Survivorship After Neurocritical Care: A Scoping Review of Outcomes Beyond Physical Status.

Following intensive care unit hospitalization, survivors of acute neurological injury often experience debilitating short-term and long-term impairments. Although the physical/motor impairments experienced by survivors of acute neurological injury have been described extensively, fewer studies have examined cognitive, mental health, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and employment outcomes. This scoping review describes the publication landscape beyond physical and/or motor sequelae in neurocritical care survivors. Databases were searched for terms related to critical illness, intensive care, and outcomes from January 1970 to March 2022. English-language studies of critically ill adults with a primary neurological diagnosis were included if they reported on at least one outcome of interest: cognition, mental health, HRQoL or employment. Data extraction was performed in duplicate for prespecified variables related to study outcomes. Of 16,036 abstracts screened, 74 citations were identified for inclusion. The studies encompassed seven worldwide regions and eight neurocritical diagnosis categories. Publications reporting outcomes of interest increased from 3 before the year 2000 to 71 after. Follow-up time points included ≤ 1 (n = 15 [20%] citations), 3 (n = 28 [38%]), 6 (n = 28 [38%]), and 12 (n = 21 [28%]) months and 1 to 5 (n = 19 [26%]) and > 5 years (n = 8 [11%]), with 28 (38%) citations evaluating outcomes at multiple time points. Sixty-six assessment tools were used to evaluate the four outcomes of interest: 22 evaluating HRQoL (56 [76%] citations), 21 evaluating cognition (20 [27%] citations), 21 evaluating mental health (18 [24%] citations), and 2 evaluating employment (9 [12%] citations). This scoping review aimed to better understand the literature landscape regarding nonphysical outcomes in survivors of neurocritical care. Although a rising number of publications highlight growing awareness, future efforts are needed to improve study consistency and comparability and characterize outcomes in a disease-specific manner, including outlining of a minimum core outcomes set and associated assessment tools.

Impact of Implementation of a New Weapons Screening at an Urban Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Violence in the emergency department (ED) setting is well documented in medical literature. Weapons can be used to cause significant injury or mortality, although there is a paucity of literature on weapons and weapons screening in the ED. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of initiating a weapons screening process on the identification and removal of weapons. METHODS: Multiple aspects of a weapons screening program were evaluated at 2 and 6 months prior to and after a weapons screening protocol was initiated at an urban ED. In the Pre-Screen periods, only patients primarily seeking care for mental health were screened prior to entry. In the Post-Screen periods, all patients and visitors were screened with walk-through magnetometers or wand metal detectors, and additional screening checks were initiated. The number of individuals screened and numbers of weapons found were measured. Descriptive statistics comparing Pre- and Post-Screen periods were performed. RESULTS: Prior to the new screening process, 511 and 1701 patients primarily seeking care for mental health were screened, with 15 and 103 weapons confiscated at 2 and 6 months, respectively. After the screening process was initiated, 13,149 and 43,321 ED patients and visitors were screened, with 194 and 567 weapons confiscated at 2 and 6 months, respectively. Persons screened increased by 25-fold at both 2 and 6 months after implementing the screening process. Weapons confiscated increased approximately 13-fold and sixfold at the respective 2- and 6-month Pre- and Post-Screen periods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementation of weapons screening significantly increased the number of weapons identified and confiscated prior to entry in the ED by patients and visitors.

A Retrospective Analysis Investigating Whether Case Volume Experience of the Anesthesiologist Correlates with Intraoperative Efficiency for Joint Arthroplasty.

The objective of this retrospective study was to determine if there was an association between anesthesiology experience (e.g. historic case volume) and operating room (OR) efficiency times for lower extremity joint arthroplasty cases. The primary outcome was time from patient in the OR to anesthesia ready (i.e. after spinal or general anesthesia induction was complete). The secondary outcomes included time from anesthesia ready to surgical incision, and time from incision to closing completed. Mixed effects linear regression was performed, in which the random effect was the anesthesiology attending provider. There were 4,575 patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty included. There were 82 unique anesthesiology providers, in which the median [quartile] frequency of cases performed was 79 [45, 165]. On multivariable mixed effects linear regression - in which the primary independent variable (anesthesiologist case volume history for joint arthroplasty anesthesia) was log-transformed - the estimate for log-transformed case volume was - 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.62, -0.20, P = 0.01). When modeling time from incision to closure complete, the estimate for log-transformed case volume was - 2.07 (95% -3.54, -0.06, P = 0.01). Thus, when comparing anesthesiologists with median case volume (79 cases) versus those with the lowest case volume (10 cases), the predicted difference in times added up to only approximately 6 min. If the purpose of faster anesthesia workflows was to open up more OR time to increase surgical volume in a given day, this study does not support the supposition that anesthesiologists with higher joint arthroplasty case volume would improve throughput.

Posterior Tibial Slope, Notch Width, Condylar Morphology, Trochlear Inclination, and Tibiofemoral Mismatch Predict Outcomes Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive summary of the available literature on the influence of bone morphology on outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Our protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) and followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies investigating knee morphologic features and outcomes after ACLR. Articles were screened and references lists were reviewed to identify relevant studies, after which methodologic quality was assessed for each study included in this review. Because of significant variability in terminology and methodology between studies, no meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Systematically screening a total of 19,647 studies identified from the search revealed 24 studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among tibial shape features identified as predictors of poor outcomes after ACLR, increased posterior tibial slope was most common (16 studies). Other features such as increased tibial plateau area (1 study), decreased medial plateau width (1 study), and increased medial plateau height (1 study) were also associated with poor outcomes. For the femur, features related to notch width and condylar morphology were most common (4 studies and 7 studies, respectively). An increased condylar offset ratio, increased lateral femoral condylar ratio, and larger notch width were each found to be associated with negative ACLR outcomes, including increased cartilage degeneration, worse patient-reported outcomes, and graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior tibial slope, notch width, condylar morphology, trochlear inclination, and tibiofemoral mismatch are associated with and predictive of outcomes after ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

National trends in perioperative epidural analgesia use for surgical patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Newer regional anesthesia techniques and minimally invasive surgeries have yielded decreased postoperative pain scores, potentially leading to decreased need for perioperative epidural analgesia. Limited literature is available on trends in usage rates of epidurals. The objective of this study was to identify trends in perioperative epidural analgesia rates among multiple fields of surgery. METHODS: All patients undergoing general, thoracic, urologic, plastic, vascular, orthopedic, or gynecological surgery in 2014-2020 were included from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database of over 700 hospitals in the U.S. and 11 different countries. Annual trends in epidural analgesia for all surgeries and each surgical specialty were assessed by mixed effects multivariable logistic regression. The odds ratios (OR) and 99 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported. RESULTS: There were 3,111,435 patients from 2014 to 2020 that were included in the final analysis, in which 107,209 (3.4 %) received perioperative epidural analgesia. Among all surgeries combined, epidural use throughout the study period decreased (OR 0.98 per year, 99 % CI 0.97-0.98, P < 0.001). When only analyzing the surgeries with the top 5 most frequent epidural use per specialty, there was no statistically significant trend in epidural utilization (OR 0.99 per year, 99 % CI 0.99-1.00, P = 0.09). However, there was an increasing trend in epidural utilization in general surgery (OR 1.05 per year, 99 % CI 1.03-1.07, P < 0.001) and vascular surgery (OR 1.08 per year, 99 % CI 1.05-1.10, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Rates of perioperative epidural analgesia use has decreased in recent years overall, however, among surgeries within the general surgery and vascular surgery specialty, utilization has increased for procedures that have the highest rates of usage.

Comparing Propofol With Fentanyl and Midazolam for Sedation in Closed Reductions of Traumatic Hip Dislocations.

Traumatic native hip dislocations require prompt reduction of the dislocation to limit the risk of avascular necrosis and resultant hip arthrosis. Although closed reduction under sedation is frequently attempted, there is minimal evidence about which sedative agent is most safe and effective. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of propofol vs combination fentanyl/midazolam for closed reduction under sedation of traumatic native hip dislocations. This was a single-center retrospective review. The main outcome measures were the rate of successful closed reduction with propofol vs combination fentanyl/midazolam and time from the start of sedation to radiographic evidence of reduction. Fifty-four patients with traumatic native hip dislocations were identified. Closed reduction under sedation with propofol was successful in 11 of 14 attempts compared with 4 of 11 attempts with combination fentanyl/midazolam (P=.04). The fentanyl/midazolam group had 6.4 times the odds (95% CI, 1.1-37.7) of failed closed reduction compared with the propofol group. The median time to reduction in the propofol group was 14 minutes vs 45 minutes for the fentanyl/midazolam group (P=.18). Patients who had failed closed reduction with fentanyl/midazolam had a median time to reduction of 100 minutes. There was no difference in sedation-related complications between the 2 groups. We therefore conclude that sedation with propofol is significantly more effective than combination fentanyl/midazolam for closed reduction of native hip dislocations. To minimize unsuccessful reduction attempts and shorten total time to reduction, we recommend against the use of combination fentanyl/midazolam because of the high risk of failure. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(2):86-92.].

Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: To provide a comprehensive summary of available literature on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for various shoulder conditions and outcomes and to identify factors that influence these metrics. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past 2 years, there has been an increasing interest in utilizing MCID, SCB, and PASS as a gauge to evaluate the success of an intervention for shoulder conditions. Efforts at calculating these thresholds have yielded multiple and inconsistent values and are further compounded by the proliferation of different PROMs in the shoulder literature. The MCID, SCB, and PASS values of shoulder PROMs vary widely with study-specific characteristics, including patient demographics, shoulder pathology, treatment, shoulder instrument, study methodology, and calculation method. The differences in these factors are not inconsequential and could lead to large discrepancies in threshold values. It is crucial that clinicians are mindful of these variables when designing future studies to calculate these metrics or when utilizing previously published values to determine the success of an intervention.