Antibiotic Prophylaxis in the Management of Distal Fingertip Amputation and Crush Injury.

Purpose: We sought to investigate the role of prophylactic antibiotics for distal fingertip crush injury or transphalangeal amputation treated outside of an operating room and better understand the factors that contribute to antibiotic-prescribing decisions. We hypothesized that prophylactic antibiotics do not meaningfully reduce the incidence of infection and that antibiotics are prescribed in a predictable way. Methods: This is a retrospective review of all patients treated in a MedStar-affiliated emergency department or urgent care for nonsurgical distal fingertip trauma in 2019. Patient demographics, comorbidities, injury characteristics, interventions, and follow-up details were recorded. Exclusion criteria included signs of infection at the time of presentation, minor injuries not requiring intervention, bite wounds, one-time intravenous antibiotic administration without oral course, and surgical intervention. Outcomes included infection and interventions at follow-up. Chi-square analysis was performed, comparing antibiotic and no-antibiotic groups. A stepwise binomial regression was used to evaluate for variables predictive of antibiotic prescription. Results: We identified eight infections in 323 patients included in the study (2.5% incidence of infection). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection between patients treated with antibiotics (2.7%) and those who did not receive antibiotics (2.2%). However, due to the low incidence of infections, we were likely underpowered for this analysis. We also created a model to predict antibiotic prescribing, which achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.86 (P < .0001) based on age, bleeding disorders, depressive disorders, open wound status, amputation, fractures, and encounter type. Conclusions: The low incidence of infection (2.5%) and lack of a meaningful difference between the groups call into question prophylactic antibiotic prescribing after these distal fingertip injuries. Our model does predict provider prescribing habits, identifying areas for potential practice pattern change. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic III.

Sociodemographic disparities in pediatric cochlear implantation outcomes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of sociodemographic factors on post-operative performance outcomes among PCI recipients across the world. METHODS: A qualitative systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was undertaken for studies analyzing the association of sociodemographic factors with measures of PCI outcomes published before July 18, 2021. Study quality assessment tools from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were used to assess for risk of bias. RESULTS: Out of 887 unique abstracts initially retrieved, 45 papers were included in the final qualitative systematic review. Sociodemographic disparities in PCI outcomes from 4702 PCI recipients were studied in 19 countries, with 14 studies conducted in the United States of America, published within the years of 1999 to 2021. Parental education and socioeconomic status (e.g. income) were the most investigated disparities in PCI outcomes with 24 and 17 identified studies, respectively. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic status was a consistently reported determinant of PCI outcomes in the USA and elsewhere, and parental education, the most reported disparity, consistently impacted outcomes in countries outside the USA. This study is limited by our inability to perform a meta-analysis given the lack of standardization across measures of sociodemographic variables and assessment measures for PCI outcomes. Future studies should address the literature gap on racial and ethnic disparities among PCI outcomes and use standardized measures for sociodemographic variables and PCI outcomes to facilitate meta-analyses on the topic. Targeting the mechanisms of these disparities may mitigate the impact of the sociodemographic factors on PCI outcomes.

The Successful Use of Left-sided Stellate Ganglion Block in Patients That Fail to Respond to Right-sided Stellate Ganglion Block for the Treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: A Retrospective Analysis of 205 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound-guided stellate ganglion block (SGB) is an injection of local anesthetic (8mL of 0.5% ropivacaine) in the neck to temporarily block the cervical sympathetic trunk which controls the body's fight-or-flight response. This outpatient procedure takes less than thirty minutes and is immediately effective. Our goal was to determine if a left-sided stellate ganglion block is effective for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. While right-sided SGB has been extensively studied, left-sided SGB has not been formally evaluated for this indication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our hypothesis was that patients who fail to improve following a right-sided SGB will report significant improvement following a left-sided SGB. A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who received SGB for PTSD symptoms between August 2019 and March 2020. All procedures were performed at an established musculoskeletal practice by the same anesthesia/pain fellowship-trained physician. Subjects included those who underwent a left-sided SGB (LSGB) only after non-response to a right-sided SGB (RSGB). Non-response was defined as less than 10 points of improvement on a PTSD Checklist (PCL-5). RESULTS: Out of 205 patients, 20 did not respond to an RSGB and were included in our analysis. Ten of these patients subsequently received an LSGB, and 90% responded favorably (PCL-5 mean improvement = 28.3 points). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our sample of 205 patients receiving SGB for PTSD, we concluded that at least 4.4% did not respond to a right-sided SGB but did have a significant response to a left-sided SGB.

Managing the introduction of biobanks to potential participants: lessons from a deliberative public forum.

Ongoing debate exists around how best to manage the issue of informed consent for research involving human tissue biobanks. However, the issue is well recognized and covered in the academic literature. A related and arguably equally important issue that to date has not received much attention is how best to manage the process of identifying and initially contacting individuals for their participation in a biobank. While many population-based biobanks strive for random sampling of healthy participants from the general population, disease-based biobanks usually need to rely on some sort of referral process to achieve specificity for type and subcategories of disease. There are thus numerous ethical implications regarding the way in which this referral process is managed. In this article we begin by providing a brief outline of the nature of the problems associated with the initial introduction between a biobank and potential research participants. We then consider data from a recent public deliberation on the topic of human tissue biobanking. In these discussions, participants were posed questions regarding their views pertaining to the introduction of potential donors to biobanks, and asked to make recommendations to be considered by policy makers in British Columbia, Canada. Based on these data we conclude that there is general agreement that introduction of research biobanks to potential donors should be conducted face to face, and by a medical professional known to the donor, and depending on donor circumstances, is acceptable during either pre- or postoperative periods. The strong preference for the introduction to involve a family physician should be considered in the future design of biobank contact and consent processes.