Search

Study Design: Retrospective cohort analysis Objective: To characterize the impact of COVID-19 on utilization of the ten most common spine procedures and percentages of outpatient procedures. Methods: The PearlDiver national database was queried from January 2010 to April 2021 for short (<6 segments) and long segment posterior instrumented fusion (≥6 segments), posterior cervical fusion, anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), cervical laminectomy, laminoplasty, and disc arthroplasty, lumbar laminectomy, microdiscectomy, and interbody fusion. Annual procedure utilization between January 2010 through April 2021 was recorded and compared. Monthly trends were compared to January 2020. Outpatient trends were compared between 2010-2019 and 2019-2021 using segmented linear regression. Results: Overall, all ten procedures decreased 4.3% in 2020 compared to 2019 and increased 6.3% in 2021 compared to 2019. March and April of 2020 had the largest decreases, with March 2020 decreasing 18.2% and April 2020 decreasing 51.6% compared to January 2020. Despite increasing COVID cases in January 2021, overall procedure utilization decreased only 1.8% compared to January 2020, and increased later in 2021 with April 2021 case volumes increasing by 138% compared to January 2020. Outpatient utilization of short segment posterior lumbar fusion and lumbar interbody fusion significantly increased during this time (P <.001). Conclusion: The greatest impact on spine surgery volume from the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in March and April 2020. Spine procedure utilization was otherwise similar or increased compared to January 2020. Additionally, the volume of outpatient short segment posterior fusion and lumbar interbody fusions increased during this time period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective Cohort Study Objectives: Cervical radiculopathy and peripheral entrapment neuropathies often have overlapping symptoms that are difficult to distinguish on physical examination. Small-scale studies have attempted to report the incidence of this phenomenon, often called double crush syndrome (DCS), with varying results. The present study aims to determine the incidence of concomitant cervical radiculopathy and peripheral nerve compression and to determine if the DCS hypothesis, which states that compression of a nerve at one site leaves it more susceptible to compression at another, is valid. Methods: The PearlDiver database was queried from 2010 to 2020. The incidence of peripheral neuropathy in cervical radiculopathy was assessed. Propensity score matching was used to determine if patients with cervical radiculopathy were more likely to have peripheral nerve compression compared to controls, and vice versa, to test the DCS hypothesis. Results: The database contains records of 90,772 632 patients. The incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or peripheral ulnar nerve compression (PUnC) in cervical radiculopathy was 9.98% and 3.15%, respectively. The incidence of both carpal tunnel syndrome and PUnC in cervical radiculopathy was 1.84%. Patients with cervical radiculopathy were more likely than matched controls to have both CTS (P <.001) and PUnC (P <.001). Patients with CTS (P <.001) and with PUnC (P <.001) were more likely to have cervical radiculopathy than the control cohort. Conclusions: The incidence of DCS is reported. Patients with cervical radiculopathy are more likely than matched controls to have peripheral nerve compression, and vice versa, in support of the DCS hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the metrics used to assess outcomes after treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. Methods: We performed a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines of level I and II randomized controlled trials of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE electronic database for studies on treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome from January 2008 to January 2018. A total of 105 studies were included in the final analysis. The metrics used to assess outcomes in each studies were collected, compared, and described. Results: Nearly all the studies used a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess outcomes (94%). The most common PROMs used were the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (60%) and the Visual Analog Scale for pain (51%). Electrophysiological testing and physical examination were also commonly used to assess outcomes (50% and 46%, respectively). Cost, sleep, and return to activities of daily living were assessed in a minority of studies (1%, 1%, and 5%, respectively). Conclusions: Successful treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome is commonly defined based on a PROM, highlighting recent efforts to measure outcomes from the patient's perspective. Other patient-centered metrics such as return to work and sleep quality, however, were rarely reported, whereas objective measures such as nerve conduction studies were prevalent. Further work is needed to determine patients' preferred method of measuring outcomes after treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome to inform goal-directed decision-making and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: End-to-end anastomosis staplers are frequently used in colorectal surgery, generating two anastomotic doughnuts. Whether pathological evaluation of the doughnut changes clinical practice remains unclear. We aim to identify any effects of pathological evaluation of anastomotic doughnuts after oncological colorectal surgery. Method: We performed a systematic literature search utilizing PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science databases and selected studies on evaluation of the anastomotic doughnut after oncological colorectal surgery with stapled end-toend anastomosis. Outcome measures included: involved distal margin on the oncological sample, histological involvement of the doughnut, clinical change in management from a positive doughnut and study recommendations. Results: Of the 5761 studies identified, eight studies encompassing 1754 patients were evaluated. Most operations were for primary colon (37.5%) or rectal adenocarcinoma (37.5%). Incidence of distal margin involvement of the oncological sample was reported in three papers, with six positive cases (1.1%). Of the 1754 doughnut pairs evaluated, five were positive for neoplasia (0.29%), three for adenomas (0.18%) and one for metaplastic polyp (0.06%), none of which changed postoperative treatment. Four studies recommended abandoning routine histopathological evaluation of anastomotic doughnuts, while the remaining four recommended evaluation only under certain criteria, including gross distal margin <2 cm (one study), gross distal margin <3 cm (one study), tumours undetected on gross examination (one study), ‘histologically aggressive cancers’ or grossly involved distal margin (one study). Conclusion: Routine evaluation of anastomotic doughnuts should be reconsidered, as <1% are positive for neoplasia. Exceptions may include specific scenarios where histopathology is likely to be clinically useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) serves to better quantify aspects of patient outcomes missed with objective measures, including radiographic indices and physical examination findings. We hypothesize that PROMs are inconsistently and heterogeneously captured in the treatment of distal radius fractures. Methods: We performed a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines of all level I and II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of distal radius fracture treatment of any modality for those older than 50 years of age from January 2008 to January 2018. A total of 23 studies were included in the final analysis. The metrics used by each study to assess outcomes were collected, compared, and described. Results: Physical examination findings and radiographic measures were reported in 70% and 74% of studies, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes measures were used to assess outcomes in 74% of studies. Only the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand was used in greater than half of the studies (57%). Pain scores were assessed in 39% of studies and complications in only 26%. Conclusions: There is substantial heterogeneity and lack of standardization in the collection of both objective outcome measures and PROMs in level I and II RCTs for the treatment of distal radius fractures. The ability to compare between studies or aggregate data among studies is therefore limited. Radiographic and physical examination findings remain frequently reported despite known limitations of these metrics. The routine collection of PROMs after the treatment of distal radius fractures can ensure care is directed toward improving what is most important to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]