RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study seeks to evaluate the relationship between American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score and postoperative outcomes following TAA. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried from 2007 to 2020 to identify 2210 TAA patients. Patients were stratified into low (n = 1328; healthy/mild systemic disease) or high (n = 881; severe/life-threatening systemic disease) ASA score cohorts. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in complications, readmission, or reoperation rate based on ASA score. Increased ASA score was significantly associated with longer length of stay (low = 1.69 days, high = 1.98 days; p < .001) and higher rate of adverse discharge (low = 95.3 %, high = 87.4 %; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Higher ASA scores (3 and 4) were statically significantly associated with increased length of stay and non-home discharge disposition. These findings are valuable for physicians and patients to consider prior to TAA given the increased utilization of resources and cost associated with higher ASA scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate and synthesize the available literature related to platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment of knee pathologies and to provide recommendations to inform future research in the field. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were queried on October 6, 2023. All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Covidence for screening and data extraction. Studies were included if they were human studies published in English with adult cohorts that received PRP as a procedural injection or surgical augmentation for knee pathologies with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and level of evidence Levels I-IV. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,615 studies, of which 155 studies from 2006 to 2023 met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 9 months (±11.2 months). Most studies (75.5%) characterized the leukocyte content of PRP, although most studies (86%) did not use a comprehensive classification scheme. In addition, most studies were from Asia (50%) and Europe (32%) and were from a single center (96%). In terms of treatment, 74% of studies examined PRP as a procedural injection, whereas 26% examined PRP as an augmentation. Most studies (68%) examined treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Many studies (83%) documented significant improvements in PROMs, including 93% of Level III/IV evidence studies and 72% of Level I/II evidence studies, although most studies (70%) failed to include minimal clinically important difference values. The visual analog scale was the most-used PROM (58% of studies), whereas the Short Form Health Survey 36-item was the least-used PROM (5% of studies). CONCLUSIONS: Most published investigations of knee PRP are performed in Asia, investigate procedural injection for osteoarthritis, and show significant outcome improvements. In addition, this review highlights the need for better classification of PRP formulations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, scoping Review of level I-IV studies.
