Evaluating Modern Spacer Options and Outcomes in Revision Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: A 2-stage revision continues to be the standard treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in hip arthroplasty. The use of "functional" spacers may allow patients to return to daily living while optimizing their health for revision surgery. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of different spacer types regarding infection eradication, mechanical complications, and functional outcomes. METHODS: Patients who have complete Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for diagnosis of PJI that underwent one-stage or 2-stage revision were queried in an institutional surgical database between 2002 and 2022. Out of 286 patients, 210 met our inclusion criteria and were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, laboratory values, functional and patient-reported outcomes, and subsequent revisions. The study population had 54.3% women, a mean age of 61 years old, and a mean follow-up of 3.7 ± 3.2 years. There was no difference between age, body mass index, or Charlson Comorbidity Index scores between each cohort. Spacers were categorized as nonfunctional static, nonfunctional articulating, or functional articulating. Functional spacers were defined as those that allowed full weight bearing with no restrictions. Delphi criteria were used to define revision success, and failure was defined as a recurrent or persistent infection following definitive surgery. RESULTS: There was a significantly lower reoperation rate after a definitive implant in the functional articulating cohort (P = .003), with a trending higher infection eradication rate and a lower rate of spacer failure compared to the nonfunctional spacer cohort. At 5 years, functional articulating spacers had a 94.1% survivorship rate, nonfunctional articulating spacers had an 81.2% survival rate, and nonfunctional static spacers had a 71.4% survival rate. In the functional articulating spacer cohort, 14.6% had yet to get reimplanted, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Within this large cohort of similar demographics, functional articulating spacers may result in better clinical outcomes and infection eradication during 2-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI.

Survey response rates in health sciences education research: A 10-year meta-analysis.

Growth in the online survey market may be increasing response burden and possibly jeopardizing higher response rates. This meta-analysis evaluated survey trends over one decade (2011-2020) to determine: (1) changes in survey publication rates over time, (2) changes in response rates over time, (3) typical response rates within health sciences education research, (4) the factors influencing survey completion levels, and (5) common gaps in survey methods and outcomes reporting. Study I estimated survey publication trends between 2011 and 2020 using articles published in the top three health sciences education research journals. Study II searched the anatomical sciences education literature across six databases and extracted study/survey features and survey response rates. Time plots and a proportional meta-analysis were performed. Per 2926 research articles, the annual estimated proportion of studies with survey methodologies has remained constant, with no linear trend (p > 0.050) over time (Study I). Study II reported a pooled absolute response rate of 67% (95% CI = 63.9-69.0) across 360 studies (k), totaling 115,526 distributed surveys. Despite response rate oscillations over time, no significant linear trend (p = 0.995) was detected. Neither survey length, incentives, sponsorship, nor population type affected absolute response rates (p ≥ 0.070). Only 35% (120 of 339) of studies utilizing a Likert scale reported evidence of survey validity. Survey response rates and the prevalence of studies with survey methodologies have remained stable with no linear trends over time. We recommend researchers strive for a typical absolute response rate of 67% or higher and clearly document evidence of survey validity for empirical studies.

Characterization of B-cell receptor clonality and immunoglobulin gene usage at multiple time points during active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Although monoclonal antibodies to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are known, B-cell receptor repertoire and its change in patients during coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) progression is underreported. We aimed to study this molecularly. We used immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGH) variable region (IGHV) spectratyping and next-generation sequencing of peripheral blood B-cell genomic DNA collected at multiple time points during disease evolution to study B-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in 14 individuals with acute COVID-19. We found a broad distribution of responding B-cell clones. The IGH gene usage was not significantly skewed but frequencies of individual IGH genes changed repeatedly. We found predominant usage of unmutated and low mutation-loaded IGHV rearrangements characterizing naïve and extrafollicular B cells among the majority of expanded peripheral B-cell clonal lineages at most tested time points in most patients. IGH rearrangement usage showed no apparent relation to anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers. Some patients demonstrated mono/oligoclonal populations carrying highly mutated IGHV rearrangements indicating antigen experience at some of the time points tested, including even before anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected. We present evidence demonstrating that the B-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 is individual and includes different lineages of B cells at various time points during COVID-19 progression.

Comparison of artificial intelligence versus real-time physician assessment of pulmonary edema with lung ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound can evaluate for pulmonary edema, but data suggest moderate inter-rater reliability among users. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a model to increase the accuracy of B line interpretation. Early data suggest a benefit among more novice users, but data are limited among average residency-trained physicians. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of AI versus real-time physician assessment for B lines. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of adult Emergency Department patients presenting with suspected pulmonary edema. We excluded patients with active COVID-19 or interstitial lung disease. A physician performed thoracic ultrasound using the 12-zone technique. The physician recorded a video clip in each zone and provided an interpretation of positive (≥3 B lines or a wide, dense B line) or negative (<3 B lines and the absence of a wide, dense B line) for pulmonary edema based upon the real-time assessment. A research assistant then utilized the AI program to analyze the same saved clip to determine if it was positive versus negative for pulmonary edema. The physician sonographer was blinded to this assessment. The video clips were then reviewed independently by two expert physician sonographers (ultrasound leaders with >10,000 prior ultrasound image reviews) who were blinded to the AI and initial determinations. The experts reviewed all discordant values and reached consensus on whether the field (i.e., the area of lung between two adjacent ribs) was positive or negative using the same criteria as defined above, which served as the gold standard. RESULTS: 71 patients were included in the study (56.3% female; mean BMI: 33.4 [95% CI 30.6-36.2]), with 88.3% (752/852) of lung fields being of adequate quality for assessment. Overall, 36.1% of lung fields were positive for pulmonary edema. The physician was 96.7% (95% CI 93.8%-98.5%) sensitive and 79.1% (95% CI 75.1%-82.6%) specific. The AI software was 95.6% (95% CI 92.4%-97.7%) sensitive and 64.1% (95% CI 59.8%-68.5%) specific. CONCLUSION: Both the physician and AI software were highly sensitive, though the physician was more specific. Future research should identify which factors are associated with increased diagnostic accuracy.