Educational Effectiveness of Telementoring as a Continuing Professional Development Intervention for Surgeons in Practice: A Systematic Review.

Objective: We performed a systematic review to determine the educational effectiveness of telementoring as a continuing professional development (CPD) intervention for surgeons in practice. Background: Surgeons can mentor their peers in remote locations using videoconferencing communication, referred to as telementoring. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE and included studies assessing the educational effectiveness of telementoring interventions used by surgeons in practice. We excluded studies involving only trainees and those not evaluating educational effectiveness. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI; maximum score 18). Educational outcomes were categorized using Moore's Outcomes Framework. Results: We retrieved a total of 1351 records, and 252 studies were selected for full-text review. Twenty-eight studies were included with 1 randomized controlled trial, 19 cohort studies, 5 qualitative studies, and 3 case studies, totaling 178 surgeons and 499 cases. The average MERSQI score was 10.21 ± 2.2 out of 18. Educational outcomes included surgeons' satisfaction with telementoring interventions (Moore's Level 2) in 12 studies, improvement in surgeons' procedural knowledge (Level 3b) in 3 studies, improvements in surgeons' procedural competence in an educational setting (Level 4) in 4 studies, performance in a workplace-based setting (Level 5) in 23 studies, and patient outcomes (Level 6) in 3 studies. No studies reported community health outcomes (Level 7). Conclusions: Moderate-level evidence demonstrates the use of telementoring as effective in changing surgeons' knowledge and competence in both educational and workplace-based settings. Its use is also associated with changes in patient outcomes.

The discrepancy between functional outcome and self-reported health status after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy has shown not only to halt neurologic deterioration, but also to improve functional impairments. Despite these improvements, some patients may be dissatisfied with their outcomes. This study aims to (1) investigate discrepancies between postoperative clinical measures and self-reported health status, and (2) identify important predictors of such discrepancies. METHODS: Four hundred and seventy-nine surgical patients were prospectively enrolled in the CSM-International study at 16 global sites. At 1-year post-op, patients rated their general health status compared with their immediate preoperative status (much better, somewhat better, the same, somewhat worse, much worse). Descriptive analyses were conducted to evaluate the agreement between achieving a clinically important improvement (MCID) in function (modified Japanese Orthopedic Association [mJOA] scale) and self-reported health status. Agreement was defined as achieving the MCID on the mJOA and reporting general health as somewhat better or much better, whereas disagreement was defined as achieving MCID on the mJOA and reporting general health as the same, somewhat worse or much worse. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors that influence agreement between self-report of health status and functional outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 395 patients had complete follow-up data at 1-year and were included in this analysis. Based on patient self-reports, 56 (14.2%) were somewhat or much worse than a year ago, 80 (20.2%) patients were the same and 259 (65.6%) patients were somewhat or much better. Thirty percent of patients who reported being somewhat or much worse were found to achieve the MCID on the mJOA; 57.5% of patients who indicated their health status were the same as before surgery also exhibited clinically meaningful improvements in functional impairment. Based on multivariate analysis, there was an increased odds of observing an agreement between self-reports of health status and functional outcomes if the patient exhibited greater improvement in mJOA upper extremity motor function at 1-year (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.93, p=.033) and reduced odds of agreement with increased age (OR for every decade: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, p=.0035) and increased bodily pain at 1-year (OR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-078, p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a discrepancy between changes in mJOA and self-reports of health status in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Increased bodily pain at 1-year, smaller improvements in postoperative upper extremity score and increased age were associated with worsened or unchanged general health status, despite clinically significant improvements in overall postoperative function.

Efficacy, safety, and economics of bracing after spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Bracing is often used after spinal surgery to immobilize the spine, improve fusion, and relieve pain. However, controversy exists regarding the efficacy, necessity, and safety of various bracing techniques in the postsurgical setting. PURPOSE: In this systematic review, we aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of postoperative bracing versus no postoperative bracing after spinal surgery in patients with several common operative spinal pathologies. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A systematic review was carried out to compare postoperative bracing and no postoperative bracing. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library from 1970 to May 2017, supplemented by manual searching of the reference list of relevant studies and previously published reviews. Studies were included if they compared disability, quality of life, functional impairment, radiographic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, or complications between patients treated with postoperative bracing and patients not receiving any postoperative bracing. Each article was critically appraised independently by two reviewers, and the overall body of evidence was rated using guidelines outlined by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. RESULTS: Of the 858 retrieved citations, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review, consisting of 4 randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective cohort study. Low to moderate evidence suggests that there are no significant differences in most measures of disability, pain, quality of life, functional impairment, radiographic outcomes, and safety between groups. Isolated studies reported statistically significant and inconsistent differences between groups with respect to Neck Disability Index at 6 weeks postoperatively or Short Form-36 Physical Component Score at 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited evidence, postoperative bracing does not result in improved outcomes after spinal surgery. Future high-quality randomized trials will be required to confirm these findings.