Comparative Analysis of Recidivism After Endoscopic and Microscopic-Based Cholesteatoma Resection.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To analyze outcomes of cholesteatoma resection utilizing postauricular microscopic and endoscopic ear surgery (EES) approaches.2) To analyze predictors of residual and recurrent cholesteatoma. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventy-five adult and pediatric patients with cholesteatoma (2012-2017). INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent surgical resection of cholesteatoma with EES (n = 122) and microscopic (n = 253) approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Residual cholesteatoma, recurrent cholesteatoma, second-look procedures. RESULTS: The endoscopic cohort included significantly more pediatric cases (p = 0.0008). There was no difference in laterality, gender distribution, congenital or acquired cholesteatoma, and revision cases between the cohorts. Out of 122 EES cases, 16 (13%) developed residual disease and 9 (7%) developed recurrent disease. Of 253 microscopic cases 16 (6%) developed residual disease while 11 (4%) developed recurrent disease. Second look procedures were more commonly used in EES cohort (50 vs 18%). Single predictor analysis revealed 12 predictors for residual disease and 5 for recurrent disease. Multivariable model identified pediatric case distribution and higher disease stage to be significant predictors for both residual (p = 0.04, 0.007) and recurrent disease (p = 0.02, 0.01). EES approach was associated with a weak significance for residual disease (p = 0.049) but not recurrent disease (p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: EES approach for cholesteatoma resection seems to perform similarly to microscopic approach with no difference in rates of recurrent disease. However, it is associated with a higher rate of residual disease; this may be a reflection of a greater rate of second look procedures done in this group.

Leveraging Telehealth and Medical Student Volunteers to Bridge Gaps in Education Access for Providers in Limited-Resource Settings.

PROBLEM: High-quality training opportunities for providers in limited-resource settings are often scarce or nonexistent. This can lead to a dearth of boots-on-the-ground workers capable of translating knowledge into effective action. The tested telehealth education model of Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) can help address this disparity. However, the planning and logistical coordination required can be limiting. APPROACH: Medical student volunteers interested in health disparities and global health can be leveraged to reduce the costs of administration for Project ECHO programs. From mid-2018 to present (2020), student organizations have been formed at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine. These organizations have recruited and trained volunteers, who play an active role in assessing the needs of local clinics and providers, developing curricula, and coordinating the logistical aspects of programs. OUTCOMES: In the first 4 student-coordinated Project ECHO cohorts (2019-2020), 25 clinics in 14 countries participated, with a potential impact on over 20,000 cancer patients annually. Satisfaction with the telehealth education programs was high among local clinicians and expert educators. Students' perceived ability to conduct activities important to successfully orchestrating a telehealth education program was significantly greater among students who had coordinated one or more Project ECHO programs than among students who had yet to participate for 7 of 9 competencies. There also appears to be an additive effect of participating in additional Project ECHO programs on perceived confidence and career path intentions. NEXT STEPS: The student-led model of coordinating telehealth education programs described here can be readily expanded to medical schools across the nation and beyond. With continued expansion, efforts are needed to develop assessments that provide insights into participants' learning, track changes in patient outcomes, and provide continuing medical education credits to local clinicians.

A comparative evaluation of telehealth and direct assessment when screening for spasticity in residents of two long-term care facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of telehealth as a screening tool for spasticity compared to direct patient assessment in the long-term care setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational study. SETTING: Two long-term care facilities: a 140-bed veterans' home and a 44-bed state home for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. SUBJECTS: Sixty-one adult residents of two long-term care facilities (aged 70.1 ± 16.2 years) were included in this analysis. Spasticity was identified in 43% of subjects (Modified Ashworth Scale rating mode = 2). Contributing diagnoses included traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, birth trauma, stroke, cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis. MAIN MEASURES: Movement disorders neurologists conducted in-person examinations to determine whether spasticity was present (reference standard) and also evaluated subjects with spasticity using the Modified Ashworth Scale. Telehealth screening examinations, facilitated by a bedside nurse, were conducted remotely by two teleneurologists using a three-question screening tool. Telehealth screening determinations of spasticity were compared to the reference standard determination to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) in receiver operating characteristics. Teleneurologist agreement was evaluated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Teleneurologist 1 had a specificity of 89% and sensitivity of 65% to identify the likely presence of spasticity (n = 61; AUC = 0.770). Teleneurologist 2 showed 100% specificity and 82% sensitivity (n = 16; AUC = 0.909). There was almost perfect agreement between the two examiners at 94% (kappa = 0.875, 95% CI: 0.640-1.000). CONCLUSION: Telehealth may provide a useful, efficient method of identifying residents of long-term care facilities that likely need referral for spasticity evaluation.