Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment During Post-operative Recovery: A Scoping Review.

Surgery is a common and often necessary treatment option for a wide range of medical conditions, with an estimated 40 to 50 million surgeries performed in the US alone each year. While the various types of surgeries performed may be effective in treating or managing different conditions, the post-operative period can be challenging for patients. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a hands-on approach to medical care that seeks to restore balance and harmony to the body from the lens of an interconnected mind, body, and spirit. Given the potential for adverse events in patients following surgical treatments, OMT may be a viable adjunct post-operatively to enhance patient care and recovery. The purpose of this scoping review is to evaluate the state of current research examining the effectiveness of OMT in improving outcomes in post-operative patients. Three hundred articles were collected; 53 duplicates were removed. Eleven independent reviewers evaluated all 247 articles. Thirty articles were identified, including nine in general surgery, six in cardiothoracic surgery, five in orthopedic surgery, four in spinal surgery, three in neurosurgery, and three others (otolaryngology, oral/maxillofacial, and gynecologic surgery). Post-operative patients were treated with various OMT techniques with myofascial release and muscle energy being some of the most common treatments utilized in all surgical fields. Many studies demonstrated the benefits of OMT usage including significant pain relief, improved and earlier bowel function, and decreased lengths of hospital stay. This study demonstrates how OMT can be effective in reducing post-operative pain, reducing the incidence of post-operative ileus, and shortening the length of stay. Further research into the utilization of OMT in post-operative patients should be considered a potential adjunct to surgical intervention, especially in vulnerable patient populations.

The Impact of Nonpharmacological Interventions on Patient Experience, Opioid Use, and Health Care Utilization in Adult Cardiac Surgery Patients: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite pharmacological treatments, patients undergoing cardiac surgery experience severe anxiety and pain, which adversely affect outcomes. Previous work examining pediatric and nonsurgical adult patients has documented the effectiveness of inexpensive, nonpharmacological techniques to reduce anxiety and pain as well as health care costs and length of hospitalization. However, the impact of nonpharmacological interventions administered by a dedicated comfort coach has not been evaluated in an adult surgical setting. OBJECTIVE: This trial aims to assess whether nonpharmacological interventions administered by a trained comfort coach affect patient experience, opioid use, and health care utilization compared with usual care in adult cardiac surgery patients. This study has 3 specific aims: assess the effect of a comfort coach on patient experience, measure differences in inpatient and outpatient opioid use and postoperative health care utilization, and qualitatively evaluate the comfort coach intervention. METHODS: To address these aims, we will perform a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 154 adult cardiac surgery patients at Michigan Medicine. Opioid-naive patients undergoing first-time, elective cardiac surgery via sternotomy will be randomized to undergo targeted interventions from a comfort coach (intervention) versus usual care (control). The individualized comfort coach interventions will be administered at 6 points: preoperative outpatient clinic, preoperative care unit on the day of surgery, extubation, chest tube removal, hospital discharge, and 30-day clinic follow-up. To address aim 1, we will examine the effect of a comfort coach on perioperative anxiety, self-reported pain, functional status, and patient satisfaction through validated surveys administered at preoperative outpatient clinic, discharge, 30-day follow-up, and 90-day follow-up. For aim 2, we will record inpatient opioid use and collect postdischarge opioid use and pain-related outcomes through an 11-item questionnaire administered at the 30-day follow-up. Hospital length of stay, readmission, number of days in an extended care facility, emergency room, urgent care, and an unplanned doctor's office visit will be recorded as the primary composite endpoint defined as total days spent at home within the first 30 days after surgery. For aim 3, we will perform semistructured interviews with patients in the intervention arm to understand the comfort coach intervention through a thematic analysis. RESULTS: This trial, funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation in 2019, is presently enrolling patients with anticipated manuscript submissions from our primary aims targeted for the end of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Data generated from this mixed methods study will highlight effective nonpharmacological techniques and support a multidisciplinary approach to perioperative care during the adult cardiac surgery patient experience. This study's findings may serve as the foundation for a subsequent multicenter trial and broader dissemination of these techniques to other types of surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04051021; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04051021. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21350.

Root abscess in the setting of infectious endocarditis: Short- and long-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of an aortic root abscess on perioperative outcomes and long-term survival in patients with active infectious endocarditis that was treated surgically. METHODS: From 1996 to 2017, 336 consecutive patients were treated with aortic valve or root replacement for infective endocarditis, including patients with (n = 179) or without (n = 157) a root abscess. Data were obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons data warehouse, through chart review, patient surveys, and National Death Index data. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between groups except the root abscess group had a significantly lower prevalence of congestive heart failure and higher rates of prosthetic valve endocarditis. The abscess group had significantly more aortic root replacements as well as longer cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times. Operative mortality was 8.4% and 3.8% (P = .11) for the abscess and no abscess groups, respectively. Nevertheless, the root-abscess group had prolonged ventilation and longer intensive care unit stays. Kaplan-Meier survival was similar between root abscess and no abscess groups (10-year survival 41% vs 43%; P = .35). Significant risk factors for all-time mortality included age greater than 70 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55, 5.24), the presence of a root abscess (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.96), intravenous drug use (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.13, 2.89), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.22, 2.42), renal failure requiring dialysis (HR, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.30, 4.64), liver disease (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.65, 5.60), and postoperative sepsis (HR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.30, 6.93). The 10-year rate of reoperation was also similar between groups (5.9% vs 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Thorough and extensive debridement is critical for successful treatment of active endocarditis with root abscess. Bioprosthetic stented and stentless valves are valid conduits to treat endocarditis with root abscess.