Endoscopic Rhizotomy for Facetogenic Back Pain: A Review of the History, Financial Considerations, Patient Selection Criteria, and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chronic back pain (CBP) is a condition that places a considerable burden on society, with several million people affected in the United States alone. Treatment options to address this problem and relieve CBP are constantly evolving, and one of the most promising treatment modalities for CBP that is refractory to conservative treatment options is endoscopic rhizotomy (ER). METHODS: A thorough search of the PubMed (MEDLINE) database was conducted to assess the full progression of ER from its earliest uses to present day in a historical narrative review of ER, with treatment of facetogenic pain as a model pathology. RESULTS: ER allows for direct visualization and ablation of sensory branches of the dorsal ramus to provide pain relief in up to 80% of patients faced with refractory CBP. This technique has been built upon since the early 20th century, and the novel endoscopic approach continues to gain popularity among physicians. Benefits of ER include superior postoperative median pain-free duration compared with traditional percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, as well as direct visualization of regional anatomy. Patient selection criteria for the procedure and a modest list of contraindications allow the use of ER as a viable treatment option for a significant population of patients suffering from CBP. Potential barriers to ER include high cost of the procedure, longer intraoperative time, and expensive proprietary equipment. CONCLUSIONS: ER is an effective treatment for refractory CBP with notable advantages. As the technology and popularity of this procedure progress, improvements in the cost, training, and intraoperative time may make it a favorable alternative to the current standard of care.

Financial Implications of Early Hospital Discharge After AML-Like Induction Chemotherapy: A 4-Year Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early hospital discharge (EHD) after intensive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) induction chemotherapy has become routine at the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance over the past several years. We assessed the financial implications of EHD over the first 4 years after its broad adoption for patients with AML and other high-grade myeloid neoplasms undergoing AML-like induction chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared charges between 189 patients with EHD who received all postinduction inpatient/outpatient care within our care system between August 2014 and July 2018 and 139 medically matched control patients who remained hospitalized for logistical reasons. Charges from the day of initial discharge (patients with EHD) or end of chemotherapy (control patients) until blood count recovery, additional chemotherapy or care transition, hospital discharge (for control patients only), an elapse of 42 days, or death were extracted from financial databases and separated into categories: facility/provider, emergency department, transfusions, laboratory, imaging, pharmacy, and miscellaneous. RESULTS: Combined charges averaged $4,157/day (range, $905-$13,119/day) for patients with EHD versus $9,248/day (range, $4,363-$48,522/day) for control patients (P<.001). The EHD cohort had lower mean facility/provider, transfusion, laboratory, and pharmacy charges but not imaging or miscellaneous charges. During readmissions, there was no statistically significant difference in daily inpatient charges between the EHD and control cohorts. After multivariable adjustment, average charges were $3,837/day lower for patients with EHD (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Together with previous data from our center showing that EHD is safe and associated with reduced healthcare resource utilization, this study further supports this care approach for AML and other high-grade myeloid neoplasms if infrastructure is available to enable close outpatient follow-up.

Improving the Consent Process in Foot and Ankle Surgery With the Use of Personalized Patient Literature.

A patient-specific letter was introduced to the consent process to observe the effect, if any, on information recall and satisfaction for patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery. The patients attending the clinic were written a personalized letter-this was a simple personalized letter that outlined their treatment options, the proposed management plan, likely treatment course, and the benefits, risks, and likely period required for recovery. The personalized letter system was compared with the 2 existing methods of consent process: signing for consent at their outpatient encounter at which they were scheduled for surgery and a separate consent clinic without the personalized letter. A total of 111 patients (87 females, 24 males) undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery were assessed on the day of surgery for recall of the procedure, risks, postoperative course, and satisfaction with the consent process. Patients receiving a personalized letter recalled more than those who had attended a routine preoperative consent clinic visit and significantly more than those who had provided consent at their last clinic visit. Patient satisfaction with the consent process was also greater in the personalized group. Our results suggest that the consent process is improved using routine preoperative consent clinics and, most notably, with patient-specific information to improve patient recall and satisfaction.