RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Information about outcomes after revision rotator cuff repair (RCR) is limited. A more thorough investigation of pain, range of motion (ROM), strength, and functional outcomes is needed. Comparing outcomes between primary and revision rotator cuff repair patients can help surgeons guide patient expectations of the revision procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of a revision repair group to a control group of primary RCR patients. We expect revision RCR patients to have worse clinical outcomes than primary RCR patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent primary or revision RCR between 2012 to 2020 was performed. The case group included 104 revision patients, and the control group included 414 primary RCR patients. Patient visual analog score (VAS) for pain, ROM, strength, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant-Murley scores were collected at baseline, 12 months, 24 months, and final follow-up. RESULTS: The average final follow-up was 43.9 months for primary patients and 63.8 months for revision patients. 352 primary patients and 55 revision patients had a final follow-up of 2 or more years. By final follow-up, primary patients had less pain than revision patients (Δ of 2.11, P < .0001), but both groups improved overall. Primary patients had significant improvements in forward flexion, external rotation, internal rotation, and abduction at 2 years that were lost by final follow-up, but revision patients did not experience any long-term improvement in ROM. These differences in ROM between groups were not significant. Supraspinatus strength in the revision group did not improve nor decline by final follow-up. By final follow-up, both primary and revision patients had improved SST and ASES scores from baseline. Primary patient ASES scores were 17.9 points higher (P < .0001) than revision patients by final follow-up, and there was no difference between groups in SST scores at this time. CONCLUSION: Revision RCR significantly improves patient pain, SST score, and ASES score at 4 years. Revision patients should not expect to see the improvements in range of motion that may occur after primary repair.
RESUMO
Background: Tiered trauma team activation (TTA) allows systems to optimally allocate resources to an injured patient. Target undertriage and overtriage rates of <5% and <35% are difficult for centers to achieve, and performance variability exists. The objective of this study was to optimize and externally validate a previously developed hospital trauma triage prediction model to predict the need for emergent intervention in 6 hours (NEI-6), an indicator of need for a full TTA. Methods: The model was previously developed and internally validated using data from 31 US trauma centers. Data were collected prospectively at five sites using a mobile application which hosted the NEI-6 model. A weighted multiple logistic regression model was used to retrain and optimize the model using the original data set and a portion of data from one of the prospective sites. The remaining data from the five sites were designated for external validation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) were used to assess the validation cohort. Subanalyses were performed for age, race, and mechanism of injury. Results: 14 421 patients were included in the training data set and 2476 patients in the external validation data set across five sites. On validation, the model had an overall undertriage rate of 9.1% and overtriage rate of 53.7%, with an AUROC of 0.80 and an AUPRC of 0.63. Blunt injury had an undertriage rate of 8.8%, whereas penetrating injury had 31.2%. For those aged ≥65, the undertriage rate was 8.4%, and for Black or African American patients the undertriage rate was 7.7%. Conclusion: The optimized and externally validated NEI-6 model approaches the recommended undertriage and overtriage rates while significantly reducing variability of TTA across centers for blunt trauma patients. The model performs well for populations that traditionally have high rates of undertriage. Level of evidence: 2.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support effectively treats adult cardiogenic shock. Whereas cardiogenic shock confers high mortality, acute limb ischemia is a known complication of mechanical circulatory support that confers significant morbidity. We compared our novel approach to peripheral mechanical circulatory support with a conventional femoral approach, with a focus on the incidence of acute limb ischemia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients treated with mechanical circulatory support between January 1, 2015 and December 5, 2021 at our institution. Patients receiving any femoral peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were compared with those receiving minimally invasive, peripherally inserted, concomitant right and left ventricular assist devices. These included the Impella 5.0 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) left ventricular assist device and the ProtekDuo (LivaNova, London, UK) right ventricular assist device used concomitantly (Propella) approach. The primary outcome was incidence of acute limb ischemia. The baseline patient characteristics, hemodynamic data, and post-mechanical circulatory support outcomes were collected. Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test were used to estimate overall survival probabilities and survival experience, respectively. RESULTS: Fifty patients were treated with mechanical circulatory support at our institution for cardiogenic shock, with 13 patients supported with the novel Propella strategy and 37 with peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The baseline characteristics, including patient organ function and medical comorbidities, were similar among the groups. Nine patients suffered mortality in ≤48 hours of mechanical circulatory support initiation and were excluded. Twenty patients (69%) suffered acute limb ischemia in the peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation group; 0 patients receiving Propella suffered acute limb ischemia (P < .001). The percentages of patients surviving to discharge in peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Propella groups were 24% and 69%, respectively (P = .007). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with the Propella experienced a lower incidence of acute limb ischemia compared with patients treated with peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.