RESUMEN
Introduction: Improving public awareness about the opportunity to become a vascularized composite allograft (VCA) donor is crucial to increasing access to organs. Prior research identified a need for comprehensive and comprehensible public education materials. A 2-round Delphi panel was conducted to garner US expert consensus on the topics and language to include in public education materials via an organ procurement organization-hosted website. Methods: The round 1 survey assessed the importance of educational topics and statements (n = 19) using 5-point Likert scales. The round 2 survey asked experts to rate new and repeated educational topics (n = 27). Open-ended comment boxes elicited experts' feedback and language revisions for educational statements. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and rapid qualitative analysis. Findings: Eighteen experts responded to the round 1 survey and 15 to round 2. After round 2, 20 topics had mean (M) importance greater than neutral (M > 3.00) and were retained in the educational materials. The 5 most important topics by mean Likert ratings were: consent process for donation (M = 4.73), potential recipients (M = 4.73), most common vascularized composite organs transplanted (M = 4.47), purpose (M = 4.47), and definition (M = 4.47). Seven themes emerged from experts' open-ended comments about the importance and language of educational statements. Conclusions: Delphi panel findings identified expert-endorsed topics and educational statements for public education about vascularized composite organ donation via an educational website. Future research should assess the website's impact on public knowledge of VCA donation.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the extant literature describing the application of gene therapy to spinal fusion. METHODS: A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed. The search query was designed to include all published studies examining gene therapy approaches to promote spinal fusion. Approaches were classified as ex vivo (delivery of genetically modified cells) or in vivo (delivery of growth factors via vectors). The primary endpoint was fusion rate. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate the overall odds ratio (OR) of fusion using a gene therapy approach and overall fusion rate. Subgroup analyses of fusion rate were also performed for each gene therapy approach. RESULTS: Of 1179 results, 35 articles met criteria for inclusion (all preclinical), of which 26 utilized ex vivo approaches and 9 utilized in vivo approaches. Twenty-seven articles (431 animals) were included in the meta-analysis. Gene therapy use was associated with significantly higher fusion rates (OR 77; 95% confidence interval {CI}: [31, 192]; P < 0.001); ex vivo strategies had a greater effect (OR 136) relative to in vivo strategies (OR 18) (P = 0.017). The overall fusion rate using a gene therapy approach was 80% (95% CI: [62%, 93%]; P < 0.001); overall fusion rates were significantly higher in subjects treated with ex vivo compared to in vivo strategies (90% vs. 42%; P = 0.011). For both ex vivo and in vivo approaches, the effect of gene therapy on fusion was independent of animal model. CONCLUSIONS: Gene therapy may augment spinal fusion; however, future investigation in clinical populations is necessary.