Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza-Associated Urgent Care, Emergency Department, and Hospital Encounters During the 2021-2022 Season, VISION Network.

BACKGROUND: Following historically low influenza activity during the 2020-2021 season, the United States saw an increase in influenza circulating during the 2021-2022 season. Most viruses belonged to the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b 2a.2 subclade. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control analysis among adults ≥18 years of age at 3 sites within the VISION Network. Encounters included emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits or hospitalizations with ≥1 acute respiratory illness (ARI) discharge diagnosis codes and molecular testing for influenza. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated by comparing the odds of influenza vaccination ≥14 days before the encounter date between influenza-positive cases (type A) and influenza-negative and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-negative controls, applying inverse probability-to-be-vaccinated weights, and adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: In total, 86 732 ED/UC ARI-associated encounters (7696 [9%] cases) and 16 805 hospitalized ARI-associated encounters (649 [4%] cases) were included. VE against influenza-associated ED/UC encounters was 25% (95% confidence interval (CI), 20%-29%) and 25% (95% CI, 11%-37%) against influenza-associated hospitalizations. VE against ED/UC encounters was lower in adults ≥65 years of age (7%; 95% CI, -5% to 17%) or with immunocompromising conditions (4%; 95% CI, -45% to 36%). CONCLUSIONS: During an influenza A(H3N2)-predominant influenza season, modest VE was observed. These findings highlight the need for improved vaccines, particularly for A(H3N2) viruses that are historically associated with lower VE.

Protection From COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination and Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection Against COVID-19-Associated Encounters in Adults During Delta and Omicron Predominance.

BACKGROUND: Data assessing protection conferred from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta and Omicron predominance periods in the United States are limited. METHODS: This cohort study included persons ≥18 years who had ≥1 health care encounter across 4 health systems and had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 before 26 August 2021. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection defined the exposure. Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the Delta and Omicron periods; protection was calculated as (1-HR)×100%. RESULTS: Compared to unvaccinated and previously uninfected persons, during Delta predominance, protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was high for those 2- or 3-dose vaccinated and previously infected, 3-dose vaccinated alone, and prior infection alone (range, 91%-97%, with overlapping 95% confidence intervals [CIs]); during Omicron predominance, estimates were lower (range, 77%-90%). Protection against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters during Delta predominance was high for those exposure groups (range, 86%-93%); during Omicron predominance, protection remained high for those 3-dose vaccinated with or without a prior infection (76%; 95% CI = 67%-83% and 71%; 95% CI = 67%-73%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection.

Relationships Between Social Vulnerability and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Coverage and Vaccine Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage remains lower in communities with higher social vulnerability. Factors such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure risk and access to healthcare are often correlated with social vulnerability and may therefore contribute to a relationship between vulnerability and observed vaccine effectiveness (VE). Understanding whether these factors impact VE could contribute to our understanding of real-world VE. METHODS: We used electronic health record data from 7 health systems to assess vaccination coverage among patients with medically attended COVID-19-like illness. We then used a test-negative design to assess VE for 2- and 3-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) adult (≥18 years) vaccine recipients across Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) quartiles. SVI rankings were determined by geocoding patient addresses to census tracts; rankings were grouped into quartiles for analysis. RESULTS: In July 2021, primary series vaccination coverage was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (56% vs 36%, respectively). In February 2022, booster dose coverage among persons who had completed a primary series was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (43% vs 30%). VE among 2-dose and 3-dose recipients during the Delta and Omicron BA.1 periods of predominance was similar across SVI quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination coverage varied substantially by SVI. Differences in VE estimates by SVI were minimal across groups after adjusting for baseline patient factors. However, lower vaccination coverage among more socially vulnerable groups means that the burden of illness is still disproportionately borne by the most socially vulnerable populations.

The Impact of Community Health Information Exchange Usage on Time to Reutilization of Hospital Services.

PURPOSE: Few studies have determined whether clinician usage of a community health information exchange (HIE) directly improves patient care transitions. We hypothesized that lookup in the HIE by primary care physicians of patients recently released from the hospital would increase the time until hospital reuse. METHODS: We identified a retrospective cohort of 8,216 hospital inpatients aged over 18 years that were discharged from January 1, 2021 through November 30, 2021 using the Paso del Norte Health Information Exchange, in El Paso County, Texas. All patients had a primary care physician visit within 30 days after hospital discharge, and we identified patients that were looked up in the HIE close to that visit. Of the cohort, 2,627 were rehospitalized and 3,809 visited an emergency department (ED) during the follow-up window. The remaining 1,780 patients were controls. We conducted survival analysis, censoring at the second ED or inpatient visit or end of the study window (January 31, 2022). The model was adjusted by ethnicity, gender, insurance, and age. RESULTS: Lookup in the HIE was significantly associated with reducing the likelihood of visiting the ED by 53% and being rehospitalized by 61%. Lookup in the HIE was associated with an increased median time to use of the ED after inpatient discharge from 99 to 238 patient days. Ethnicity, insurance, gender, and age were also significant predictors of hospital reuse. CONCLUSIONS: Increased utilization of community HIEs by primary care physicians on behalf of their recently discharged patients may dramatically increase the time until inpatient or ED reuse.

Effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Doses Among Immunocompetent Adults During Periods when SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 Sublineages Predominated - VISION Network, 10 States, December 2021-June 2022.

The Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first identified in the United States in November 2021, with the BA.1 sublineage (including BA.1.1) causing the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to date. Omicron sublineages BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 emerged later and by late April 2022, accounted for most cases.* Estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) can be reduced by newly emerging variants or sublineages that evade vaccine-induced immunity (1), protection from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated persons (2), or increasing time since vaccination (3). Real-world data comparing VE during the periods when the BA.1 and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominated (BA.1 period and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period, respectively) are limited. The VISION network† examined 214,487 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and 58,782 hospitalizations with a COVID-19-like illness§ diagnosis among 10 states during December 18, 2021-June 10, 2022, to evaluate VE of 2, 3, and 4 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) compared with no vaccination among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization 7-119 days and ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 92% (95% CI = 91%-93%) and 85% (95% CI = 81%-89%), respectively, during the BA.1 period, compared with 69% (95% CI = 58%-76%) and 52% (95% CI = 44%-59%), respectively, during the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period. Patterns were similar for ED/UC encounters. Among adults aged ≥50 years, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 55% (95% CI = 46%-62%) and ≥7 days (median = 27 days) after a fourth dose was 80% (95% CI = 71%-85%) during BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominance. Immunocompetent persons should receive recommended COVID-19 booster doses to prevent moderate to severe COVID-19, including a first booster dose for all eligible persons and second booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years at least 4 months after an initial booster dose. Booster doses should be obtained immediately when persons become eligible.¶.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations Among Immunocompromised Adults During SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Predominance - VISION Network, 10 States, December 2021-August 2022.

Persons with moderate-to-severe immunocompromising conditions might have reduced protection after COVID-19 vaccination, compared with persons without immunocompromising conditions (1-3). On August 13, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that adults with immunocompromising conditions receive an expanded primary series of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. ACIP followed with recommendations on September 23, 2021, for a fourth (booster) dose and on September 1, 2022, for a new bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, containing components of the BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant (4). Data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of monovalent COVID-19 vaccines among persons with immunocompromising conditions since the emergence of the Omicron variant in December 2021 are limited. In the multistate VISION Network,§ monovalent 2-, 3-, and 4-dose mRNA VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization were estimated among adults with immunocompromising conditions¶ hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness,** using a test-negative design comparing odds of previous vaccination among persons with a positive or negative molecular test result (case-patients and control-patients) for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). During December 16, 2021-August 20, 2022, among SARS-CoV-2 test-positive case-patients, 1,815 (36.3%), 1,387 (27.7%), 1,552 (31.0%), and 251 (5.0%) received 0, 2, 3, and 4 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses, respectively. Among test-negative control-patients during this period, 6,928 (23.7%), 7,411 (25.4%), 12,734 (43.6%), and 2,142 (7.3%) received these respective doses. Overall, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization among adults with immunocompromising conditions hospitalized for COVID-like illness during Omicron predominance was 36% ≥14 days after dose 2, 69% 7-89 days after dose 3, and 44% ≥90 days after dose 3. Restricting the analysis to later periods when Omicron sublineages BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 were predominant and 3-dose recipients were eligible to receive a fourth dose, VE was 32% ≥90 days after dose 3 and 43% ≥7 days after dose 4. Protection offered by vaccination among persons with immunocompromising conditions during Omicron predominance was moderate even after a 3-dose monovalent primary series or booster dose. Given the incomplete protection against hospitalization afforded by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, persons with immunocompromising conditions might benefit from updated bivalent vaccine booster doses that target recently circulating Omicron sublineages, in line with ACIP recommendations. Further, additional protective recommendations for persons with immunocompromising conditions, including the use of prophylactic antibody therapy, early access to and use of antivirals, and enhanced nonpharmaceutical interventions such as well-fitting masks or respirators, should also be considered.

Number needed to vaccinate with a COVID-19 booster to prevent a COVID-19-associated hospitalization during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant predominance, December 2021-February 2022, VISION Network: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Understanding the usefulness of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses-particularly given varying disease incidence-is needed to support public health policy. We characterize the benefits of COVID-19 booster doses using number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department encounter. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of immunocompetent adults at five health systems in four U.S. states during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 predominance (December 2021-February 2022). Included patients completed a primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series and were either eligible to or received a booster dose. NNV were estimated using hazard ratios for each outcome (hospitalization and emergency department encounters), with results stratified by three 25-day periods and site. Findings: 1,285,032 patients contributed 938 hospitalizations and 2076 emergency department encounters. 555,729 (43.2%) patients were aged 18-49 years, 363,299 (28.3%) 50-64 years, and 366,004 (28.5%) ≥65 years. Most patients were female (n = 765,728, 59.6%), White (n = 990,224, 77.1%), and non-Hispanic (n = 1,063,964, 82.8%). 37.2% of patients received a booster and 62.8% received only two doses. Median estimated NNV to prevent one hospitalization was 205 (range 44-615) and NNV was lower across study periods for adults aged ≥65 years (110, 46, and 88, respectively) and those with underlying medical conditions (163, 69, and 131, respectively). Median estimated NNV to prevent one emergency department encounter was 156 (range 75-592). Interpretation: The number of patients needed to receive a booster dose was highly dependent on local disease incidence, outcome severity, and patient risk factors for moderate-to-severe disease. Funding: Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention though contract 75D30120C07986 to Westat, Inc. and contract 75D30120C07765 to Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.

Estimation of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness and COVID-19 Illness and Severity by Vaccination Status During Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 Sublineage Periods.

Importance: Recent SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant sublineages, including BA.4 and BA.5, may be associated with greater immune evasion and less protection against COVID-19 after vaccination. Objectives: To evaluate the estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 2, 3, or 4 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among immunocompetent adults during a period of BA.4 or BA.5 predominant circulation; and to evaluate the relative severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients across Omicron BA.1, BA.2 or BA.2.12.1, and BA.4 or BA.5 sublineage periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative case-control study was conducted in 10 states with data from emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalizations from December 16, 2021, to August 20, 2022. Participants included adults with COVID-19-like illness and molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2. Data were analyzed from August 2 to September 21, 2022. Exposures: mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were COVID-19 ED or UC encounters, hospitalizations, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital death. VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 was estimated, stratified by care setting and vaccine doses (2, 3, or 4 doses vs 0 doses as the reference group). Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, demographic and clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared across sublineage periods. Results: During the BA.4 and BA.5 predominant period, there were 82 229 eligible ED and UC encounters among patients with COVID-19-like illness (median [IQR] age, 51 [33-70] years; 49 682 [60.4%] female patients), and 19 114 patients (23.2%) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2; among 21 007 hospitalized patients (median [IQR] age, 71 [58-81] years; 11 209 [53.4%] female patients), 3583 (17.1 %) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2. Estimated VE against hospitalization was 25% (95% CI, 17%-32%) for receipt of 2 vaccine doses at 150 days or more after receipt, 68% (95% CI, 50%-80%) for a third dose 7 to 119 days after receipt, and 36% (95% CI, 29%-42%) for a third dose 120 days or more (median [IQR], 235 [204-262] days) after receipt. Among patients aged 65 years or older who had received a fourth vaccine dose, VE was 66% (95% CI, 53%-75%) at 7 to 59 days after vaccination and 57% (95% CI, 44%-66%) at 60 days or more (median [IQR], 88 [75-105] days) after vaccination. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, ICU admission or in-hospital death occurred in 21.4% of patients during the BA.1 period vs 14.7% during the BA.4 and BA.5 period (standardized mean difference: 0.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of COVID-19 vaccines and illness, VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 illness was lower with increasing time since last dose; estimated VE was higher after receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses compared with a primary series alone.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination in Children and Adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild to moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and adolescents through the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 period. METHODS: Using VISION Network records from April 2021 to September 2022, we conducted a test-negative, case-control study assessing VE against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters and hospitalizations using logistic regression, conditioned on month and site, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: We compared 9800 ED/UC cases with 70 232 controls, and 305 hospitalized cases with 2612 controls. During Delta, 2-dose VE against ED/UC encounters at 12 to 15 years was initially 93% (95% confidence interval 89 to 95), waning to 77% (69% to 84%) after ≥150 days. At ages 16 to 17, VE was initially 93% (86% to 97%), waning to 72% (63% to 79%) after ≥150 days. During Omicron, VE at ages 12 to 15 was initially 64% (44% to 77%), waning to 13% (3% to 23%) after ≥150 days; at ages 16 to 17 VE was 31% (10% to 47%) during days 60 to 149, waning to 7% (-8 to 20%) after 150 days. A monovalent booster increased VE to 54% (40% to 65%) at ages 12 to 15 and 46% (30% to 58%) at ages 16 to 17. At ages 5 to 11, 2-dose VE was 49% (33% to 61%) initially and 41% (29% to 51%) after 150 days. During Delta, VE against hospitalizations at ages 12 to 17 was high (>97%), and at ages 16 to 17 remained 98% (73% to 100%) beyond 150 days; during Omicron, hospitalizations were too infrequent to precisely estimate VE. CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 protected children and adolescents against mild to moderate and severe COVID-19. VE was lower during Omicron predominance including BA.4/BA.5, waned after dose 2 but increased after a monovalent booster. Children and adolescents should receive all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.

The value of community-integrated health information exchanges: three recent examples from El Paso, Texas.

The foundational role of health information exchanges (HIEs) is to facilitate communication between clinical partners in real time. Once this infrastructure for the secure and immediate flow of patient information is built, however, HIEs can benefit community public health and clinical care in myriad other ways that are in line with their mission, goals, patient privacy, and funding structures. We encourage the development of community-integrated HIEs and list specific steps that can be taken toward community integration. We give three examples of those steps in action from a community HIE in El Paso, TX. Each local partnership, in combination with technology innovation, resulted in the development of informatics tools to address community health needs and generated long-term benefits, especially for the most vulnerable patients. Two examples relate to different aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic and a third to the Afghan refugee evacuation.

Outcomes Analysis of Gynecologic Oncologic Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Defects resulting from gynecologic oncology resections can range from small external defects to total exenterations, requiring complex pelvic reconstruction. We aim to investigate the patient and surgical factors that influence complication rates, reoperation rates, and length of stay. We hypothesize that this patient cohort will have high complication and reoperation rates that are likely most affected by their medical and extirpative surgery factors, with less direct impact from their reconstructive surgery procedures. METHODS: All cases of reconstruction following resection of a gynecological oncology tumor at the University of Wisconsin Hospital over the last 14 years were reviewed. Forty-three patients were identified who required 66 flaps for reconstruction. RESULTS: Mean follow-up period was 19 months. Overall complication rate was 65% and reoperation rate was 33%. Plastic surgery flap-specific complication and reoperation rates were 47% and 19%, respectively, and were not significantly associated with any patient risk factors. Flap reconstruction subtype was not associated with time to complete healing, complication rate, or reoperation. Prior chemotherapy was significantly correlated with increased rate of overall complication (P = 0.0253) and reoperation (P = 0.0448), but prior radiation was not. Mean hospital stay was 11 days (SD ± 9 d). Factors found to be significantly associated with an increase in hospitalization length were increasing number of comorbidities (P = 0.021), exenteration defects (P = 0.0122), myocutaneous flap reconstruction (P = 0.0003), radiation (P = 0.0004), and chemotherapy P = 0.0035). CONCLUSION: This patient cohort has an overall high complication and reoperation rate; however, increasingly complex reconstruction is not associated with significant differences in complication rates or reoperation.

Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care.

BACKGROUND: Communication errors are the primary factor contributing to all types of sentinel events including those involving surgical patients. One type of communication error is mislabeled specimens. The extent to which these errors occur is poorly quantified. We designed a study to measure the incidence and type of specimen identification errors in the surgical patient population. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study that included all patients who underwent surgery in an outpatient clinic or hospital operating room and for whom a pathology specimen was sent to the laboratory. The study took place during a 6-month period (October 2004 to April 2005) at an urban, academic medical center. The study's main end-points were the incidence and type of specimen labeling errors in the hospital operating room and the outpatient clinic. The specimen was the unit of analysis. All specimens were screened for "identification errors," which, for the purposes of this study, were defined as any discrepancy between information on the specimen requisition form and the accompanying labeled specimen received in the laboratory. Errors were stratified by the type of identification error, source, location, and type of procedure. RESULTS: A total of 21,351 surgical specimens were included in the analysis. There were 91 (4.3/1000) surgical specimen identification errors (18, specimen not labeled; 16, empty container; 16, laterality incorrect; 14, incorrect tissue site; 11, incorrect patient; 9, no patient name; and 7, no tissue site). Identification errors occurred in 0.512% of specimens originating from an outpatient clinic (53/10,354 specimens) and 0.346% of specimens originating from an operating room (38/10,997 specimens). Procedures involving the breast were the most common type to involve an identification error (breast = 11, skin = 10, colon = 8); in addition, 59.3% (54/91) of errors were associated with a biopsy procedure. Follow-up was complete in all cases found to have an identification error. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical specimen identification errors are common and pose important risks to all patients. In our study, these events occurred in 4.3 per 1000 surgical specimens or an annualized rate of occurrence of 182 mislabeled specimens per year. Given the frequency with which these errors occur and their potential effect on patients, the rate of surgical specimen identification errors may be an important measure of patient safety. Strategies to reduce the rate of these errors should be a research priority.

Operating room briefings and wrong-site surgery.

BACKGROUND: Wrong-site surgery can be a catastrophic event for a patient, caregiver, and institution. Although communication breakdowns have been identified as the leading cause of wrong-site surgery, the efficacy of preventive strategies remains unknown. This study evaluated the impact of operating room briefings on coordination of care and risk for wrong-site surgery. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a case-based version of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) to operating room (OR) staff at an academic medical center, before and after initiation of an OR briefing program. Items questioned overall coordination and awareness of the surgical site. Response options ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). MANOVA was used to compare caregiver assessments before and after the implementation of briefings, and the percentage of OR staff agreeing or disagreeing with each question was reported. RESULTS: The prebriefing response rate was 85% (306 of 360 respondents), and the postbriefing response rate was 75% (116 of 154). Respondents included surgeons (34.9%), anesthesiologists (14.0%), and nurses (44.4%). Briefings were associated with caregiver perceptions of reduced risk for wrong-site surgery and improved collaboration [F (6,390)=10.15, p < 0.001]. Operating room caregiver assessments of briefing and wrong-site surgery issues improved for 5 of 6 items, eg, "Surgery and anesthesia worked together as a well-coordinated team" (67.9% agreed prebriefing, 91.5% agreed postbriefing, p < 0.0001), and "A preoperative discussion increased my awareness of the surgical site and side being operated on" (52.4% agreed prebriefing, 64.4% agreed postbriefing, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: OR briefings significantly reduce perceived risk for wrong-site surgery and improve perceived collaboration among OR personnel.

Seeing is Believing? Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pressure Ulcers: Implications for Surgical Management.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers represent a particularly difficult disease process and remain a financially important entity. The underlying bone in advanced ulcers may harbor osteomyelitis. Radiologic diagnosis of osteomyelitis is confounded by chronic pressure and shear. We sought to determine the test characteristics of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis compared to intraoperative bone culture. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing flap reconstruction who had preoperative MRI and intraoperative bone cultures between 1995 and 2015 was included. Recorded variables included age, sex, level of spinal cord injury and duration, preoperative MRI interpretation, microbiologic bone culture, smoking history, comorbidities, colostomy or urostomy, healing time, complications, length of stay, and discharge facility. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients (175 flaps) were reconstructed, of which 41 patients (73 flaps) met inclusion criteria. Most patients were male (82.2%) with an average age of 50.4 years. Overall complication rate was 32.4% (n = 23) of which 34.7% (n = 8) were major. Positive and negative predictive MRI values were 84.6% and 16.7%, respectively. There were no significant differences in healing time or complication rate in those with or without osteomyelitis. Intraoperative growth was associated with decreased postoperative complications (hazard ratio = 0.361; P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Test properties of MRI for diagnosis of osteomyelitis in patients with chronic pressure ulcers have limited ability to diagnose osteomyelitis and do not aid in surgical management, but do increase health-care expense. The diagnosis of osteomyelitis by intraoperative bone cultures does not predict inferior outcomes and paradoxically may be associated with fewer postoperative complications.

Quantitative Assessment of Tension Reduction at the Midline Closure During Abdominal Component Separation.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal component separation is used commonly for closure of midline abdominal wounds. The value of each step in reducing tension has not been studied. Our aim was to test whether component separation decreases tension in the midline closure and to quantify the value of each procedural step. STUDY DESIGN: Tension required to bring the rectus muscle to midline was measured using tensiometry after subcutaneous dissection (step 1), external oblique muscle release (step 2), separation of the internal and external oblique muscles (step 3), and internal oblique muscle release (step 4). Measurements were taken in the upper, middle, and lower thirds of the abdominal midline. Distance to midline was also measured after each surgical step. Tension (measured as percent change) and distance were analyzed using Student's t-test with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: In 41 hemi-abdominal defects, tension decreased in middle, upper, and lower thirds of the abdomen by 22.5%, 24.3%, and 34.8% after step 1; 33.4%, 31.8%, and 39.8% after step 2; 26.5%, 22.2%, and 27.4% after step 3; and 33.2%, 28.2%, and 23.5% after step 4. Mean distance change was 0.97 cm, 1.97 cm, 2.22 cm, and 2.59 cm after steps 1 to 4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows through a quantitative measure of tension that all steps of the component separation procedure decrease wound tension to variable degrees, with the release of the external and internal oblique muscles being the more effective steps. An internal oblique release is a useful and simple adjunct to the classical component separation procedure.

Strategies and Challenges in Simultaneous Augmentation Mastopexy.

Simultaneous breast augmentation and mastopexy is a common procedure often considered to be one of the most difficult cosmetic breast surgeries. One-stage augmentation mastopexy was initially described more than 50 years ago. The challenge lies in the fact that the surgery has multiple opposing goals: to increasing the volume of a breast, enhance the shape, and simultaneously decrease the skin envelope. Successful outcomes in augmentation can be expected with proper planning, technique, and patient education. This article focuses on common indications for simultaneous augmentation mastopexy, techniques for safe and effective combined procedures, challenges of the procedure, and potential complications.

Indications and outcomes for surgical treatment of patients with chronic migraine headaches caused by occipital neuralgia.

BACKGROUND: Occipital neuralgia is a headache syndrome characterized by paroxysmal headaches localizing to the posterior scalp. The critical diagnostic feature is symptomatic response to local anesthetic blockade of the greater or lesser occipital nerve. Further characterization is debated in the literature regarding the diagnosis and optimal management of this condition. The authors present the largest reported series of surgical neurolysis of the greater occipital nerve in the management of occipital neuralgia. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify 206 consecutive patients undergoing neurolysis of the greater or, less commonly, excision of the greater and/or lesser occipital nerves. A detailed description of the procedure is presented, as is the algorithm for patient selection and timing of surgery. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue pain scores and migraine headache indices were measured. Success was defined as a reduction in pain of 50 percent or greater. RESULTS: Of 206 patients, 190 underwent greater occipital nerve neurolysis (171 bilateral). Twelve patients underwent greater and lesser occipital nerve excision, whereas four underwent lesser occipital nerve excision alone. The authors found that 80.5 percent of patients experienced at least 50 percent pain relief and 43.4 percent of patients experienced complete relief of headache. Mean preoperative pain score was 7.9 +/- 1.4. Mean postoperative pain was 1.9 +/- 1.8. Minimum duration of follow-up was 12 months. There were two minor complications. CONCLUSION: Neurolysis of the greater occipital nerve appears to provide safe, durable pain relief in the majority of selected patients with chronic headaches caused by occipital neuralgia.