RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This study tests the utilization of Bluetooth noise-canceling headphones in improving the quality of eye exams in patients with hearing loss. This prospective study was approved on ethical standards by the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Institutional Review Board (Approval No. 22-0079) and registered with the National Institutes of Health (NCT05420038). METHODS: UTMB patients above 55 years of age were screened for hearing loss using soundcheck audiometry. Twenty-nine subjects answered pre-recorded ophthalmic exam questions that solicited precise responses. As controls, subjects were randomly administered half of the questions via headphones and half via a smartphone at normal speech volume (60 decibels). Points were awarded for responses demonstrating comprehension, and a post-exam survey was collected. RESULTS: Collectively, the mean score was 1.79 with headphones versus 0.96 with control on the Amsler grid segment and 1.90 with headphones versus 0.97 with control on education questions (p=0.001). Between red zone and yellow zone hearing loss patients, the more severe red zone group answered significantly better in both Amsler (1.78 versus 0.50; p=0.0003) and education questions (1.88 versus 0.44; p<0.0001) with headphones. The yellow zone group answered better with headphones overall but failed to reach significance. Post-exam survey indicated that 28 of 29 patients (97%) preferred the headphones during ophthalmic exams. CONCLUSION: Patients with hearing loss demonstrated better comprehension with Bluetooth headphones. These low-cost devices show great promise at improving effective, compassionate communication between providers and hearing loss patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Charcot neuroarthropathy (CN) is commonly associated with diabetic neuropathy and can predispose patients to amputations. Management remains a challenge, with no definitive treatment. This study examines major postoperative complications associated with open reduction with internal (intramedullary) nails, fixation, external fixation, or combined internal and external fixation for correction of the deformity. METHODS: We reviewed available literature using PubMed, OvidSP, Scopus, and Cochrane and searched bibliographies of the included studies to identify additional pertinent references. After review and agreement among 4 raters, a total of 15 studies were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Hardware removal rates were 0.133 for intramedullary nails, 0.007 for external fixators, and 0.050 for combined fixation. Rates of hardware complication were 0.182 for intramedullary nails and 0.007 for external fixators. Wound dehiscence occurred at rates of 0.059 for intramedullary nails and 0.216 for combined fixation. The rate of deep infections was 0.031 for intramedullary nails, 0.032 for external fixators, and 0.113 for combined fixation. The rate of irrigation and debridement was 0.007 for external fixators. CONCLUSION: Rates of hardware removal (13.3%) and complications (18.2%) were high with intramedullary nails. Dehiscence (21.6%) and deep infection (11.3%) were high in combined fixation. Other complications occurred relatively rarely. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.