Comparison of Visual Analog Pain Score Reported to Physician vs Nurse in Nonoperatively Treated Foot and Ankle Patients

Background: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are taking a more prominent role in Orthopedics as health care seeks to define treatment outcomes. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is considered a reliable measure of acute pain. A previous study found that operative candidates’ VAS pain score was significantly higher when reported to the surgeon compared to the nurse. This study’s aim is to examine whether this phenomenon occurs in nonoperative patients. We hypothesize that patients’ VAS scores reported to the surgeon and a nurse will be the same Methods: This study is a retrospective cohort of 201 consecutive nonoperative patients treated by a single surgeon. Patients were asked to rate pain intensity by a nurse followed by the surgeon using a horizontal VAS, 0 “no pain” to 10 worst pain”. Differences in reported pain levels were compared with data from the previous cohort of 201 consecutive operative patients. Results: The mean VAS score reported to the nurse was 3.2 whereas the mean VAS score reported to the surgeon was 4.2 (p\u3c.001). The mean difference in VAS scores reported for operative patients was 2.9, whereas the mean difference for nonoperative patients was 1.0 (p \u3c .001). Conclusion: This study found statistically significant differences between VAS scores reported to the surgeon versus the nurse in nonoperative patients which support the trend found in our previous study, where operative patients reported significantly higher scores to the surgeon. The mean difference between reported pain scores is significantly higher for operative patients compared to nonoperative patients

Operative and nonoperative management for renal trauma. Comparison of outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Preservation of kidney and renal function is the goal of nonoperative management (NOM) of renal trauma (RT). The advantages of NOM for minor blunt RT have already been clearly described, but its value for major blunt and penetrating RT is still under debate. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis on NOM for RT, which was compared with the operative management (OM) with respect to mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LOS). METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was followed for this study. A systematic search was performed on Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed for studies published up to December 2015, without language restrictions, which compared NOM versus OM for renal injuries. RESULTS: Twenty nonrandomized retrospective cohort studies comprising 13,824 patients with blunt (2,998) or penetrating (10,826) RT were identified. When all RT were considered (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades 1-5), NOM was associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates compared to OM (8.3% vs 17.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.471; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.404-0.548; P<0.001 and 2% vs 53.3%, OR 0.0484; 95% CI 0.0279-0.0839, P<0.001). Likewise, NOM represented the gold standard treatment resulting in a lower mortality rate compared to OM even when only high-grade RT was considered (9.1% vs 17.9%, OR 0.332; 95% CI 0.155-0.708; P=0.004), be they blunt (4.1% vs 8.1%, OR 0.275; 95% CI 0.0957-0.788; P=0.016) or penetrating (9.1% vs 18.1%, OR 0.468; 95% CI 0.398-0.0552; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that NOM for RT is the treatment of choice not only for AAST grades 1 and 2, but also for higher grade blunt and penetrating RT

Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A pilot economic decision analysis

Background: The operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures has been associated with lower rerupture rates and better function but also a risk of surgery-related complications compared with nonoperative treatment, which may provide improved outcomes with accelerated rehabilitation protocols. However, economic decision analyses integrating the updated costs of both treatment options are limited in the literature. Purpose: To compare the cost-effectiveness of operative and nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon tears. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: An economic decision model was built to assess the cost-utility ratio (CUR) of open primary repair versus nonoperative treatment for acute Achilles tendon ruptures, based on direct costs from the practices of sports medicine and foot and ankle surgeons at a single tertiary academic center, with published outcome probabilities and patient utility data. Multiway sensitivity analyses were performed to reflect the range of data. Results: Nonoperative treatment was more cost-effective in the average scenario (nonoperative CUR, US$520; operative CUR, US$1995), but crossover occurred during the sensitivity analysis (nonoperative CUR range, US$224-US$2079; operative CUR range, US$789-US$8380). Operative treatment cost an extra average marginal CUR of US$1475 compared with nonoperative treatment, assuming uneventful healing in both treatment arms. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated a decreased marginal CUR of operative treatment when the outcome utility was maximized, and rerupture rates were minimized compared with nonoperative treatment. Conclusion: Nonoperative treatment was more cost-effective in average scenarios. Crossover indicated that open primary repair would be favorable for maximized outcome utility, such as that for young athletes or heavy laborers. The treatment decision for acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be individualized. These pilot results provide inferences for further longitudinal analyses incorporating future clinical evidence

Efficacy of interspinous device versus surgical decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a modified network analysis.

Study designSystematic review using a modified network analysis.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and morbidity of interspinous-device placement versus surgical decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.SummaryTraditionally, the most effective treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is through surgical decompression. Recently, interspinous devices have been used in lieu of standard laminectomy.MethodsA review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and March 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies comparing surgical decompression with interspinous-device placement for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. First, studies making the direct comparison (cohort or randomized trials) were searched. Second, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing each treatment to conservative management were searched to allow for an indirect comparison through a modified network analysis approach. Comparison studies involving simultaneous decompression with placement of an interspinous device were not included. Studies that did not have a comparison group were not included since a treatment effect could not be calculated. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria assessing quality, quantity, and consistency of results. The strengths of evidence for indirect comparisons were downgraded. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.ResultsWe identified five studies meeting our inclusion criteria. No RCTs or cohort studies were identified that made the direct comparison of interspinous-device placement with surgical decompression. For the indirect comparison, three RCTs compared surgical decompression to conservative management and two RCTs compared interspinous-device placement to conservative management. There was low evidence supporting greater treatment effects for interspinous-device placement compared to decompression for disability and pain outcomes at 12 months. There was low evidence demonstrating little to no difference in treatment effects between the groups for walking distance and complication rates.ConclusionThe indirect treatment effect for disability and pain favors the interspinous device compared to decompression. The low evidence suggests that any further research is very likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. No significant treatment effect differences were observed for postoperative walking distance improvement or complication rates; however, findings should be considered with caution because of indirect comparisons and short follow-up periods

Predictors and outcomes of crossover to surgery from physical therapy for meniscal tear and osteoarthritis a randomized trial comparing physical therapy and surgery

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) combined with physical therapy (PT) have yielded pain relief similar to that provided by PT alone in randomized trials of subjects with a degenerative meniscal tear. However, many patients randomized to PT received APM before assessment of the primary outcome. We sought to identify factors associated with crossing over to APM and to compare pain relief between patients who had crossed over to APM and those who had been randomized to APM. METHODS: We used data from the MeTeOR (Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research) Trial of APM with PT versus PT alone in subjects ≥45 years old who had mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis and a degenerative meniscal tear. We assessed independent predictors of crossover to APM among those randomized to PT. We also compared pain relief at 6 months among those randomized to PT who crossed over to APM, those who did not cross over, and those originally randomized to APM. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-four subjects were randomized to and received APM and 177 were randomized to PT, of whom 48 (27%) crossed over to receive APM in the first 140 days after randomization. In multivariate analyses, factors associated with a higher likelihood of crossing over to APM among those who had originally been randomized to PT included a baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Score of ≥40 (risk ratio [RR] = 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00, 3.93) and symptom duration of <1 year (RR = 1.74; 95% CI = 0.98, 3.08). Eighty-one percent of subjects who crossed over to APM and 82% of those randomized to APM had an improvement of ≥10 points in their pain score at 6 months, as did 73% of those who were randomized to and received only PT. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects who crossed over to APM had presented with a shorter symptom duration and greater baseline pain than those who did not cross over from PT. Subjects who crossed over had rates of surgical success similar to those of the patients who had been randomized to surgery. Our findings also suggest that an initial course of rigorous PT prior to APM may not compromise surgical outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Communicating Study Results to Our Patients: Which Way Is Best?

Before we are able to communicate evidence and evidence results to patients we must first be familiar with the common ways by which results may be presented to our patients. We describe five approaches (relative risk, risk reduction, odds ratio, absolute risk difference and number needed to treat) of transforming the results of an orthopaedic study for communication with patients

WSES classification and guidelines for liver trauma

The severity of liver injuries has been universally classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grading scale. In determining the optimal treatment strategy, however, the haemodynamic status and associated injuries should be considered. Thus the management of liver trauma is ultimately based on the anatomy of the injury and the physiology of the patient. This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification of liver trauma and the management Guidelines