RESUMO
Sarcomas are commonly misdiagnosed, and treatment delays negatively impact patient outcomes. The purpose of this study is to explore patient threshold for and timeline to medical evaluation, to identify providers most likely to be contacted first, and to assess general sarcoma knowledge in Minnesota's general population. Voluntary participants were recruited at the 2015 and 2022 Minnesota State Fair to complete a three-part survey. Part 1 assessed evaluation timeline and provider choice, part 2 evaluated sarcoma knowledge via a ten-question survey, and part 3 documented demographics. Responses were electronically recorded, and results were tabulated. Overall, 2124 participants completed some or all of the survey. Part 1: Participants indicated they would seek more urgent treatment for a painful mass compared to a non-painful mass (p < 0.001). The majority (77%) of participants indicated a family medicine physician would be their first contact for painful and non-painful masses. Part 2: There was no difference in overall score (percent correct) when comparing results from 2015 (mean = 40%) to 2022 (mean = 42%) (p = 0.183). Overall, 16% (349/2117) of participants had no correct responses. Individuals who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and a non-White race performed worse (p < 0.001). In general, scores improved with increased education and those with a graduate or professional degree had an estimated 2.515-point increase in score compared to participants with some high school education or high school diploma/general education diploma (p < 0.001). Participants with a healthcare background scored better (p < 0.001). Pain is a driving factor for patient-initiated evaluation, and primary care providers are the most likely first contact for patients. General sarcoma awareness remains low, even among those with advanced degrees and healthcare experience. Ongoing educational efforts are warranted for both the general public and healthcare communities in Minnesota.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To describe the incidence of reoperation and factors contributing to surgical revision within a minimum of 10 years after spinal fusion for scoliosis in patients with nonambulatory cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive nonambulatory patients with CP who underwent primary spinal fusion at a single specialty care center with a minimum of 10 years from their index surgery (surgery dates 2001-2011). Causes of reoperation were classified as implant failure/pseudoarthrosis, surgical site infection (SSI), proximal junctional kyphosis, prominent/symptomatic implants, and implant removal. Reoperation rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each time interval, and an actuarial survival curve was generated. RESULTS: 144 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age = 14.3 ± 2.6 years, 62.5% male); 85.4% had 5 years follow-up data; and 66.0% had 10 years follow-up data. Estimates from the actuarial analysis suggest that 14.9% (95% CI: 10.0-22.0) underwent reoperation by 5 years postsurgery, and 21.7% (95% CI: 15.4-30.1) underwent reoperation by 10 years postsurgery. The most common causes for reoperation were implant failure/pseudoarthrosis, SSI, and prominent/symptomatic implants. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the largest long-term follow-up of nonambulatory patients with CP and neuromuscular scoliosis who underwent spinal fusion. Approximately 22% of these patients required reoperation 10 years after their index surgery, primarily due to implant failure/pseudoarthrosis, SSI, and prominent/symptomatic implants. Complications and reoperations continued throughout the 10 years period after index surgery, reinforcing the need for long-term follow-up as these patients transition into adulthood. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.