Geospatial and Socioeconomic Disparities Influencing the Management of Craniosynostosis.

BACKGROUND: Various social determinants of health have been described as predictors of clinical outcomes for the craniosynostosis population. However, literature lacks a granular depiction of socioeconomic factors that impact these outcomes, and little is known about the relationship between patients' proximity to the care center and management of the condition. METHODS/DESIGN: This study retrospectively evaluated patients with craniosynostosis who presented to a tertiary children's hospital between 2000 and 2019. Outcomes of interest included age at presentation for surgery, incidence of reoperation, and length of follow-up. Patient addresses were geocoded and plotted on two separate shapefiles containing block group information within San Diego County. The shapefiles included percent parental educational attainment (bachelor's degree or higher) and median household income from 2010. The year 2010 was chosen for the shapefiles because it is the median year of data collection for this study. Multivariate linear, logistic, and polynomial regression models were used to analyze the relationship between geospatial and socioeconomic predictors and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were 574 patients with craniosynostosis included in this study. The mean ± SD Haversine distance from the patient's home coordinates to the hospital coordinates was 107.2 ± 321.2 miles. After adjusting for the suture fused and insurance coverage, there was a significant positive correlation between distance to the hospital and age at index surgery (P = 0.018). There was no correlation between distance and incidence of reoperation (P = 0.266) or distance and duration of follow-up (P = 0.369). Using the same statistical adjustments, lower parental percent educational attainment and lower median household income correlated with older age at index surgery (P = 0.008 and P = 0.0066, respectively) but were not correlated with reoperation (P = 0.986 and P = 0.813, respectively) or duration of follow-up (P = 0.107 and P = 0.984, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results offer evidence that living a greater distance from the hospital and socioeconomic disparities including parental education and median household income may serve as barriers to prompt recognition of diagnosis and timely care in this population. However, the geospatial and socioeconomic factors studied do not seem to hinder incidence of reoperation or length of follow-up, suggesting that, once care has been initiated, longitudinal outcomes may be less impacted.

A systematic review of morphine equivalent conversions in plastic surgery: Current methods and future directions.

INTRODUCTION: Protocols surrounding opioid reduction have become commonplace in plastic surgery to improve peri-operative outcomes. Within such protocols, opioid requirement is a frequently analyzed outcome. Though often examined, there is no literature standard conversion for morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at present, leading to questionable external validity. We hypothesized significant heterogeneity in MME reporting would exist within plastic surgery literature. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, the authors conducted a systematic review of 16 journals. Clinical studies focused on opioid reduction within plastic surgery were identified. Primary outcomes included reporting of morphine equivalents (ME) delivery (IV/oral), operative ME, inpatient ME, outpatient ME, timeline, and method of calculation. RESULTS: Among the 101 studies analyzed, 73% reported opioid requirements in the form of ME. Among those that used ME, 3% reported IV ME, 41% reported oral, 32% reported both, and 25% gave no indication of either. Operative ME were reported in 19% of studies. Furthermore, 54% of studies reported inpatient ME whereas 32% of studies reported outpatient ME. Only 19% reported the number of days opioids were consumed postoperatively. Moreover, 27% of the studies reported the actual method of ME conversion, with 17 unique methods described. Only 8 studies (8%) reported using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for ME conversion. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability among the reported ME conversion methodology within plastic surgery literature. Highlighting these discrepancies is an essential step in creating and implementing a single, standard method to mitigate opioid morbidity in plastic surgery and to optimize enhanced recovery protocols.