Otolaryngology resident familiarity with surgical instruments and preoperative setup: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine otolaryngology (ORL) residents' ability to prepare the operating room independently for ORL surgical cases and their familiarity with ORL surgical instruments and related equipment. METHODS: A 24-question, one-time, anonymous survey was distributed to otolaryngology-head and neck surgery program directors for distribution among their residents in the United States in November 2022. Residents in every post-graduate year were surveyed. Spearman's ranked correlation and Mann-Whitney U test were used. RESULTS: The response rate among program directors was 9.5 % (11/116 programs), while the response rate among residents was 51.5 % (88/171 residents). A total of 88 survey responses were completed. 61 % of ORL residents who responded were able to name most instruments used in surgical cases. The most recognized surgical instruments by ORL residents were microdebrider (99 %) and alligator forceps (98 %); the least recognized were bellucci micro scissors (72 %) and pituitary forceps (52 %); and all instruments except the microdebrider showed significantly increased recognition with increasing post graduate training year (PGY), p ≤ 0.05. ORL residents were most able to set up independently the electrocautery (77 %) and laryngoscope suspension (73 %), while they were least able to set up the robot laser (6.8 %) and coblator (26 %) independently. All instruments showed significant positive correlations with increasing PGY; the strongest correlation was found in laryngoscope suspension, r = 0.74. 48 % of ORL residents reported that there were times when surgical techs and nurses were not available. Only 54 % of ORL residents reported being able to set up instruments when alone in the operating room, including 77.8 % of PGY-5 residents. Only 8 % of residents reported receiving education related to surgical instruments from their residency program, while 85 % thought that ORL residencies should have courses or educational materials about surgical instruments. CONCLUSION: ORL residents' familiarity with surgical instruments and preoperative setup improved throughout their training. However, specific instruments had much lower recognition than others and a lower ability for independent setup. Nearly half of ORL residents reported being unable to set up surgical instruments in the absence of surgical staff. Implementation of surgical instrument education may improve these deficiencies.

How Do Patients With Predominant Neck Pain Improve After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Radiculopathy?

BACKGROUND: The presence of predominant pain in the arm vs the neck as a predictor of postoperative outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been seldom reported; therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with predominant neck pain improve after surgery compared to patients with predominant arm pain or those with mixed symptoms in patients undergoing ACDF for radiculopathy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent ACDF at a single center from 2016 to 2018. Patients were split into groups based on preoperative neck and arm pain scores: neck (N) pain dominant group (visual analog scale [VAS] neck ≥ VAS arm by 1.0 point); neutral group (VAS neck < VAS arm by 1.0 point); or arm (A) pain dominant group (VAS arm ≥ VAS neck by 1.0 point), using a threshold difference of 1.0 point. Subsequently, individuals were substratified into 2 groups based on the arm to neck pain ratio (ANR): non-arm pain dominant defined as ANR ≤1.0 and arm pain dominant (APD) defined as ANR >1.0. Patient-reported outcome measurements including Neck Disability Index (NDI), Physical Component Score-12, and Mental Component Score (MCS-12) were compared between groups. RESULTS: No significant differences between groups when stratifying patients using a threshold difference of 1.0 point. When stratifying patients using the ANR, those in the APD group had significantly higher postoperative MCS-12 (P = 0.008) and NDI (P = 0.011) scores. In addition, the APD group showed a greater magnitude of improvement for MCS-12 and NDI scores (P = 0.043 and P = 0.038, respectively). Multiple linear regression showed that the A and the APD groups were both independent predictors of improvement in NDI. CONCLUSION: Patients with dominant arm pain showed significantly greater improvement in terms of MCS-12 and NDI scores compared to patients with dominant neck pain. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To compare the impact of ACDF on arm and neck pain in the context of cervical radiculopathy using patient-reported outcome measures as an objective measurement.

Do Patients with Back Pain-Dominant Symptoms Improve After Lumbar Surgery for Radiculopathy or Claudication?

BACKGROUND: Currently, few studies have examined whether patients with back or leg pain-predominant symptoms fare better clinically after lumbar spine surgery; therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with back pain-dominant symptoms improved to a similar degree as patients with mixed or leg pain-dominant symptoms after lumbar surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic center, in which patients were stratified into three groups: (1) back pain-dominant group (B) (visual analog score [VAS] back - VAS leg ≥ 1.0 point), (2) neutral group (N) (VAS back - VAS leg < 1.0 point), or (3) leg pain-dominant group (L) (VAS leg - VAS back ≥ 1.0 point), using a VAS threshold difference of 1.0 point. As a secondary analysis, the VAS leg-to-back pain (LBR) ratio was used to further stratify patients: (1) nonleg pain-dominant (NLPD) group (LBR ≤ 1.0) or (2) leg pain-dominant (LPD) group (LBR > 1.0). Patient outcomes, including physical component score of the short form-12 survey (PCS-12), mental component score of the short form-12 survey (MCS-12), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were identified and compared between groups using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative, or delta scores for PCS-12 or ODI scores between groups. In patients undergoing decompression surgery, those with back pain-dominant or mixed symptoms (B, N, or NLPD groups) did not improve with respect to MCS-12 scores after surgery (P > .05), and those with leg pain-dominant symptoms (LPD group) had greater delta MCS-12 scores (P = .046) and greater recovery rates (P = .035). Multiple linear regression did not find LPD to be an independent predictor of PCS-12 or ODI scores. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery and leg pain-dominant symptoms noted a greater improvement in MCS-12 scores; however, there were no differences in PCS-12 or ODI scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery demonstrate no major clinically significant differences when split up by pain-dominance groups.

Cerebrospinal fluid leaks secondary to dural tears: a review of etiology, clinical evaluation, and management.

OBJECTIVE: Damage to the dura mater often occurs in trauma cases of the head and spine, surgical procedures, lumbar punctures, and meningeal diseases. The resulting damage from dural tears, or durotomy, causes cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to leak out into the surrounding space. The CSF leak induces intracranial hypotension, which can clinically present with a range of symptoms not limited to positional headaches which can confound accurate diagnosis. Current methods of evaluation and management of dural tears are discussed herewith, as well as the present understanding of its etiology, which may be classified as related to surgery, procedure, trauma, or connective tissue disorder. METHODS: We piloted a MEDLINE® database search of literature, with emphasis on the previous five years, combining keywords such as "cerebrospinal fluid leak," "surgery," "procedure," and "trauma" to yield original research articles and case reports for building a clinical profile. RESULTS: Patients with suspected dural tears should be evaluated based on criteria set by the International Headache Society, radiological findings, and a differential diagnosis to accurately identify the tear and its potential secondary complications. Afflicted patients may be treated promptly with epidural blood patches, epidural infusions, epidural fibrin glue, or surgical repair. At this time, epidural blood patches are the first line of treatment. Dural tears can be prevented to an extent by utilizing minimally invasive techniques and certain positions for lumbar puncture. Surgical, trauma, lumbar puncture, and epidural injection patients should be observed very carefully for dural tears and CSF leaks as the presenting clinical manifestations can be highly individualized and misguiding. CONCLUSION: Because studies have demonstrated a high frequency of dural tears, particularly in spinal surgery patients, there is a need for prospective studies so that clinicians can develop an elaborate prevention strategy and response to avoid serious, unseen complications.

Neuro-urological sequelae of lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: Lumbar spinal stenosis is characterized by the narrowing of the spinal canal, which subsequently induces impingement of neural elements in the lumbar spine. Thus, symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis are typically associated with damage to those neural elements. Herewith, we target the genitourinary symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis and the importance of differentiating these symptoms from other genitourinary pathologies, namely benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MeSH and keywords relevant to lumbar spinal stenosis and the organs of the urinary tract were used to a guide a literature search on MEDLINE. RESULTS: Bladder dysfunction, lower urinary tract symptoms (e.g. urinary incontinence, detrusor overactivity and underactivity, as well as frequent urinary tract infections), renal osteodystrophy and sexual dysfunction (e.g. erectile dysfunction and priapism) are implicated in lumbar spinal stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative for urologists to conduct a thorough history and physical examination so that they will not misdiagnose secondary genitourinary manifestations of lumbar spinal stenosis as primary problems or misunderstand secondary problems. Urological consultations are also integral to prioritizing patients with the highest risk of bladder damage for corrective spinal surgery.