Nevin Manimala

Int J Spine Surg. 2021 Sep 22:8121. doi: 10.14444/8121. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation is a well-accepted technique in lumbar degenerative disc disorder. Unilateral instrumentation in TLIF has been reported in the literature. This study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral and bilateral instrumented TLIF in a selected series of patients.

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients operated with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in TLIF (UPSF TLIF) or with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in TLIF (BPSF TLIF) with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients were evaluated at regular intervals for functional and radiological outcomes. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog score (VAS) preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Fusion rates were assessed using Bridwell interbody fusion grading.

RESULTS: Our study shows that there was a significant improvement in VAS and ODI in both groups at 2 years follow-up, and there was no significant difference in improvements between the groups. The complication rates between the groups were similar. The fusion rate in UPSF TLIF was 97.3% and was 98.34% in BPSF TLIF; this was not statistically significant between groups. There is a significant difference in terms of blood loss, duration of surgery, and average duration of hospital stay between the groups (P < .001), favoring UPSF TLIF.

CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral pedicle screw fixation in open TLIF is comparable with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in terms of patient-reported clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates with the additional benefits of less operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and less cost in selective cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

PMID:34551929 | DOI:10.14444/8121

Int J Spine Surg. 2021 Sep 22:8126. doi: 10.14444/8126. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare clinical and radiologic parameters between minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF.

METHODS: Data of 145 patients who underwent single- or double-level TLIF procedures with an open (n = 76) or a MIS (n = 69) technique were analyzed. Average operation time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were compared between open TLIF and MIS-TLIF. Improvement in clinical scores was analyzed using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in both groups and statistically compared using t tests. Radiologic parameters, such as lumbar lordosis, focal lordosis at the index level, and pelvic incidence (PI), were calculated at preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up for comparison. The differences in improvement between open and MIS groups were analyzed using unpaired t tests.

RESULTS: Average follow-up was 35.8 ± 15.4 months in open TLIF and 37.9 ± 14.4 months in MIS-TLIF. The average blood loss and operation times were higher and hospital stay was less in MIS-TLIF compared to open TLIF. VAS scores were improved from preoperative (8.5 ± 0.6) to postoperative (2.1 ± 0.8) and preoperative (8.4 ± 0.8) to postoperative (2.0 ± 0.7) in open TLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively (P < .0001), and ODI scores were improved from preoperative (55.2 ± 5.2) to postoperative (22.5 ± 4.3) and preoperative (56.7 ± 4.9) to postoperative (22.0 ± 5.0) in open TLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively (P < .0001). Similarly, there were significant improvements in lumbar lordosis and focal lordosis at the index level with a difference of 3.9° and 2.5°, respectively, in open TLIF and 4.0° and 2.9°, respectively, in MIS-TLIF. However, there were no differences in PI in both groups. There were 9 (11.8%) and 9 (13%) complications encountered in open TLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively. Two patients from open TLIF and 5 from MIS-TLIF had to undergo revision surgeries without any statistical difference.

CONCLUSIONS: Open TLIF and MIS-TLIF are equally efficient surgical techniques with similar clinical and radiologic outcomes. MIS-TLIF is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay; however, it increases operation time significantly.

PMID:34551928 | DOI:10.14444/8126

Int J Spine Surg. 2021 Sep 22:8119. doi: 10.14444/8119. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice in postoperative bracing after posterior lumbar spine fusion (PLF) is inconsistent between providers. This paper attempts to assess the effect of bracing on short-term outcomes related to safety, quality of care, and direct costs.

METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive patients undergoing multilevel PLF with or without bracing (2013-2017) was undertaken (n = 980). Patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed. Outcomes assessed included length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), surgical-site infection (SSI), total cost, readmission within 30 days, and emergency department (ED) evaluation within 30 days.

RESULTS: Amongst the study population, 936 were braced and 44 were not braced. There was no difference between the braced and unbraced cohorts regarding LOS (P = .106), discharge disposition (P = .898), 30-day readmission (P = .434), and 30-day ED evaluation (P = 1.000). There was also no difference in total cost (P = .230) or QALY gain (P = .740). The results indicate a significantly lower likelihood of SSI in the braced population (1.50% versus 6.82%, odds ratio = 0.208, 95% confidence interval = 0.057-0.751, P = .037). There was no difference in relevant comorbidities (P = .259-1.000), although the braced cohort was older than the unbraced cohort (63 versus 56 y, P = .003).

CONCLUSION: Bracing following multilevel posterior lumbar fixation does not alter short-term postoperative course or reduce the risk for early adverse events. Cost analysis show no difference in direct costs between the 2 treatment approaches. Short-term data suggest that removal of bracing from the postoperative regimen for PLF will not result in increased adverse outcomes.

PMID:34551926 | DOI:10.14444/8119

Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021 Sep 22:fetalneonatal-2020-321489. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-321489. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of introducing a consensus guideline incorporating an adapted Sepsis Risk Calculator (SRC) algorithm, in the management of early onset neonatal sepsis (EONS), on antibiotic usage and patient safety.

DESIGN: Multicentre prospective study SETTING: Ten perinatal hospitals in Wales, UK.

PATIENTS: All live births ≥34 weeks’ gestation over a 12-month period (April 2019-March 2020) compared with infants in the preceding 15-month period (January 2018-March 2019) as a baseline.

METHODS: The consensus guideline was introduced in clinical practice on 1 April 2019. It incorporated a modified SRC algorithm, enhanced in-hospital surveillance, ongoing quality assurance, standardised staff training and parent education. The main outcome measure was antibiotic usage/1000 live births, balancing this with analysis of harm from delayed diagnosis and treatment, disease severity and readmissions from true sepsis. Outcome measures were analysed using statistical process control charts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of antibiotic use in infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation.

RESULTS: 4304 (14.3%) of the 30 105 live-born infants received antibiotics in the baseline period compared with 1917 (7.7%) of 24 749 infants in the intervention period (45.5% mean reduction). All 19 infants with culture-positive sepsis in the postimplementation phase were identified and treated appropriately. There were no increases in sepsis-related neonatal unit admissions, disease morbidity and late readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre study provides evidence that a judicious adaptation of the SRC incorporating enhanced surveillance can be safely introduced in the National Health Service and is effective in reducing antibiotic use for EONS without increasing morbidity and mortality.

PMID:34551917 | DOI:10.1136/archdischild-2020-321489

Br J Sports Med. 2021 Sep 22:bjsports-2021-104028. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104028. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare the success rates of arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet procedure in the treatment of traumatic shoulder instability in young males.

DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

SETTING: Orthopaedic departments in eight public hospitals in Finland.

PARTICIPANTS: 122 young males, mean age 21 years (range 16-25 years) with traumatic shoulder anteroinferior instability were randomised.

INTERVENTIONS: Arthroscopic Bankart (group B) or open Latarjet (group L) procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the reported recurrence of instability, that is, dislocation at 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included clinical apprehension, sports activity level, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, the pain Visual Analogue Scale, the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, the Constant Score and the Subjective Shoulder Value scores and the progression of osteoarthritic changes in plain films and MRI.

RESULTS: 91 patients were available for analyses at 2-year follow-up (drop-out rate 25%). There were 10 (21%) patients with redislocations in group B and 1 (2%) in group L, p=0.006. One (9%) patient in group B and five (56%) patients in group L returned to their previous top level of competitive sports (p=0.004) at follow-up. There was no statistically significant between group differences in any of the other secondary outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic Bankart operation carries a significant risk for short-term postoperative redislocations compared with open Latarjet operation, in the treatment of traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males. Patients should be counselled accordingly before deciding the surgical treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01998048.

PMID:34551902 | DOI:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104028

Transplant Proc. 2021 Aug 16:S0041-1345(21)00550-9. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2021.08.019. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is challenging health systems all over the world. Particularly high-risk groups show considerable mortality rates after infection. In 2020, a huge number of case reports, case series, and consecutively various systematic reviews have been published reporting on morbidity and mortality risk connected with SARS-CoV-2 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, this vast array of publications resulted in an increasing complexity of the field, overwhelming even for the expert reader.

METHODS: We performed a structured literature review comprising electronic databases, transplant journals, and literature from previous systematic reviews covering the entire year 2020. From 164 included articles, we identified 3451 cases of SARS-CoV-2-infected SOT recipients.

RESULTS: Infections resulted in a hospitalization rate of 84% and 24% intensive care unit admissions in the included patients. Whereas 53.6% of patients were reported to have recovered, cross-sectional overall mortality reported after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was at 21.1%. Synoptic data concerning immunosuppressive medication attested to the reduction or withdrawal of antimetabolites (81.9%) and calcineurin inhibitors (48.9%) as a frequent adjustment. In contrast, steroids were reported to be increased in 46.8% of SOT recipients.

CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 in SOT recipients is associated with high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Conforming with current guidelines, modifications of immunosuppressive therapies mostly comprised a reduction or withdrawal of antimetabolites and calcineurin inhibitors, while frequently maintaining or even increasing steroids. Here, we provide an accessible overview to the topic and synoptic estimates of expectable outcomes regarding in-hospital mortality of SOT recipients with COVID-19.

PMID:34551880 | DOI:10.1016/j.transproceed.2021.08.019

J Cardiol. 2021 Sep 19:S0914-5087(21)00238-0. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2021.09.004. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Neutrophil and albumin are well-known biomarkers of inflammation, which are highly related to contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI). We aim to explore the predictive value of neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio (NPAR) for CA-AKI and long-term mortality in patients without chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS: We retrospectively observed 5083 consenting patients from January 2012 to December 2018. CA-AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine ≥50% or 0.3 mg/dL within 48 h after contrast medium exposure.

RESULTS: The incidence of CA-AKI was 5.6% (n=286). The optimal cut-off value of NPAR for predicting CA-AKI was 15.7 with 66.8% sensitivity and 61.9% specificity [C statistic=0.679; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.666-0.691]. NPAR displayed higher area under the curve values in comparison to neutrophil percentage (p < 0.001) and neutrophil-to-albumin ratio (NAR) (p < 0.001), but not albumin (p = 0.063). However, NPAR significantly improved the prediction of CA-AKI assessed by the continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) compared to neutrophil percentage (NRI=0.353, 95% CI: 0.234-0.472, p < 0.001; IDI=0.017, 95% CI: 0.010-0.024, p < 0.001) and albumin (NRI=0.141, 95% CI: 0.022-0.260, p = 0.020; IDI=0.009, 95% CI: 0.003-0.015, p = 0.003) alone. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, multivariate analysis showed that NPAR >15.7 was a strong independent predictor of CA-AKI (odds ratio =1.90, 95% CI: 1.38-2.63, p < 0.001). Additionally, NPAR >15.7 was significantly associated with long-term mortality during a median of 2.9 years of follow-up (hazard ratio =1.68, 95% CI: 1.32-2.13; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: NPAR was an independent predictor of CA-AKI and long-term mortality in patients without CKD undergoing elective PCI.

PMID:34551865 | DOI:10.1016/j.jjcc.2021.09.004

Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2021 Oct 29;(Forthcoming):arztebl.m2021.0310. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0310. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that the health literacy of the German population is low. The aim of this article is to analyze current developments in health literacy on the basis of recent data.

METHODS: The Health Literacy Survey Germany 2 (HLS-GER 2) is a representative quantitative survey of the German-speaking resident population of Germany aged 18 and above. It was carried out in December 2019 and January 2020 by paper-assisted personal oral interview (PAPI). Data on health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics were acquired with an internationally coordinated questionnaire. The instrument for measuring general health literacy consisted of 47 questions that reflect an individual’s ability to access, understand, appraise, and apply health-related information. The associations between general health literacy and sociodemographic factors were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate statistical tests.

RESULTS: 58.8% of the participants had low health literacy, characterized by rating at least onethird of the questions as “difficult” or “very difficult.” Many respondents stated that they had difficulties accessing (48.3%), understanding (47.7%), and applying (53.5%) information, and even more of them (74.7%) reported difficulties appraising information. The correlation coefficients reveal that health literacy is weakly associated with the following variables: age, sex, social status, literacy, level of education, financial deprivation, migration background, and the presence of one or more chronic diseases.

CONCLUSION: The findings of the HLS-GER 2 highlight the need for action in promoting health literacy in the healthcare system. As the explanation of variance is low, there are presumably other important determinants of health literacy that were not taken into account. Further studies should be performed to investigate societal conditions of supplying health information, for example, or social and personal characteristics.

PMID:34551856 | DOI:10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0310

Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021 Sep 23:1-5. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X21000935. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Excited delirium, which has been defined as combativeness, agitation, and altered sensorium, requires immediate treatment in prehospital or emergency department (ED) settings for the safety of both patients and caregivers. Prehospital ketamine use is prevalent, although the evidence on safety and efficacy is limited. Many patients with excited delirium are intoxicated with illicit substances. This investigation explores whether patients treated with prehospital ketamine for excited delirium with concomitant substance intoxication have higher rates of subsequent intubation in the ED compared to those without confirmed substance usage.

METHODS: Over 28 months at two large community hospitals, all medical records were retrospectively searched for all patients age 18 years or greater with prehospital ketamine intramuscular (IM) administration for excited delirium and identified illicit and prescription substance co-ingestions. Trained abstractors collected demographic characteristics, history of present illness (HPI), urine drug screens (UDS), alcohol levels, and noted additional sedative administrations. Substance intoxication was determined by UDS and alcohol positivity or negativity, as well as physician HPI. Patients without toxicological testing or documentation of substance intoxication, or who may have tested positive due to ED sedation, were excluded from relevant analyses. Subsequent ED intubation was the primary pre-specified outcome. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to compare variables.

RESULTS: Among 86 patients given prehospital ketamine IM for excited delirium, baseline characteristics including age, ketamine dose, and body mass index were similar between those who did or did not undergo intubation. Men had higher intubation rates. Patients testing positive for alcohol, amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, ecstasy, marijuana, opiates, and synthetic cathinones, both bath salts and flakka, had similar rates of intubation compared to those negative for these substances. Of 27 patients with excited delirium and concomitant cocaine intoxication, nine (33%) were intubated compared with four of 50 (8%) without cocaine intoxication, yielding a 5.75 OR (95%, CI 1.57 to 21.05; P = .009).

CONCLUSION: Patients treated with ketamine IM for excited delirium with concomitant cocaine intoxication had a statistically significant 5.75-fold increased rate of subsequent intubation in the ED. Amongst other substances, no other trends with intubation were noted, but further study is warranted.

PMID:34551849 | DOI:10.1017/S1049023X21000935

Int Psychogeriatr. 2021 Sep 23:1-5. doi: 10.1017/S104161022100106X. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

Delirium is reported to be one of the manifestations of coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. COVID-19 hospitalized patients are at a higher risk of delirium. Pathophysiology behind the association of delirium and COVID-19 is uncertain. We analyzed the association of delirium occurrence with outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, across all age groups, at Mayo Clinic hospitals.A retrospective study of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients at Mayo Clinic between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 was performed. Occurrence of delirium and outcomes of mortality, length of stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality after hospital discharge were measured. Chi-square test, student t-test, survival analysis, and logistic regression analysis were performed to measure and compare outcomes of delirium group adjusted for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity score, and COVID-19 severity with no-delirium group.A total of 4351 COVID-19 patients were included in the study. Delirium occurrence in the overall study population was noted to be 22.4%. The highest occurrence of delirium was also noted in patients with critical COVID-19 illness severity. A statistically significant OR 4.35 (3.27-5.83) for in-hospital mortality and an OR 4.54 (3.25-6.38) for 30-day mortality after discharge in the delirium group were noted. Increased hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission, and need for skilled nursing facility on discharge were noted in the delirium group. Delirium in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a marker for increased mortality and morbidity. In this group, outcomes appear to be much worse when patients are older and have a critical severity of COVID-19 illness.

PMID:34551841 | DOI:10.1017/S104161022100106X