographs at the immediate postoperative period and at final follow-up greater than 6 months after surgery. Associations between subsidence and segmental lordosis, total fused lordosis, C2–7 lordosis, and cervical sagittal vertical alignment change were determined using Pearson correlation and multivariate logistic regression analyses.Results: One hundred thirty-one patients and 244 levels were included in the study. There were 41 one-level fusions, 67 two-level fusions, and 23 three-level fusions. The median follow-up time was 366 days (interquartile range, 239–566 days). Segmental subsidence was significantly negatively associated with segmental lordosis change in the Pearson (r = -0.154, p = 0.016) and multivariate analyses (beta = -3.78; 95% confidence interval, -7.15 to -0.42; p = 0.028) but no associations between segmental or total fused subsidence and any other measures of cervical alignment were observed.Conclusion: We found that subsidence is associated with segmental lordosis loss 6 months following ACDF. Surgeons should minimize subsidence to prevent long-term clinical symptoms associated with poor cervical alignment.

Study Design: Retrospective database study. Objectives: The goal of this study was to assess the influence of weekend admission on patients undergoing elective thoracolumbar spinal fusion by investigating hospital readmission outcomes and analyzing differences in demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative factors. Methods: The 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify adult patients who underwent elective thoracolumbar spinal fusion. The sample was divided into weekday and weekend admission patients. Demographics, comorbidities, complications, and discharge status data were compiled. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 90-day readmission. Univariate logistic regression analyzed the relationship between weekday or weekend admission and 30- or 90-day readmission, and multivariate regression determined the impact of covariates. Results: 177,847 patients were identified in total, with 176,842 in the weekday cohort and 1005 in the weekend cohort. Multivariate regression analysis found that 30-day readmissions were significantly greater for the weekend cohort after adjusting for sex, age, Medicare or Medicaid status, and comorbidity status (OR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.60-2.48; P < .001), and 90-day readmissions were also greater for the weekend cohort after adjustment (OR 2.01, 95% CI: 1.68-2.40, P < .001). Conclusions: Patients undergoing elective thoracolumbar spinal fusion surgery who are initially admitted on weekends are more likely to experience hospital readmission. These patients have increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis, postoperative infection, and non-routine discharge status. These factors are potential areas of focus for reducing the impact of the “weekend effect” and improving outcomes for elective thoracolumbar spinal fusion.