ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With the increased use of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to assess spine surgery outcomes, it is important to understand how patients interpret their health changes over time. The measurement of cognitive-appraisal processes enables the quantification of how individuals think about quality of life (QOL). This study examined how appraisal processes were associated with patients' views of their role in managing their health-patient activation. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study from August 2019 to January 2022 included 222 adults undergoing spine surgery for cervical (n = 107) and/or lumbar (n = 148) pathology at an academic medical center. PROMs assessed disability (Neck Disability Index for cervical or Oswestry Disability Index for lumbar) and mental health (PROMIS-29 v2.0), cognitive-appraisal processes (QOLAPv2-SF), and patient activation (Patient Activation Measure). ANOVA models were used to examine the relationships between QOL and cognitive appraisal processes before and after surgery, overall and stratified by patient-activation stage. Effect sizes facilitated interpretation. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in pain-related disability and mental health following surgery. Cognitive appraisal processes explained substantial amounts of variance, particularly with changes in mental health (45% before surgery, 75% at three months, and 63%, at 12-months after surgery). With respect to physical disability, less disability was associated with a lesser focus on negative aspects of QOL. Appraisal explained the most variance before surgery for high-activation patients. At 12-months post-surgery, however, appraisal explained the most variance for the low-activation patients. Appraisal explained similar amounts of variance in mental health at baseline and three-months post-surgery for all activation groups, but substantially more variance in the low-activation group at 12-months post-surgery. There were differences in the direction of appraisal-outcome associations by activation group in selected appraisal items/domains. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-appraisal processes demonstrate a significant relationship with QOL among spine surgery patients. These processes explain substantial variance in pain-related disability and mental health, especially among those high in activation before surgery and those low in activation at 12-months post-surgery. Our findings suggest that patients' ways of thinking about their health may be effective targets of motivational coaching, to help them become more engaged over the recovery trajectory.
Subject(s)
Cognition , Disability Evaluation , Mental Health , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Quality of Life , Humans , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Adult , Cognition/physiology , Longitudinal Studies , Aged , Patient Participation , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Cervical Vertebrae/surgeryABSTRACT
Background: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment. Methods: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022-July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022-May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023-May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents. Findings: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus). Interpretation: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Funding: No funding was received.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: A not uncommon finding following spine surgery is that many patients do not achieve mental health improvement up to population norms for their age cohort, despite improvement in pain and functioning. PURPOSE: This study examined how patients who were categorized as depressed versus not depressed think about health-related quality of life as assessed by cognitive-appraisal processes. It examined cross-sectional and longitudinal differences over 12 months postsurgery. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal cohort study with data collected at presurgery and at â¼3- and â¼12-months postsurgery from August 2013 to August 2023. PATIENT SAMPLE: We included 173 adults undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative spinal conditions at an academic medical center. The study sample was 47% female, with a mean age of 61 (SD=15.0), and a median level of education of college graduate. OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression was defined as a Mental Component Score (MCS)≤38 on the Rand-36, building on studies that equated MCS scores with significant depression as assessed by clinically validated depression scales. The Quality-of-Life Appraisal Profile assessed the cognitive-appraisal domains of Experience Sampling and Standards of Comparison. METHODS: The analysis focused on two comparisons: cross-sectionally comparing those who were not depressed (n=82) to those who were depressed (n=77) at baseline; and comparing longitudinal trajectories among those depressed before surgery and improved (n=54) versus did not improve (n=23). T-tests characterized group differences in appraisal endorsement; analysis of variance evaluated appraisal items in terms of explained variance; and Pearson correlation coefficients assessed direction of association in predicting mental health. RESULTS: There were presurgical and longitudinal differences in both cognitive appraisal domains. Before surgery, depressed patients were less likely than nondepressed patients to endorse emphasizing the positive; more likely to focus on worst moments, recent flare-ups, their spinal condition, and the future; and more likely to compare themselves to high aspirations (eg, perfect health). Over time, among those who were depressed before surgery, those who improved focused decreasingly on worst moments and on the time before their spinal condition, and increasingly on emphasizing the positive and balancing the positives/negatives. Appraisal explained more variance in mental health among those who did not improve as compared to those who did, at all timepoints. All appraisal items were more highly correlated with mental health among those who remained depressed as compared to those who improved, particularly over time. CONCLUSIONS: Endorsement of cognitive appraisal processes was different for depressed versus nondepressed spine-surgery patients before surgery and distinguished those who were depressed before surgery and improved versus those who did not improve. These findings suggest that targeted interventions could be beneficial for addressing mental health concerns during the spine surgery recovery trajectory. These interventions might use appraisal measures to identify patients likely to remain depressed after surgery, and then focus on helping these patients shift their focus and standards of comparison.
Subject(s)
Cognition , Depression , Lumbar Vertebrae , Mental Health , Quality of Life , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , Longitudinal Studies , Aged , Depression/psychology , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Cognition/physiology , Prospective Studies , Adult , Cross-Sectional StudiesABSTRACT
Spine surgery generally yields a notable improvement in patients' health state, and there is variability in measured patient outcomes after spine surgery. The present work aimed to describe for clinicians how appraisal underlies their patients' experience of healthcare interventions. This prospective longitudinal cohort study (n = 156) included adults undergoing spine surgery for degenerative spinal conditions. The analysis was a descriptive illustration of the relationship between change in the spine-related disability using the Oswestry Disability Index and change in cognitive-appraisal processes using the Quality-of-Life Appraisal Profilev2-Short Form, early versus later during the recovery trajectory (i.e., between baseline and 3 months post-surgery; and between 3 and 12 months post-surgery). Cognitive-appraisal processes related to Sampling of Experience showed greater change soon after surgery, whereas Standards of Comparison appraisals changed more later in the recovery trajectory. Different appraisal processes were emphasized by patients who reported worsening of the spine-related disability, as compared to those who reported no change or improvement. These findings suggest that changes in appraisal differ depending on the individual's experience of the impact of spine surgery. Appraisal processes thus reflect an ongoing dynamic in adaptation to changing function.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Bones are frequent sites of metastatic disease, observed in 30-75% of advanced cancer patients. Quality of life (QoL) is an important endpoint in studies evaluating the treatments of bone metastases (BM), and many patient-reported outcome tools are available. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compile a list of QoL issues relevant to BM and its interventions. The secondary objective was to identify common tools used to assess QoL in patients with BM, and the QoL issues they fail to address. METHODS: A search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between 1946 and 27 January 2023 with the keywords "bone metastases", "quality of life", and "patient reported outcomes". Specific QoL issues in original research studies and the QoL tools used were extracted. RESULTS: The review identified the QoL issues most prevalent to BM in the literature. Physical and functional issues observed in patients included pain, interference with ambulation and daily activities, and fatigue. Psychological symptoms, such as helplessness, depression, and anxiety were also common. These issues interfered with patients' relationships and social activities. Items not mentioned in existing QoL tools were related to newer treatments of BM, such as pain flare, flu-like symptoms, and jaw pain due to osteonecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights that QoL issues for patients with BM have expanded over time due to advances in BM-directed treatments. If they are relevant, additional treatment-related QoL issues identified need to be validated prospectively by patients and added to current assessment tools.
Subject(s)
Bone Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Humans , Bone Neoplasms/secondary , Emotions , Anxiety/therapy , Pain/etiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The then-test, also known as the retrospective pre- and post-test design method, is a measurement used to evaluate response shift. The method requires patients to assess their previous health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and provide a retrospective judgement based on their current perspectives. The then-test, however, has been criticized for its reliability and validity. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the current literature for the use of the then-test for evaluating HRQoL in cancer patients and account for potential response shift effects. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in May 2022 using MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsychINFO dated from 2005 to the time of the search. Studies were included if they (I) used the then-test and (II) involved a population of cancer patients (any cancer site). RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 16 studies, published between 2005 and 2020. All studies used the then-test to detect response shifts. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 questionnaires were the most common assessments used to evaluate HRQoL. Of the 16 articles, 5 exclusively reported on breast cancer, 5 reported on prostate cancer, and the remaining included all cancer sites. Most studies looked at patients undergoing a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. The mean differences between the retrospective assessment at both 3 and 6 months were significant for various quality of life (QoL) dimensions. Patients in some studies recalled their pretreatment HRQoL (then-score) as better than the pretreatment baseline scores and others reported them as worse, both confirming the existence of a response shift. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrates that the then-test measurement tool has been commonly used for the detection of response shift. Newer measures for response shift have become more accepted; the then-test, if used, should be used with caution considering its limitations and the emergence of more advanced methods.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Male , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Purpose: STarT Back Screening Tool and OSPRO-YF scales have been reported to be accurate tools for estimating risk for the development of persistent pain or prolonged disability in primary care settings. We performed a comparison of construct convergent and known-group validity and ceiling floor effect (CFE) of these tools using a common sample of patients seen at a tertiary care spine centre. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of patients with and without a work-related back injury. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used as the reference outcome measure for convergent validity. For known-group validity, we examined the ability of the scales to differentiate between different levels of compensation, presence of non-organic signs, and work status. The CFE values were calculated. Results: Fifty consecutive injured workers were included along with 50 patients without an active compensation claim related to their low back pain. STarTBack and OSPRO-YF had moderate to high associations with the depression component of the HADS (0.69 to 0.77 respectively) with a statistically significant difference in favour of the OSPRO-YF. STarTBack's risk stratification categories were able to differentiate patients with a compensable injury, non-organic signs, and inability to work (p values ranging from 0.002 to < 0.001). The physical activity and work fear-avoidance beliefs constructs of the OSPRO-YF consistently outperformed other yellow flag constructs (p values ranging from 0.008 to < 0.001). The psychological sub-score of STarTBack showed a ceiling effect. There was a floor effect for the negative affect domain of OSPRO-YF. Neither total score had a floor or ceiling effect. Conclusions: STarTBack and OSPRO-YF are short screening tools with acceptable convergent and known-group construct validity and no floor or ceiling effect of their total score. Both tools could assist with the identification, evaluation, and management of psychological distress in patients presenting to tertiary care spine centres.
Objectif : l'outil de dépistage STarT Back et les échelles OSPRO-YF sont considérés comme des mécanismes précis pour estimer le risque d'apparition d'une douleur persistante ou d'une invalidité prolongée en soins primaires. Les chercheurs ont comparé la validité convergente de construit, la validité des groupes connus et l'effet plafond-plancher (EPP) de ces outils auprès d'un échantillon commun de patients suivis dans un centre tertiaire du rachis. Méthodologie : étude transversale de patients atteints ou non d'une blessure dorsale liée au travail. Les chercheurs ont utilisé l'échelle HADS (anxiété et dépression à l'hôpital) comme mesure de référence des résultats pour déterminer la validité convergente. Pour ce qui est de la validité des groupes connus, ils ont examiné la capacité des échelles à distinguer les divers taux d'indemnisation, la présence de signes non organiques et la situation d'emploi et ont calculé les valeurs de l'EPP. Résultats : cinquante (50) travailleurs blessés consécutifs ont participé à l'étude, de même que 50 patients n'ayant pas de réclamation d'indemnisation active liée à leur douleur lombaire. Les outils STarTBack et OSPRO-YF étaient dotés d'associations modérées à élevées avec l'élément « depression ¼ de l'échelle HADS (0,69 à 0,77. respectivement), et la différence en faveur de l'échelle OSPRO-YF était statistiquement significative. Les catégories de stratification du risque de l'outil STarTBack pouvaient distinguer les patients atteints d'une blessure justifiant une indemnisation, les signes non organiques et l'incapacité de travailler (valeurs p de 0,002 à < 0,001). Les construits de l'activité physique et des comportements d'appréhension ou d'évitement de l'échelle OSPRO-YF étaient constamment supérieurs aux autres construits de drapeau jaune (valeurs p de 0,008 à < 0,001). Le sous-score psychologique de l'outil STarTBack avait un effet plafond, tandis que le domaine d'affect négatif de l'échelle OSPRO-YF avait un effet plancher. Aucun des scores totaux n'avait d'effet plancher ou plafond. Conclusions : STarTBack et OSPRO-YF sont de courts outils de dépistage à la validité de construit convergente et de groupes connus et dont le score total n'a ni effet plancher ni effet plafond. Les deux outils pourraient contribuer à déterminer, à évaluer et à prendre en charge la détresse psychologique chez les parents qui consultent dans un centre tertiaire du rachis.
ABSTRACT
Sleep disturbances are common and may impact fracture risk directly by influencing bone turnover or indirectly through shared risk factors or mediators. To investigate the association between self-reported sleep disturbances across the menopausal transition (MT) and fractures, we prospectively studied 3101 women enrolled in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN). At each of 14 study visits spaced approximately 18 months apart, a standardized validated scale ascertained trouble falling asleep, waking up several times during the night, and waking up earlier than planned. Two time-varying exposures were modeled: presence of any of the three disturbances at least three times per week and waking up several times during the night at least three times per week. Base models adjusted for fixed (race/ethnicity, study site) and time-varying characteristics (age, body mass index, and MT stage). Fully adjusted models also included time-varying bone beneficial and detrimental medications, smoking, alcohol, physical activity, diabetes, depression and sleep medications, and depressive symptoms. Women who experienced a fracture were more likely to report a greater frequency of having trouble falling asleep, waking up several times, and/or waking up earlier: 35% versus 30% at baseline, p = 0.02. In the base models, women who had any of the three sleep disturbances at least three times per week had a higher risk of any fracture, odds ratio (OR) = 1.23 (95% confidence intervals, 1.02, 1.48) and nontraumatic fracture, OR = 1.36 (1.03, 1.80). These associations were largely attenuated to nonsignificance in the fully adjusted model. Sensitivity analyses limiting our sample to 2315 SWAN women enrolled in the bone mineral density (BMD) centers yielded similar results. Additional adjustment for femoral neck BMD had no effect on our results. In conclusion, self-reported sleep disturbances were associated with an increased risk of fractures, but these associations likely reflect shared risk factors or factors in the causal pathway. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Academic meetings serve as an opportunity to present and discuss novel ideas. Previous studies have identified factors predictive of publication without generating predictive models. Machine learning (ML) presents a novel tool capable of generating these models. As such, the objective of this study was to use ML models to predict subsequent publication of abstracts presented at a major surgical conference. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Database study. METHODS: All abstracts from the North American Spine Society (NASS) annual general meetings (AGM) from 2013-2015 were reviewed. The following information was extracted: number of authors, institution, location, conference category, subject category, study type, data collection methodology, human subject research, and FDA approval. Abstracts were then searched on the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases for publication. ML models were trained to predict whether the abstract would be published or not. Quality of models was determined by using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). The top ten most important factors were extracted from the most successful model during testing. RESULTS: A total of 1119 abstracts were presented, with 553 (49%) abstracts published. During training, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy metrics was the partial least squares (AUC of 0.77±0.05, accuracy of 75.5%±4.7%). During testing, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy was the random forest (AUC of 0.69, accuracy of 67%). The top ten features for the random forest model were (descending order): number of authors, year, conference category, subject category, human subjects research, continent, and data collection methodology. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study attempting to use ML to predict the publication of complete articles after abstract presentation at a major academic conference. Future studies should incorporate deep learning frameworks, cognitive/results-based variables and aim to apply this methodology to larger conferences across other fields of medicine to improve the quality of works presented.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare available computer-assisted navigation platforms by key performance metrics including pedicle screw placement accuracy, operative time, neurological complications, and blood loss. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using major databases for articles comparing pedicle screw accuracy of computer-assisted navigation to conventional (freehand or fluoroscopy) controls via post-operative computed tomography. Outcome data were extracted and pooled by random-effects model for analysis. RESULTS: All navigation platforms demonstrated significant reduction in risk of breach, with Stryker demonstrating the highest accuracy compared to controls (OR 0.16 95% CI 0.06 to 0.41, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) followed by Medtronic. There were no significant differences in accuracy or most surgical outcome measures between platforms; however, BrainLab demonstrated significantly faster operative time compared to Medtronic by 30 min (95% CI - 63.27 to - 2.47, P = 0.03, I2 = 74%). Together, there was significantly lower risk of major breach in the navigation group compared to controls (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.63, P < 0.0001, I2 = 56%). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing between platforms, Stryker demonstrated the highest accuracy, and Brainlab the shortest operative time, both followed by Medtronic. No significant difference was found between platforms regarding neurologic complications or blood loss. Overall, our results demonstrated a 60% reduction in risk of major breach utilizing computer-assisted navigation, coinciding with previous studies, and supporting its validity. This study is the first to directly compare available navigation platforms offering insight for further investigation and aiding in the institutional procurement of platforms. LEVEL 3 EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies.
Subject(s)
Pedicle Screws , Spinal Fusion , Surgery, Computer-Assisted , Humans , Benchmarking , Surgery, Computer-Assisted/methods , Spine/surgery , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Fluoroscopy/methods , Spinal Fusion/adverse effects , Spinal Fusion/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There is significant variability in minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria for lumbar spine surgery that suggests population and primary pathology specific thresholds may be required to help determine surgical success when using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate MCID thresholds for 3 commonly used PROMs after surgical intervention for each of 4 common lumbar spine pathologies. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Observational longitudinal study of patients from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) national registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing surgery from 2015 to 2018 for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS; n = 856), degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS; n = 591), disc herniation (DH; n = 520) or degenerative disc disease (DDD n = 185) were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMs were collected presurgery and 1-year postsurgery: the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg Numeric Pain Rating Scales (NPRS). At 1-year, patients reported whether they were 'Much better'/'Better'/'Same'/'Worse'/'Much worse' compared to before their surgery. Responses to this item were used as the anchor in analyses to determine surgical MCIDs for benefit ('Much better'/'Better') and substantial benefit ('Much better'). METHODS: MCIDs for absolute and percentage change for each of the 3 PROMs were estimated using a receiving operating curve (ROC) approach, with maximization of Youden's index as primary criterion. Area under the curve (AUC) estimates, sensitivity, specificity and correct classification rates were determined. All analyses were conducted separately by pathology group. RESULTS: MCIDs for ODI change ranged from -10.0 (DDD) to -16.9 (DH) for benefit, and -13.8 (LSS) to -22.0 (DS,DH) for substantial benefit. MCID for back and leg NPRS change were -2 to -3 for each group for benefit and -4.0 for substantial benefit for all groups on back NPRS. MCID estimates for percentage change varied by PROM and pathology group, ranging from -11.1% (ODI for DDD) to -50.0% (leg NPRS for DH) for benefit and from -40.0% (ODI for DDD) to -66.6% (leg NPRS for DH) for substantial benefit. Correct classification rates for all MCID thresholds ranged from 71% to 89% and were relatively lower for absolute vs percent change for those with high or low presurgical scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the use of generic MCID thresholds across pathologies in lumbar spine surgery is not recommended. For patients with relatively low or high presurgery PROM scores, MCIDs based on percentage change, rather than absolute change, appear generally preferable. These findings have applicability in clinical and research settings, and are important for future surgical prognostic work.
Subject(s)
Lumbar Vertebrae , Minimal Clinically Important Difference , Humans , Canada , Longitudinal Studies , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Registries , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite current best practices, pressure injuries (PI) remain a devastating and prevalent hospital-acquired complication for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs). This study examined associations between risk factors for PI development in patients with complete SCI, such as norepinephrine dose and duration, and other demographic factors or lesion characteristics. METHODS: This case-control study included adults with acute complete SCIs ASIA-A, who were admitted to a level-one trauma center between 2014-18. A retrospective review was implement using data on patient and injury characteristics, including age, gender, level of SCI (cervical vs. thoracic), Injury Severity Score (ISS), length of stay (LOS) and mortality; presence/absence of PI during their acute hospital stay; and treatment factors such as spinal surgery, mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets, and vasopressor treatment. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated associations with PI. RESULTS: Eighty-two out of 103 eligible patients had complete data, and 30 (37%) developed PIs. Patient and injury characteristics, including age (Mean: 50.6; SD:21.3), location of SCI (48 cervical, 59%) and ISS (Mean 33.1; SD:11.8), did not differ between PI and non-PI groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that male gender (OR:34.1; CI95:2.3-506.5, p = 0.010) and increased LOS (log-transformed; OR:20.5, CI95:2.8-149.9, p = 0.003) were associated with increased risk of PI. Having an order for a MAP > 80mmg (OR:0.05; CI95:0.01-0.30, p = 0.001) was associated with a reduced risk of PI. There were no significant associations between PI and duration of norepinephrine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Norepinephrine treatment parameters were not associated with development of PI, suggesting that MAP targets should be a focus for future investigations for SCI management. Increasing LOS should highlight the need for high-risk PI prevention and vigilance.
Subject(s)
Pressure Ulcer , Spinal Cord Injuries , Adult , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Case-Control Studies , Pressure Ulcer/epidemiology , Pressure Ulcer/etiology , Spinal Cord Injuries/epidemiology , Spinal Cord Injuries/therapy , Spinal Cord Injuries/complications , Norepinephrine , HospitalsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Self-administered methoxyflurane, also known as Penthrox, at a sub-anesthetic dose is a short-term, fast-acting, and safe analgesic that may provide suitable pain relief for cancer patients. This review aims to compile the existing evidence on methoxyflurane and its efficacy in reducing pain during cancer-related procedures. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through OVID Medline and Embase. The search was limited to articles published between 2012 and 2021 and studies were included if they assessed the efficacy of methoxyflurane to reduce pain in cancer-related procedures. All types of cancer were included. RESULTS: The literature search yielded seven studies published between 2012 and 2021. The studies analyzed assessed methoxyflurane use in prostate biopsy, colonoscopy, removal of brachytherapy rods, and bone marrow biopsy. Various research designs were employed, including three randomized controlled trials, two prospective observational studies, one retrospective, and one non-randomized controlled trial. In all, methoxyflurane has a demonstrated ability to reduce pain in these procedures. CONCLUSION: In the limited studies available in evaluating the efficacy of methoxyflurane for reducing procedural pain during cancer-related procedures, all have demonstrated clinical equivalency or superiority. Pain relief appears to be equivalent however methoxyflurane overcomes the standard limitations of respiratory sedation and has demonstrated quicker procedural recovery times than traditional sedation methods. The accumulated data to date supports the use of methoxyflurane which can supplement or supplant current methods of analgesia in cancer-related procedures.
Subject(s)
Anesthetics, Inhalation , Cancer Pain , Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Anesthetics, Inhalation/therapeutic use , Cancer Pain/drug therapy , Cancer Pain/etiology , Methoxyflurane/therapeutic use , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Observational Studies as Topic , Pain/drug therapy , Pain/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Controlled Clinical Trials as TopicSubject(s)
Low Back Pain , Spinal Diseases , Spinal Fusion , Humans , Low Back Pain/surgery , Sacroiliac Joint/surgery , Arthrodesis , BackABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between hysterectomy with and without ovarian conservation and the onset of ovarian failure using anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and imputed final menstrual period (FMP). METHODS: A total of 1,428 women with an observed FMP and 232 women who underwent hysterectomy (159 with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy [BSO], 13 with one ovary conserved, and 60 with both ovaries conserved) and who had serial AMH measurements were included from SWAN (The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation), a multi-ethnic, multi-site, community-based study. Anti-müllerian hormone levels were sampled annually with at least one presurgery or pre-FMP measurement at least one postsurgery or post-FMP measurement. Surgery-related differences in patterns of AMH levels with respect to surgery date or FMP were estimated using piecewise linear mixed modeling; differences in age at first undetectable AMH level were estimated using survival analyses. RESULTS: Patients with conservation of one or both ovaries or natural menopause demonstrated similar patterns of decline in AMH levels when anchored to surgery or FMP. Patients with hysterectomy (all types) had a later counterfactual FMP (52.9±0.2 SEM) compared with the observed FMP in those with natural menopause (52.1±0.1 years, P =.002). Those undergoing BSO had an immediate reduction in AMH level to undetectable after surgery. CONCLUSION: Hysterectomy does not lead to a more rapid decline in AMH levels postoperatively compared with natural menopause. Patients undergoing BSO have a rapid loss of AMH, consistent with complete removal of the ovaries. These data suggest that hysterectomy as currently performed does not compromise ovarian reserve.
Subject(s)
Anti-Mullerian Hormone , Menopause , Humans , Female , Ovariectomy , Hysterectomy/adverse effects , Hysterectomy/methods , OvaryABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Length of stay (LOS) is a contributor to costs and resource utilization. The primary goal of this study was to identify patient, clinical, surgical, and institutional variables that influence LOS after elective surgery for thoracolumbar degenerative pathology. The secondary objective was to examine variability in LOS and institutional strategies used to decrease LOS. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from a multicentric cohort enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) between January 2015 and October 2020 who underwent elective thoracolumbar surgery (discectomy [1 or 2 levels], laminectomy [1 or 2 levels], and posterior instrumented fusion [up to 5 levels]). Prolonged LOS was defined as LOS greater than the median. Logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with prolonged LOS for each procedure. A survey was sent to the principal investigators of the participating healthcare institutions to understand institutional practices that are used to decrease LOS. RESULTS: A total of 3700 patients were included (967 discectomies, 1094 laminectomies, and 1639 fusions). The median LOSs for discectomy, laminectomy, and fusion were 0.0 (IQR 1.0), 1.0 (IQR 2.0), and 4.0 (IQR 2.0) days, respectively. On multivariable analysis, predictors of prolonged LOS for discectomy were having more leg pain, higher Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, symptom duration more than 2 years, having undergone an open procedure, occurrence of an adverse event (AE), and treatment at an institution without protocols to reduce LOS (p < 0.05). Predictors of prolonged LOS for laminectomy were increased age, living alone, higher ODI scores, higher BMI, open procedures, longer operative time, AEs, and treatment at an institution without protocols to reduce LOS (p < 0.05). For posterior instrumented fusion, predictors of prolonged LOS were older age, living alone, more comorbidities, higher ODI scores, longer operative time, AEs, and treatment at an institution without protocols to reduce LOS (p < 0.05). The laminectomy group had the largest variability in LOS (SD 4.4 days, range 0-133 days). Three hundred fifty-four patients (22%) had an LOS above the 75th percentile. Ten institutions (53%) had either Enhanced Recovery After Surgery or standardized protocols in place. CONCLUSIONS: Among the factors identified in this study, worse baseline ODI scores, experiencing AEs, and treatment at an institution without protocols aimed at reducing LOS were predictive of prolonged LOS in all surgical groups. The laminectomy group had the largest variability in LOS.
Subject(s)
Lumbar Vertebrae , Spinal Fusion , Humans , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Length of Stay , Treatment Outcome , Spinal Fusion/methods , Canada/epidemiologyABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of minimally invasive (MIS) tubular discectomy in comparison to conventional open surgery among patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data that was prospectively collected. We implemented Minimum Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs), and we adjusted for potential confounders with multiple logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity (SAVES) protocol. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-nine (62%) patients underwent MIS tubular discectomy and 211 (38%) underwent conventional open discectomy. There were no significant differences between groups for improvement of leg pain and disability, but the MIS technique was associated with reduced odds of achieving the MCID for back pain (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99, P < 0.05). We identified statistically significant differences in favor of MIS for each of operating time (MIS mean (SD) 72.2 minutes (30.0) vs open 93.5 (40.9)), estimated blood loss (MIS 37.9 mL (36.7) vs open 76.8 (71.4)), length of stay in hospital (MIS 73% same-day discharge vs open 40%), rates of incidental durotomy (MIS 4% vs open 8%), and wound-related complications (MIS 3% vs open 9%); but not for overall rates of reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Open and MIS techniques yielded similar improvements of leg pain and disability at up to 12 months of follow-up, but MIS patients were less likely to experience improvement of associated back pain. Small differences favored MIS for operating time, blood loss, and adverse events but may have limited clinical importance.
ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) vs open surgery (OPEN) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with diabetes. METHODS: Patients with diabetes who underwent spinal decompression alone or with fusion for LSS within the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) database were included. MIS vs OPEN outcomes were compared for 2 cohorts: (1) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression alone (N = 116; MIS n = 58 and OPEN n = 58), (2) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression with fusion (N = 108; MIS n = 54 and OPEN n = 54). Modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI) and back and leg pain were compared at baseline, 6-18 weeks, and 1-year post-operation. The number of patients meeting minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or minimum pain/disability at 1-year was compared. RESULTS: MIS approaches had less blood loss (decompression alone difference 100 mL, P = .002; with fusion difference 244 mL, P < .001) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (decompression alone difference 1.2 days, P = .008; with fusion difference 1.2 days, P = .026). MIS compared to OPEN decompression with fusion had less patients experiencing adverse events (AEs) (difference 13 patients, P = .007). The MIS decompression with fusion group had lower 1-year mODI (difference 14.5, 95% CI [7.5, 21.0], P < .001) and back pain (difference 1.6, 95% CI [.6, 2.7], P = .002) compared to OPEN. More patients in the MIS decompression with fusion group exceeded MCID at 1-year for mODI (MIS 75.9% vs OPEN 53.7%, P = .028) and back pain (MIS 85.2% vs OPEN 70.4%, P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: MIS approaches were associated with more favorable outcomes for patients with diabetes undergoing decompression with fusion for LSS.
ABSTRACT
This paper focuses on a novel application of personalized medicine: the ways one thinks about health (i.e., appraisal processes) as relevant predictors of spine-surgery response. This prospective longitudinal cohort study (n = 235) investigated how appraisal processes relate to outcomes of spinal decompression and/or fusion surgery, from pre-surgery through one-year post-surgery. Patient-reported outcomes assessed spine-specific disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)), mental health functioning (Rand-36 Mental Component Score (MCS)), and cognitive appraisal processes (how people recall past experiences and to whom they compare themselves). Analysis of Variance examined the appraisal-outcomes association in separate models at pre-surgery, 3 months, and 12 months. We found that appraisal processes explained less variance at pre-surgery than later and were differentially relevant to health outcomes at different times in the spine-surgery recovery trajectory. For the ODI, recall of the seriousness of their condition was most prominent early in recovery, and comparing themselves to positive standards was most prominent later. For the MCS, not focusing on the negative aspects of their condition and/or on how others see them was associated with steady improvement and higher scores at 12 months. Appraisal processes are relevant to both spine-specific disability and mental-health functioning. Such processes are modifiable objects of attention for personalizing spine-surgery outcomes.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Fragility fractures increase risks for future fractures, morbidity, and mortality. Available pharmacotherapy for underlying osteoporosis is safe and effective but underused. OBJECTIVE: To improve pharmacotherapy rate representing secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. METHODS: This single-center, observational, follow-up study included patients with fragility fractures admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital between February 2016 and December 2019. For patients admitted to the orthopedics service with fragility fracture, the Massachusetts General Hospital Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) was systematically consulted. Initial outpatient follow-up with FLS was established in conjunction with the orthopedic postoperative follow-up visit. Patients at risk for failing timely outpatient follow-up were administered zoledronic acid (ZA) during the index fracture hospitalization. The main outcome measures were percentage of patients with fragility fracture(s) started on pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis and average length of stay and 30-day readmission rate of patients treated with ZA. RESULTS: Compared with baseline (8-11%) and reference (5-20%) rates, integration of FLS to the orthopedics service, along with appropriate inpatient administration of ZA, increased the pharmacotherapy rate to 70% (412/589) among eligible patients with verified treatment status. Inpatient ZA administration neither affected the average length of stay nor 30-day readmission rate. Treatment status of 37.9% (471/1240) of the study patients remained unknown due to lack of or unknown follow-up. CONCLUSION: Integration of a FLS and orthopedics services along with inpatient ZA administration improved the osteoporosis pharmacotherapy rate among patients with fragility fracture(s) who often had obstacles for outpatient follow-up.