Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Indications for revision lumbar fusion are variable, but include recurrent stenosis (RS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and pseudarthrosis. The efficacy of revision lumbar fusion has been well established, but their outcomes compared to primary procedures is not well documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compares surgical and clinical outcomes between (1) revision and primary lumbar fusion, (2) revision lumbar fusion based on indication (ASD, pseudarthrosis, or RS), and (3) revision lumbar fusion based on whether the index procedure included an isolated decompression or decompression with fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective single-institution cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Four thousand six hundred seventy-one consecutive lumbar fusions from 2011 to 2021, of which 892 (23.6%) were revision procedures. The indication for revision procedures included 502 (56.3%) for ASD, 153 (17.2%) for pseudarthrosis, and 237 (26.6%) for RS. Of the 892 revision procedures, 694 (77.8%) underwent an index fusion while 198 (22.2%) underwent an index decompression without fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital readmissions, all-cause reoperation, need for subsequent revision and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline, 3-months postoperatively, and 1-year postoperatively, including the Mental Health Component score (MCS-12) and Physical Health Component score (PCS-12) of the Short Form 12 survey, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Back and Leg pain. METHODS: Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Twenty-eight percent of patients had preoperative and postoperative PROMs. A delta PROM score was calculated for the 3-month and 1-year postoperative timepoints, which was the change from the preoperative to postoperative value. Univariate comparisons were performed to compare revision fusions to primary fusions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for all-cause reoperation and subsequent revision surgery, while multivariate linear regression was performed for ∆PROMs at 3-months and 1-year. Revision procedures were then separately regrouped based on indication for revision fusion and whether they underwent a fusion for their index procedure. Univariate comparisons and multivariate linear regressions for ∆PROMs were then repeated based on the new groupings. RESULTS: There was no difference in hospital readmission rate (5.38% vs. 4.60%, p=.372) or length of stay (4.10 days vs. 3.94 days, p=.129) between revision and primary lumbar fusion, but revision fusions had a higher rate of all-cause reoperation (16.1% vs. 11.2%, p<.001) and subsequent revision (13.7% vs. 9.71%, p=.001), which was confirmed on multivariate logistic regression (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.001 and OR: 1.37, p=.007, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a revision procedure was an independent risk factor for worse improvement ∆ODI, ∆VAS Back, ∆VAS Leg, and ∆PCS-12 and 1-year postoperatively. Regardless of the indication for revision lumbar fusion, patients significantly improved in the 3-month and 1-year postoperative PCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg, with the exception of the 3-month PCS-12 for pseudarthrosis (p=.620). Patients undergoing revision for ASD had significantly worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (32.3 vs. Pseudarthrosis: 35.6 and RS: 37.0, p=.026), but there were no differences in ∆PROMs. There was no difference in hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, or subsequent revision based on whether a patient had an index lumbar fusion or isolated decompression. Multivariate linear regression analysis found that a surgical indication of pseudarthrosis was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in 3-month ∆VAS Leg (ref: ASD, ß=2.26, p=.036), but having an index fusion did not significantly predict worse improvement in ∆PROMs when compared to isolated decompressions. CONCLUSIONS: Revision lumbar fusions had a higher rate of reoperation and subsequent revision surgery when compared to primary lumbar fusions, but there were no difference in hospital readmission rates. Patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion experience improvements in all patient reported outcome measures, but their baseline, postoperative, and magnitude of improvement are worse than primary procedures. Regardless of whether the lumbar fusion is a primary or revision procedure, all patients have significant improvements in pain, disability and physical function. Further, the indication for the revision procedure is not correlated with the expected magnitude of improvement in patient reported outcomes. Finally, no differences in baseline, postoperative, and ∆PROMs for revision fusions were identified when stratifying by whether the patient had an index decompression or fusion.

The Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences, Body Shame, and Revision Request Rate in 218 Plastic Surgery Patients: What Drives Postoperative Dissatisfaction?

BACKGROUND: What drives patients who are unhappy despite good results? Adverse childhood experiences are common, can impair adult health, and can cause body shame. Neither adverse childhood experiences nor body shame has been studied in surgical patients. The authors report adverse childhood experience prevalences in a plastic surgical population and investigate associations from adverse childhood experiences to body shame and to postoperative dissatisfaction. METHODS: Two hundred eighteen consecutive patients (86 percent aesthetic and 14 percent reconstructive) completed the Adverse Childhood Experiences Survey and the Experience of Shame Scale. A one-sample test of proportions, logistic regression, and mediation analysis assessed outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to the Kaiser/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention medical population, our patients had higher overall adverse childhood experience prevalences (79.8 percent versus 64 percent), emotional abuse (41 percent versus 11 percent), emotional neglect (38 percent versus 15 percent), family substance abuse (36 percent versus 27 percent), and family mental illness (29 percent versus 19 percent, all p < 0.001). Fifty-two percent of our patients had body shame. Adverse Childhood Experiences score predicted body shame (OR, 1.22; p = 0.003). Compared to unshamed patients, body shame was associated with more adverse childhood experiences (85 percent versus 72 percent), higher median Adverse Childhood Experiences score (3.5 versus 2), more cosmetic operations (three versus zero), more health problems (three versus two), higher antidepressant use (39 percent versus 19 percent), substance abuse history (16 percent versus 5 percent), and demands for additional pain medication (18 percent versus 5 percent). Body shame predicted requests for surgical revision (49 percent versus 17 percent; OR, 4.61; all p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse childhood experience were common in our patients. Adverse Childhood Experiences score predicted body shame, which predicted revision requests. If body shame preceded and drove surgery, revision requests were likely. Patients desiring revisions had recognizable characteristics. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Comparison of auditory sensations in patients who underwent cataract phacoemulsification surgery in the first and second eye.

To compare subjective auditory sensations of patients during the first and second eye cataract surgeries. Consecutive patients who underwent phacoemulsification of the first eye (group I) and second eye (group II) completed questionnaires designed to evaluate their auditory sensations in the operating room including background music, sound of working equipment, staff conversations, and surgeon's voice. This study included 124 patients in group I and 76 patients in group II. Patients most often heard nursing staff's conversations (91.9% and 96%, respectively, p > 0.05), surgeon's voice (87.9% and 86.8%, respectively, p > 0.05), and music (70.9% and 75%, respectively, p > 0.05). Music was the most pleasant experience (78.2% and 78.9%, respectively, p > 0.05). The sound of the working phacoemulsifier was the most undesirable sound (20.2% and 15.8%, respectively, p > 0.05). Patients in group II more often indicated that none of the sounds required elimination (69.7% and 52.6%, respectively, p = 0.013) or that staff conversations should be eliminated (13.2% and 3.1%, respectively, p = 0.005). The most desirable sounds during phacoemulsification include music and the surgeon's voice regarding the procedure. The most unpleasant sound was that that of phacoemulsifier. The commonest sounds to be eliminated in groups I and II included those of equipment and staff conversations.

Adjunctive Procedures and Informed Consent with Breast Implant Explantation.

BACKGROUND: The use of injectable or implantable materials or devices in the breast for augmentation or reconstruction has a history of innovation and controversy. Staying current in the field of breast implant management today means understanding not just the published literature but also its absence. Cutting edge breast implant treatment also means awareness of patient and media-driven interests and requests. METHODS: Adjuvant treatments to optimize physical and psychological well-being with breast implant explantation, without replacement, will be addressed through literature review and analysis. RESULTS: The body of literature demonstrates evidence of variable, and sometimes contradictory, methods to address adjunctive management of systemic concerns, the capsule, soft tissue of the native breast/chest, and treatment timing related to explantation. Few approaches are supported by very strong evidence. Many treatment methodologies are defensible. Any current attempts at optimizing management in patients undergoing explantation will be somewhat impaired by the ongoing nebulousness of related issues, such as breast implant illness. It seems clear, therefore, that plastic surgeons must fulfill their duty as caregivers to provide explantation surgery, either to attempt to improve physical health, mental well-being, or simply to respect patients' wishes. A well-informed surgeon will likely employ a variety of approaches, adapted to the unique patient presentations at hand. CONCLUSION: It is expected that consultations, incisions, tissue rearrangements, surgical timing, and treatment indications will continue to vary as scientific investigation strives to understand and to optimize treatment of patients experiencing difficulty with breast implants.

Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life after Redo Anastomosis in Patients With Rectal Cancer: An International Multicenter Comparative Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Redo anastomosis can be considered in selected patients with persistent leakage, stenosis, or local recurrence. It is technically challenging, and little is known about the functional outcomes after this seldomly performed type of surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare functional outcomes and the quality of life between redo anastomosis and primary successful anastomosis following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. DESIGN: This study was designed as an international multicenter comparative cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in 3 tertiary referral centers in the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing redo anastomosis were compared with patients with a primary successful anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Low anterior resection syndrome score, European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30, and EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaires were used to assess outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 170 patients were included; 52 underwent redo anastomosis and 118 were controls. Major low anterior resection syndrome occurred in 73% after redo anastomosis compared with 68% following primary successful anastomosis (p = 0.52). The redo group had worse EORTC QLQ-CR29 mean scores for fecal incontinence (p = 0.03) and flatulence (p = 0.008). There were no differences in urinary (p = 0.48) or sexual dysfunction, either in men (p = 0.83) or in women (p = 0.76). Significantly worse scores in the redo group were found for global health (p = 0.002), role (p = 0.049) and social function (p = 0.006), body image (p = 0.03), and anxiety (p = 0.02). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the possible response bias. CONCLUSIONS: Redo anastomosis is associated with significantly worse quality of life compared with primary successful anastomosis. However, major low anterior resection syndrome was comparable between groups and should not be a reason to preclude restoration of bowel continuity in highly motivated patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B565. RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA POSTERIOR A LA RECONSTRUCCIN DE LA ANASTOMOSIS EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE RECTO ESTUDIO INTERNACIONAL MULTICNTRICO DE COHORTE COMPARATIVO: ANTECEDENTES:Se puede considerar reconstruir la anastomosis en pacientes seleccionados con fuga persistente, estenosis o recidiva local. Esto es técnicamente desafiante y poco se sabe sobre los resultados funcionales después de este tipo de cirugía que rara vez se realiza.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar resultados funcionales y la calidad de vida entre reconstrucción de la anastomosis y la anastomosis primaria exitosa posterior de la escisión total de mesorrecto (TME) por cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Este estudio fue diseñado como un estudio internacional multicéntrico de cohorte comparativo.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se llevó a cabo en tres centros de referencia terciarios en Holanda, Bélgica y Francia.PACIENTES:Los pacientes sometidos a reconstrucción de anastomosis fueron comparados con pacientes con anastomosis primaria exitosa después de TME por cáncer de recto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Los cuestionarios; Escala de Síndrome de Resección Anterior Baja (LARS), EORTC QLQ-C30, y QLQ-CR29, fueron utilizados para evaluar los resultados.RESULTADOS:En total, se incluyeron 170 pacientes; 52 reconstrucción de anastomosis y 118 controles. LARS ocurrió en el 73% posterior a la reconstrucción de la anastomosis en comparación con el 68% posterior a la anastomosis primaria exitosa (p = 0,52). El grupo de reconstrucción tuvo peores puntuaciones medias de EORTC QLQ-CR29 para incontinencia fecal (p = 0,03) y flatulencia (p = 0,008). No hubo diferencias en disfunción urinaria (p = 0,48) o sexual, ni en hombres (p = 0,83) ni en mujeres (p = 0,76). Se encontraron puntuaciones significativamente peores en el grupo de reconstrucción para salud global (p = 0,002), desempeño (p = 0,049) y función social (p = 0,006), imagen corporal (p = 0,03) y ansiedad (p = 0,02).LIMITACIONES:La limitación de este estudio es el posible sesgo de respuesta.CONCLUSIONES:La reconstrucción de la anastomosis se asocia con una calidad de vida significativamente peor en comparación con los pacientes con anastomosis primaria exitosa. Sin embargo, LARS fue comparable entre los grupos y no debería ser una razón para impedir la restauración de la continuidad intestinal en pacientes muy motivados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B565.

Clinical Uncertainty and Equipoise in the Management of Recurrent Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of glioblastoma (GBM) patients are considered for repeat resection, but evidence regarding best management remains elusive. Our aim was to measure the degree of clinical uncertainty regarding reoperation for patients with recurrent GBM. METHODS: We first performed a systematic review of agreement studies examining the question of repeat resection for recurrent GBM. An electronic portfolio of 37 pathologically confirmed recurrent GBM patients including pertinent magnetic resonance images and clinical information was assembled. To measure clinical uncertainty, 26 neurosurgeons from various countries, training backgrounds, and years' experience were asked to select best management (repeat surgery, other nonsurgical management, or conservative), confidence in recommended management, and whether they would include the patient in a randomized trial comparing surgery with nonsurgical options. Agreement was evaluated using κ statistics. RESULTS: The literature review did not reveal previous agreement studies examining the question. In our study, agreement regarding best management of recurrent GBM was slight, even when management options were dichotomized (repeat surgery vs. other options; κ=0.198 [95% confidence interval: 0.133-0.276]). Country of practice, years' experience, and training background did not change results. Disagreement and clinical uncertainty were more pronounced within clinicians with (κ=0.167 [0.055-0.314]) than clinicians without neuro-oncology fellowship training (κ=0.601 [0.556-0.646]). A majority (51%) of responders were willing to include the patient in a randomized trial comparing repeat surgery with nonsurgical alternatives in 26/37 (69%) of cases. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient uncertainty and equipoise regarding the question of reoperation for patients with recurrent glioblastoma to support the need for a randomized controlled trial.

Listening to Women: A Qualitative Analysis of Experiences after Complications from Mesh Mid-urethral Sling Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To gain a detailed understanding of women's experiences after undergoing revision surgery for mesh mid-urethral sling (MUS) complications, qualitatively organize those experiences, and present insights as potential springboards for future research. METHODS: We conducted a series of semistructured focus groups and interviews of patients who had undergone mesh MUS revision surgery at a single tertiary referral institution. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using deductive and inductive content analysis. Two researchers independently performed line-by-line coding and 2 additional researchers reviewed the codes and transcripts as an audit. RESULTS: Nineteen women participated in the study. Complications from mesh MUS surgery impacted participants psychologically, socially, sexually, and physically. Participants recounted that risks and alternatives to MUS surgery were understated during the informed consent process whereas benefits were overstated. Participants shared insights into negative and positive ways surgeons responded to postoperative complications and how their experiences impacted the patient-surgeon relationship. CONCLUSION: The impact of complications from mesh MUS surgery is broad and can involve multiple domains of a woman's life. Improved pre-operative patient preparedness, empathetic response toward patients who present with complications, prompt referral to surgeons with experience in mesh MUS complications and multidisciplinary care will likely improve the patient experience and can serve as foci for future studies.

Patient and clinician satisfaction and clinical outcomes of Magseed compared with wire-guided localisation for impalpable breast lesions.

BACKGROUND: Guide-wire localisation remains the most commonly used technique for localisation of impalpable breast lesions in the UK. One alternative is magnetic seed localisation. We aimed to investigate patient and clinician satisfaction in two consecutive cohorts, describe re-excision and positive margin rates, and explore reasons for positive margins and the implications for localisation techniques. METHODS: A single-institution prospective service evaluation of two cohorts of consecutive cases of wire and then Magseed localisation was carried out. Data were collected on patient and clinician satisfaction, clinico-pathological findings, and causes of involved margins. T tests were used to compare continuous variables and Chi-squared test for satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: 168 consecutive cases used wire-guided localisation (WGL) and 128 subsequent cases used Magseeds. Patients reported less anxiety between localisation and surgery in the Magseed group, and clinicians reported greater ease of use of Magseeds. There were no differences in lesion size, surgical complexity, or re-excision rate between the groups. In a subset of patients receiving standard wide local excision (i.e., excluding mammoplasties), the impact on margin involvement was investigated. There was no significant difference in radiological under-sizing or accuracy of localisation. However, specimen weight and eccentricity of the lesion were statistically significantly lower in the Magseed group. Despite this, re-excision rates were not significantly different (p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large study of satisfaction with localisation and showed clinician preference for Magseed and a reduction in patient anxiety. It also demonstrated similar positive margin rates despite smaller specimen weights in the Magseed group. Magnetic seed localisation offers an acceptable clinical alternative to guide wire localisation. The impact on local service provision should also be considered.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (Pain, Function, and Quality of Life) After Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing frequency of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), there is limited information regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after that procedure. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine (1) PROM improvements in pain, function, quality of life (QOL), and global health and (2) predictors of PROMs for patients undergoing aseptic rTKA as determined using a multilevel model with patients nested within surgeons. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 246 patients who underwent aseptic rTKA from January 2016 to December 2017 and had baseline and 1-year postoperative PROMs were analyzed. The most common surgical indications were aseptic loosening (n = 109), instability (n = 73), and implant failure (n = 64). The PROMs included in this study were the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-Pain, -Physical Function Short Form (PS), and -Quality of Life (QOL) as well as the Veterans Rand-12 (VR-12) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS). Multivariable linear regression models with patients nested within surgeons were constructed for predicting change in PROMs from baseline to 1 year. RESULTS: The mean 1-year postoperative improvements in the KOOS-Pain and PS PROMs were 30.3 and 19.15 points, respectively, for the overall rTKA series. Improvement in the KOOS-Pain was associated with older age, baseline arthrofibrosis, lower baseline pain, and non-Medicare/Medicaid insurance and worsening of the scores was associated with multiple prior surgical procedures and instability. Improvement in the KOOS-PS was associated with baseline arthrofibrosis and female sex and worsening was associated with limited baseline function, an instability diagnosis, multiple prior surgical procedures, and increased hospital length of stay (LOS). Overall, the mean KOOS-QOL improved by 29.7 points. Although the mean VR-12 PCS improved, 54.9% of the patients saw no clinical improvement. Additionally, only 31.3% of the patients reported improvements in the VR-12 MCS. A multilevel mixed-effects model with patients/operations nested within surgeons demonstrated that the differences in the surgeons' results were minimal and explained only ∼1.86%, ∼1.12%, and ∼1.65% of the KOOS-Pain, KOOS-PS, and KOOS-QOL variance that was not explained by other predictors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients undergoing aseptic rTKA had improvements in pain, function, and QOL PROMs at 1 year. Although overall QOL improved, other global-health PROMs remained unchanged. The associations highlighted in this study can help guide the preoperative clinical decision-making process by setting expectations before aseptic rTKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Post-surgery and recovery experiences following one- and two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection-A qualitative study of patients' experiences.

Deep prosthetic hip infection is a devastating complication of hip replacement surgery, and treatment often involves multiple revision surgeries with antibiotic chemotherapy to control the infection. The aim of this study was to explore patients' experiences of early and longer-term recovery after one-stage or two-stage revision with an excised hip, a temporary cement spacer or a custom-made articulating spacer. We interviewed 32 participants taking part in a surgical trial at two time points (2-4 months and 18 months) following one- or two-stage revision surgery. The analytic approach was inductive using the constant comparative method to generate themes from the data. Participants' early recovery after revision was characterised by a long hospital stay with burdensome antibiotics and limited physiotherapy provision. Participants undergoing two-stage revision with an excised hip or a cement spacer described severe mobility restrictions which affected all aspects of their lives, while those undergoing one-stage revision, or two-stage revision with an articulating spacer were more mobile and independent, with some limitations. Participants with a cement spacer also reported more pain than other treatment groups, while those with an articulating spacer appeared to perceive that their recovery was slow. At 18 months, participants in all groups described both improvements and losses in mobility and functional ability. Participants in all treatment groups expressed considerable emotional resilience during recovery from revision, which may be linked to opportunities to talk with the trial personnel. Participants identified the need for better information and psychological and physical support. Experience of recovery differs after one- and two-stage revision, and further in relation to the use of spacers. Mobility, function, independence and pain are important aspects of recovery which affect all aspects of day-to-day life. Increased information and more opportunities to talk and share experiences may provide psychological support during recovery.

Identifying Factors Most Important to Lower Extremity Trauma Patients: Key Concepts from the Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Lower Extremity Trauma, The LIMB-Q.

BACKGROUND: Severe lower extremity injuries are challenging to treat. The aspects of limb salvage and amputation most important to patients are not well-defined. This study's aim is to develop a conceptual framework for a patient-reported outcome instrument for lower extremity trauma patients, by defining issues and concepts most important to this patient population. METHODS: This is an interpretative description of transcripts collected from semistructured qualitative interviews at a single institution. High-energy lower extremity trauma patients were recruited by means of purposeful sampling to maximize variability. Thirty-three participant interviews were needed to reach content saturation. These participants were aged 19 to 79 years; 21 were men (63.6 percent); participation was after reconstruction [n= 15 (45.5 percent)], after amputation [n = 11 (33.3 percent)], or after amputation after failed reconstruction [n = 7 (21.2 percent)]. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded line-by-line. Concepts were labeled with major and minor themes and refined through a process of constant comparison. Analysis led to the development of a conceptual framework and item pool to inform the development of a patient-reported outcome measure. RESULTS: In total, 2430 unique codes were identified and used to generate the conceptual framework covering 10 major themes: appearance, environment, finances, physical, process of care, prosthesis, psychological, sexual, social, and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes a comprehensive set of concepts, identifying what is most important to severe lower extremity trauma patients. These findings can be used to inform and focus research and clinical care, and provides the framework to develop a lower extremity trauma-specific patient-reported outcome instrument: the LIMB-Q.

Exploring the views of female genital mutilation survivors, their male partners and healthcare professionals on the timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS FGM care provision (the FGM Sister Study): protocol for a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a significant global health concern and is likely to become an increasingly important healthcare challenge in destination countries such as the UK owing to rising levels of migration from FGM-affected countries. Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal timing of deinfibulation (opening) surgery for women who have experienced type 3 FGM and care provision remains suboptimal in the UK. This qualitative study aims to explore the views of survivors, male partners and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the timing of deinfibulation and delivery of NHS FGM services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative study, informed by the Sound of Silence conceptual framework, will be undertaken via two work packages (WPs). WP1 will explore views on timing preferences for deinfibulation and NHS FGM services through interviews and discussion groups with FGM survivors (n~50), male partners (n~10) and HCPs (n~50). WP2 will use established techniques via two workshops (community (n~20-25 participants) and national stakeholder (n~30-35 participants)) to synthesise qualitative research findings and inform best practice and policy recommendations around the timing of deinfibulation and NHS FGM care provision. Supported by trained interpreters, data collection will be audio recorded and transcribed. Data will be analysed using the framework method to facilitate a systematic mapping and exploration of qualitative data from multiple sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (18/NW/0498). The outputs for this study will be recommendations for best practice and policy around FGM care provision that reflects the views and preferences of key stakeholders. The findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications, patient groups, third sector organisations and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 14710507.

Variation in the Desire for Cleft Revision Surgery among Children, Caregivers, and Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Although revision surgery is part of the reconstructive process for children with cleft lip and/or cleft palate, the indications for revision vary, and the extent to which surgeons and families agree on appearance is unclear. The authors sought to understand the extent to which children with cleft lip and/or cleft palate, surgeons, caregivers, and control observers agree on satisfaction with appearance and the desire for revision. METHODS: Children with cleft lip and/or cleft palate (n = 100) and their caregivers (n = 100) were surveyed regarding satisfaction with appearance using the Cleft Evaluation Profile. Surgeons (n = 10) and control observers (n = 10) rated photographs of these children using questions analogous to the Cleft Evaluation Profile. General linear model repeated measures analysis of variance were used to detect significant differences between raters, with an alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: The children reported greater satisfaction with appearance across all domains compared with surgeons (nose, 7.77 versus 5.51, p < 0.001; lip, 7.94 versus 5.90, p < 0.001; maxilla, 8.16 versus 6.56, p < 0.001) and general observers (nose, 7.78 versus 6.00, p < 0.001; lip, 7.80 versus 6.12, p < 0.001; maxilla, 8.16 versus 7.40, p < 0.001). Children and caregivers expressed similar degrees of satisfaction with appearance of the lip (5.48 ± 1.69 versus 5.6 ± 1.49, p > 0.5) and maxilla (6.08 ± 1.1 versus 5.8 ± 1.2, p = 0.07). There was no significant relationship between children and surgeons in terms of the desire for revision surgery (p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: All groups expressed differing levels of satisfaction with cleft-specific aspects of appearance. Importantly, children were more satisfied than all other groups. Care must be taken to evaluate perceptions of all stakeholders before moving forward with cleft revision surgery.

Patient Outcomes After Revision of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Rotator Cuff Failure or Component Loosening: A Matched Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes after conversion of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and a matched cohort. METHODS: Patients converted from aTSA to RTSA for rotator cuff failure or component loosening and a primary RTSA matched cohort were retrospectively identified from a prospective database. Demographics and preoperative and postoperative outcomes were obtained and compared. RESULTS: Age, sex, body mass index, follow-up length, and preoperative function were similar between revision (n = 35) and primary (n = 70) groups. At final follow-up, visual analog scale pain (2.4 ± 2.8 versus 1.7 ± 2.8; P = 0.24) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (68 ± 26 versus 76 ± 24; P = 0.14) scores were similar. The revision group had worse subjective shoulder value scores (63 ± 30 versus 79 ± 21; P = 0.002), satisfaction (74% versus 90%; P = 0.03), and more complications (31% versus 13%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Revision of aTSA to RTSA for component loosening or rotator cuff failure results in function comparable to primary RTSA; however, more complications, worse subjective shoulder value scores, and lower patient satisfaction should be expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative.

Identification of factors during bronchoscopy that affect patient reluctance to undergo repeat examination: Questionnaire analysis after initial bronchoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Re-biopsy by bronchoscopy is an important part of treatment for patients with relapsed lung cancer; however, some patients refuse to undergo a re-examination due to discomfort during their first bronchoscopy. The aim of the present study was to determine factors causing discomfort during bronchoscopy and to identify the factors that affect patients' reluctance to undergo repeat examinations via a questionnaire administered immediately after the initial bronchoscopy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We evaluated 283 patients who underwent bronchoscopy at Chiba University Hospital between September 2015 and March 2017. Following bronchoscopy, the patients answered a questionnaire regarding the procedure. We identified patient characteristics and factors related to bronchoscopy that were associated with patients' reluctance to undergo re-examination. Two hundred nine patients were ultimately enrolled in the study. The factors affecting patient tolerance for re-examination were female sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-5.53), discomfort during the examination (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.56), and unexpectedness of discomfort during the examination (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.19-2.81). Patients experienced discomfort most frequently owing to throat anesthesia (n = 50 [24%]). CONCLUSIONS: Comfort during bronchoscopy is an important factor influencing patient tolerance for re-examination. Expectations of discomfort during bronchoscopy, as indicated by instructions provided before examination, and throat anesthesia are also important factors. Detailed explanations about bronchoscopy and improvement of the methods of throat anesthesia could decrease patient discomfort and may help decrease patients' reluctance to undergo re-examinations.

Revision rhinoplasty: physician-patient aesthetic and functional evaluation / Revision rhinoplasty: physician-patient aesthetic and functional evaluation

Abstract Introduction: Approximately 5-15% of patients submitted to rhinoplasty operations undergo revision surgery. Those patients have varied functional and aesthetic complaints that should receive a detailed assessment that includes all the expectations the patient had before the previous procedure. Objective: To draw the profile of the main aesthetic-functional complaints reported by patients to be submitted to revision rhinoplasty and to correlate them with the internal and external objective nasal evaluation performed by the surgeon. Methods: A prospective study was conducted with 43 patients to be submitted to revision rhinoplasty and their respective surgeons, by applying a questionnaire about the patients' epidemiological questions and subjective aesthetic-functional complaints as well as the respective functional deformities observed by the surgeons. Subsequently, these data were correlated with the purpose of observing the frequency of congruent reports between physicians and patients. Results: The presence of drooping tip and residual bridge hump were the patients' main complaints, confirmed by the surgeons. The correlation between subjective obstructive symptoms and the intranasal evaluation performed by surgeons was shown to be present in 87.5% of the cases. Among the patients with respiratory symptoms, the main deformity identified was residual septal deviation in 56.25% of the cases. Conclusion: The drooping tip followed by residual hump were the main complaints reported by the patients and confirmed by the objective examination by the physicians. The presence of nasal obstructive complaints in 37.2% of the patients shows that greater attention needs to be paid to functional deformities during the first surgical procedure. The differences observed between patients' complaints and surgeons' evaluations confirm the need for detailed assessment and clarification to the patients regarding their expectations and actual surgical possibilities.

Resumo: Introdução: As rinoplastias possuem índice de revisão em torno de 5% a 15% dos pacientes operados. Tais pacientes possuem queixas funcionais e estéticas variadas e a avaliação detalhada é de extrema importância, tendo em vista todas as expectativas em torno de um procedimento já anteriormente realizado. Objetivo: Traçar o perfil das principais queixas estético-funcionais referidas pelo paciente a ser submetido à rinoplastia revisional e correlacioná-las a avaliação nasal objetiva interna e externa realizada pelo cirurgião. Método: Foi realizado um estudo prospectivo com 43 pacientes a serem submetidos à rinoplastia revisional e com seus respectivos cirurgiões, através da aplicação de questionário acerca de questões epidemiológicas e queixas estético-funcionais subjetivas dos pacientes e as respectivas deformidades funcionais observadas pelos cirurgiões. Após, esses dados foram correlacionados com a finalidade de observar a frequência de relatos concomitantes entre os médicos e pacientes. Resultados: A presença de ponta caída e giba óssea residual foram as principais queixas dos pacientes confirmadas pelos cirurgiões. Já a correlação entre sintomas subjetivos obstrutivos e a avaliação intranasal realizada pelos cirurgiões demonstrou estar presente em 87,5% dos casos. Dentre os pacientes com sintomas respiratórios, a principal deformidade encontrada foi o desvio septal residual em 56,25% dos casos. Conclusão: A ponta caída seguida de giba óssea residual foram as principais queixas relatadas pelos pacientes e confirmadas ao exame objetivo pelos médicos. A presença de 37,2% dos pacientes com queixas obstrutivas nasais demonstra que maior atenção deve ser dada a deformidades funcionais já durante o primeiro procedimento cirúrgico. As diferenças observadas entre as queixas dos pacientes e avaliações dos cirurgiões comprovam a necessidade da avaliação pormenorizada e esclarecimento ao paciente com relação as suas expectativas e reais possibilidades cirúrgicas.

Infection after knee replacement: a qualitative study of impact of periprosthetic knee infection.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 340,000 knee replacements are performed each year in the USA and UK. Around 1% of patients who have had knee replacement develop deep infection around the prosthesis: periprosthetic knee infection. Treatment often requires a combination of one or more major operations and antibiotic therapy. This study aimed to understand and characterise patients' experiences of periprosthetic knee infection. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 patients (9 men, 7 women; 59-80 years, mean age 72) who experienced periprosthetic knee infection and subsequent revision treatment in six National Health Service orthopaedic departments. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed thematically. The concept of biographical disruption was used to frame our analysis, and four transcripts double-coded for rigour. Patients were interviewed between two and 10 months after surgical revision. RESULTS: Participant experiences can be characterised according to three aspects of biographical disruption which we have used to frame our analysis: onset and the problem of recognition; emerging disability and the problem of uncertainty, and chronic illness and the mobilisation of resources. Participants' experiences of infection and treatment varied, but everyone who took part reported that infection and revision treatment had devastating effects on them. Participants described use of social and healthcare support and a need for more support. Some participants thought that the symptoms that they had first presented with had not been taken seriously enough. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic knee infection and its treatment can be life-changing for patients, and there is a need for greater support throughout treatment and lengthy recovery. Future work could look at preparedness for adverse outcomes, help-seeking in impactful situations, and information for healthcare professionals about early signs and care for periprosthetic infection.