Improving the outcomes of foot and ankle surgery. Professional impact of the Australasian College of Podiatric Surgeons' audit tool

Background: Digital nerve block (DB) is a commonly utilized anesthetic procedure in ingrown toenail surgery. However, severe procedure-related pain has been reported. Although the popliteal sciatic nerve block (PB) is widely accepted in foot and ankle surgery, its use in ingrown toenail surgery has not been reported. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of PB in the surgical treatment of ingrown toenails. Methods: One-hundred-ten patients surgically treated for an ingrown toenail were enrolled. Sixty-six patients underwent DB, and 44 underwent PB. PB was performed under ultrasound-guidance via a 22-gauge needle with 15 mL of 1% lidocaine in the popliteal region. The visual analogue scale was used to assess pain at two-time points: pain with skin penetration and pain with the solution injection. Time to sensory block, duration of sensory block, need for additional injections, and adverse events were recorded. Results: PB group demonstrated significantly lower procedure-related pain than the DB group. Time to sensory block was significantly longer in the PB group (20.8 ± 4.6 versus 6.5 ± 1.6 minutes). The sensory block duration was significantly longer in the PB group (187.9 ± 22.0 versus 106.5 ± 19.1 minutes). Additional injections were required in 16 (24.2%) DB cases, while no additional injections were required in PB cases. Four adverse events occurred in the DB group and two in the PB group. Conclusion: PB was a less painful anesthetic procedure associated with a longer sensory block duration and fewer repeat injections compared with DB. The result of this study implicates that PB can be an alternative anesthetic option in the surgical treatment of ingrown toenails.

Download Full-text

Excess Opioid Disposal Following Orthopaedic Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Foot & Ankle Specialist ◽

10.1177/1938640020980921 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 193864002098092

Author(s):

Cornelia Keyser ◽

Abhiram Bhashyam ◽

Abdurrahman Abdurrob ◽

Jeremy T. Smith ◽

Eric Bluman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lower Extremity ◽

Orthopaedic Surgery ◽

Control Group ◽

Foot And Ankle ◽

Opioid Medication ◽

Ankle Surgery ◽

Randomized Control ◽

Level I ◽

To Receive ◽

Experimental Group

Background Previous research indicates low disposal rates of excess postoperative narcotics, leaving them available for diversion or abuse. This study examined the effect of introducing a portable disposal device on excess opiate opioid disposal rates after lower extremity orthopaedic surgery. Methods This was a single site randomized control trial within an outpatient orthopaedic clinic. All patients 18 years or older, undergoing outpatient foot and ankle surgery between December 1, 2017 and August 1, 2018 were eligible. Patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to receive standard opioid disposal instructions or a drug deactivation device at 2-week postoperative appointments. Participants completed an anonymous survey at 6-week postoperative appointments. Results Of the 75 patients surveyed, 68% (n = 26) of the experimental group and 56% (n = 21) of the control group had unused opioid medication. Of these, 84.6% of patients who were given Deterra Drug Deactivation System deactivation pouches safely disposed of excess medication, compared with 38% of controls (P = .003). When asked if they would use a disposal device for excess medication in the future, 97.4% (n = 37) of the experimental and 83.8% (n = 31) of the control group reported that they would. Conclusions Providing a portable disposal device with postoperative narcotic prescriptions may increase safe disposal rates of excess opioid medication following lower extremity orthopaedic surgery. Levels of Evidence Level I

Download Full-text

Medical Malpractice Trends in Foot and Ankle Surgery

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics ◽

10.1177/2473011420s00048 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. 2473011420S0004

Author(s):

Rishin J. Kadakia ◽

Keith Orland ◽

Akhil Sharma ◽

Jie Chen ◽

Craig C. Akoh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Medical Malpractice ◽

Orthopaedic Surgery ◽

Nonoperative Treatment ◽

Anatomical Location ◽

Foot And Ankle ◽

Common Complication ◽

Adult Females ◽

Forefoot Surgery ◽

Ankle Surgery ◽

Malpractice Claims

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Medical malpractice lawsuits can place significant economic and psychologic burden on a provider. Orthopaedic surgery is one of the most common subspecialties involved in malpractice claims. There is currently no study examining malpractice lawsuits within foot and ankle surgery. Accordingly, the purpose of this work is to examine trends in malpractice claims in foot and ankle surgery. Methods: The Westlaw legal database was queried for lawsuits pertaining to foot and ankle surgery from 2008 to 2018. Only cases involving medical malpractice were included for analysis. All available details pertaining to the cases were collected. This included plaintiff demographic and geographic data. Details regarding the cases were also collected such as anatomical location, pathology, complications, and case outcomes. Results: Forty nine malpractice lawsuits pertaining to foot and ankle were identified. Most plaintiffs in these cases were adult females, and the majority of cases occurred in the northeast (53.1%). The most common anatomical region involved in claims involved the forefoot (29%). The majority of these claims involved surgery (65%). Infection was the most common complication seen in claims (22%). The jury ruled in favor of the defendant surgeon in most cases (73%). Conclusion: This is the first study to examine trends in medical malpractice within foot and ankle surgery. Infection was the most frequent complication seen in claims and forefoot surgery was the most common anatomic location. A large portion of claims resulted after nonoperative treatment. A better understanding of the trends within malpractice claims is crucial to developing strategies for prevention.

Download Full-text

Incidence and Risk Factors of Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism Following Foot and Ankle Surgery

Foot & Ankle International ◽

10.1177/1071100718794851 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 40 (1) ◽

pp. 98-104 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Johanna Marie Richey ◽

Miranda Lucia Ritterman Weintraub ◽

John M. Schuberth

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Hormone Replacement ◽

Case Series ◽

Foot And Ankle ◽

Retrospective Case ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Ankle Surgery ◽

History Of ◽

Low Incidence ◽

Predictive Risk

Background: The incidence rate of venous thrombotic events (VTEs) following foot and ankle surgery is low. Currently, there is no consensus regarding postoperative prophylaxis or evidence to support risk stratification. Methods: A 2-part study assessing the incidence and factors for the development of VTE was conducted: (1) a retrospective observational cohort study of 22 486 adults to calculate the overall incidence following foot and/or ankle surgery from January 2008 to May 2011 and (2) a retrospective matched case-control study to identify risk factors for development of VTE postsurgery. One control per VTE case matched on age and sex was randomly selected from the remaining patients. Results: The overall incidence of VTE was 0.9%. Predictive risk factors in bivariate analyses included obesity, history of VTE, history of trauma, use of hormonal replacement or oral contraception therapy, anatomic location of surgery, procedure duration 60 minutes or more, general anesthesia, postoperative nonweightbearing immobilization greater than 2 weeks, and use of anticoagulation. When significant variables from bivariate analyses were placed into the multivariable regression model, 4 remained statistically significant: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for obesity, 6.1; history of VTE, 15.7; use of hormone replacement therapy, 8.9; and postoperative nonweightbearing immobilization greater than 2 weeks, 9.0. The risk of VTE increased significantly with 3 or more risk factors ( P = .001). Conclusion: The overall low incidence of VTE following foot and ankle surgery does not support routine prophylaxis for all patients. Among patients with 3 or more risk factors, the use of chemoprophylaxis may be warranted. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective case series.

Download Full-text