Performance of PROMIS for Healthy Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed as an extensive question bank with multiple health domains that could be utilized for computerized adaptive testing (CAT). In the present study, we investigated the use of the PROMIS Physical Function CAT (PROMIS PF CAT) in an otherwise healthy population scheduled to undergo surgery for meniscal injury with the hypotheses that (1) the PROMIS PF CAT would correlate strongly with patient-reported outcome instruments that measure physical function and would not correlate strongly with those that measure other health domains, (2) there would be no ceiling effects, and (3) the test burden would be significantly less than that of the traditional measures. METHODS: Patients scheduled to undergo meniscal surgery completed the PROMIS PF CAT, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Marx Knee Activity Rating Scale, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Correlations were defined as high (≥0.7), high-moderate (0.61 to 0.69), moderate (0.4 to 0.6), moderate-weak (0.31 to 0.39), or weak (≤0.3). If ≥15% respondents to a patient-reported outcome measure obtained the highest or lowest possible score, the instrument was determined to have a significant ceiling or floor effect. RESULTS: A total of 107 participants were analyzed. The PROMIS PF CAT had a high correlation with the SF-36 Physical Functioning (PF) (r = 0.82, p < 0.01) and KOOS Sport (r = 0.76, p < 0.01) scores; a high-moderate correlation with the KOOS Quality-of-Life (QOL) (r = 0.63, p < 0.01) and EQ-5D (r = 0.62, p < 0.01) instruments; and a moderate correlation with the SF-36 Pain (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), KOOS Symptoms (r = 0.57, p < 0.01), KOOS Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), and KOOS Pain (r = 0.60, p < 0.01) scores. The majority (89%) of the patients completed the PROMIS PF CAT after answering only 4 items. The PROMIS PF CAT had no floor or ceiling effects, with 0% of the participants achieving the lowest and highest score, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS PF CAT correlates strongly with currently used patient-reported outcome measures of physical function and demonstrates no ceiling effects for patients with meniscal injury requiring surgery. It may be a reasonable alternative to more burdensome patient-reported outcome measures.

Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on pain, pain sensitivity, and function in people with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is commonly used for the management of pain; however, its effects on several pain and function measures are unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of high-frequency TENS (HF-TENS) and low-frequency TENS (LF-TENS) on several outcome measures (pain at rest, movement-evoked pain, and pain sensitivity) in people with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: The study was a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: The setting was a tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five participants with knee osteoarthritis (29 men and 46 women; 31-94 years of age) were assessed. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive HF-TENS (100 Hz) (n=25), LF-TENS (4 Hz) (n=25), or placebo TENS (n=25) (pulse duration=100 microseconds; intensity=10% below motor threshold). MEASUREMENTS: The following measures were assessed before and after a single TENS treatment: cutaneous mechanical pain threshold, pressure pain threshold (PPT), heat pain threshold, heat temporal summation, Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG), and pain intensity at rest and during the TUG. A linear mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare differences before and after TENS and among groups (HF-TENS, LF-TENS, and placebo TENS). RESULTS: Compared with placebo TENS, HF-TENS and LF-TENS increased PPT at the knee; HF-TENS also increased PPT over the tibialis anterior muscle. There was no effect on the cutaneous mechanical pain threshold, heat pain threshold, or heat temporal summation. Pain at rest and during the TUG was significantly reduced by HF-TENS, LF-TENS, and placebo TENS. LIMITATIONS: This study tested only a single TENS treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both HF-TENS and LF-TENS increased PPT in people with knee osteoarthritis; placebo TENS had no significant effect on PPT. Cutaneous pain measures were unaffected by TENS. Subjective pain ratings at rest and during movement were similarly reduced by active TENS and placebo TENS, suggesting a strong placebo component of the effect of TENS.

Case report: successful treatment of acute exertional paraspinal compartment syndrome with hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

An NCAA football player developed an acute paraspinal compartment syndrome after a weight-lifting strain. The patient presented with myonecrosis (CK up to 77,400 U/L), and myoglobinuria. Treatment consisted of forced diuresis and six sessions in the hyperbaric oxygen chamber.

PEMF as treatment for delayed healing of foot and ankle arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: Arthrodesis is the most common surgical treatment for foot and ankle arthritis. In adults, these procedures are associated with a 5% to 10% rate of nonunion. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation was approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of delayed unions after long-bone fractures and joint arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to examine the results of PEMF treatment for delayed healing after foot and ankle arthrodesis. METHODS: Three hundred and thirty-four foot and ankle arthrodeses were done. Nineteen resulted in delayed unions that were treated with a protocol of immobilization, limited weightbearing, and PEMF stimulation for a median of 7 (range 5 to 27) months. All patients were followed clinically and radiographically. RESULTS: The use of PEMF, immobilization, and limited weightbearing to treat delayed union after foot and ankle arthrodesis was successful in 5 of 19 (26%) patients. Of the other 14 patients with nonunions, nine had revision surgery with autogenous grafting, continued immobilization, and PEMF stimulation. Seven of these eventually healed at a median of 5.5 (range 2 to 26) months and two did not heal. One patient had a below-knee amputation, and four refused further treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The protocol of PEMF, immobilization, and limited weightbearing had a relatively low success rate in this group of patients. We no longer use this protocol alone to treat delayed union after foot and ankle arthrodesis.