Factors associated with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in adults with short stature skeletal dysplasias.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous factors associate with health disparities. The extent to which such factors influence health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among adults with short stature skeletal dysplasias (SD) is unknown. In an effort to update and clarify knowledge about the HRQOL of adults with SD, this study aimed to quantify HRQOL scores relative to the American average and assess whether specific indicators are associated with lower scores. METHODS: Members (>18 years) of Little People of America were invited to complete an online survey assessing HRQOL using the SF-12 supplemented with indicator-specific questions. SF-12 components (Physical Component Summary, PCS; Mental Component Summary, MCS) were compared to the standardized national American mean. Scores were divided at the median to identify factors associated with lower scores using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender, race, education, and employment. RESULTS: A total of 189 surveys were completed. Mean and median PCS and MCS were below the national mean of 50 (p < 0.001). Advancing decade of age corresponded to a significant decline in PCS (p < 0.001) but not MCS (p = 0.366). Pain prevalence was high (79.4%); however, only 5.9% visited a pain specialist. Significant factors for lower PCS included age >40 years (p = 0.020), having spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia congenita (SED) or diastrophic dysplasia relative to achondroplasia (p = 0.023), pain (p < 0.001), and "partial" versus "full" health insurance coverage (p = 0.034). For MCS, significant factors included a lack of social support (p = 0.002) and being treated differently/feeling stigmatized by health care providers (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with SD face documented disparities and report lower HRQOL. Further research and interventions are needed to modify nuanced factors influencing these results and address the high prevalence of pain.

Variation in the use of MRI for cervical spine clearance: an opportunity to simultaneously improve clinical care and decrease cost.

BACKGROUND: For years, controversy has existed about the ideal approach for cervical spine clearance in obtunded, blunt trauma patients. However, recent national guidelines suggest that MRI is not necessary for collar clearance in these patients. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of national variation in the use of MRI and assess patient-specific and hospital-specific factors associated with the practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2012. We included blunt trauma patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to level 1 or 2 trauma centers (TCs), with a Glasgow Coma Scale <8, Abbreviated Injury Scale >3 for the head and mechanically ventilated for more than 72 hours. Multilevel modeling was used to identify patient-level and hospital-level factors associated with spine MRI use. RESULTS: 32 125 obtunded, blunt trauma patients treated at 395 unique TCs met our inclusion criteria. The mean proportion of patients who received MRI over the entire sample was 9.9%. The proportions of patients at each hospital who received a spine MRI ranged from 0.5% to 68.7%. Younger patients, with injuries from motor vehicle collisions and pedestrian injuries, were more likely to receive MRI. When controlling for other variables, Injury Severity Score (ISS) was not associated with MRI use. Hospitals in the Northeast, level 1 TCs and non-teaching hospitals were more likely to obtain MRIs in this patient population. CONCLUSION: After controlling for patient-level characteristics, variation remained in MRI use based on geography, trauma center level and teaching status. This evidence suggests that current national guidelines limiting the use of MRI for cervical spine evaluation following blunt trauma are not being followed consistently. This may be due to physicians not being up to date with best practice care, unavailability of locally adopted protocols in institutions or lack of consensus among clinical providers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Bariatric surgery improves knee function and not knee pain in the early postoperative period.

BACKGROUND: Obesity remains the strongest predictor of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Studies have reported improvement in knee pain and function post-bariatric surgery secondary to weight loss and reduced mechanical loading, yet others found increased rates of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in that patient population. To address this controversy, our study aimed to further assess the effect of surgically induced, "rapid" weight loss on knee pain and function. METHODS: Obese patients with chronic knee pain, who were undergoing bariatric surgery, were enrolled and surveyed preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. Our outcome measures were knee pain and knee function, assessed by a knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). The paired t test was used to compare pre- and postoperative KOOS scores. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to test the correlation between change in body mass index (BMI) with knee function, pain, and stiffness. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients was included in the study. The mean age was 35 years, with a mean preoperative BMI of 42.8. The mean difference in BMI at 3 months was 8.4 (SD3). There was a significant improvement in KOOS, - 23.2 (± 20) points, p < 0.01, most pronounced in knee function related to sport activities, with a difference of - 22.6 points, p < 0.01. Knee pain scores improved but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Surgically induced rapid weight loss significantly improved knee function, particularly related to sports. However, there was no change in knee pain. This may be related to increased high-impact knee exercises and reduced lean mass. Tailored exercise programs for bariatric surgery patients postoperatively, may improve symptoms and decrease the need for knee replacements in the long term.