Cost-utility of revisions for cervical deformity correction warrants minimization of reoperations.

Background: Cervical deformity (CD) surgery has become increasingly more common and complex, which has also led to reoperations for complications such as distal junctional kyphosis (DJK). Cost-utility analysis has yet to be used to analyze CD revision surgery in relation to the cost-utility of primary CD surgeries. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-utility of revision surgery for CD correction. Methods: Retrospective review of a multicenter prospective CD database. CD was defined as at least one of the following: C2-C7 Cobb \u3e10°, cervical lordosis (CL) \u3e10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) \u3e4 cm, chin-brow vertical angle (CBVA) \u3e25°. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were calculated by EuroQol Five-Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) mapped to SF-6D index and utilized a 3% discount rate to account for residual decline to life expectancy (men: 76.9 years, women: 81.6 years). Medicare reimbursement at 30 days assigned costs for index procedures (9+ level posterior fusion, 4-8 level posterior fusion with anterior fusion, 2-3 level posterior fusion with anterior fusion, 4-8 level anterior fusion) and revision fusions (2-3 level, 4-8 level, or 9+ level posterior refusion). Cost per QALY gained was calculated. Results: Eighty-nine CD patients were included (61.6 years, 65.2% female). CD correction for these patients involved a mean 7.7±3.7 levels fused, with 34% combined approach surgeries, 49% posterior-only and 17% anterior-only, 19.1% three-column osteotomy. Costs for index surgeries ranged from $20,001-55,205, with the average cost for this cohort of$44,318 and cost per QALY of $27,267. Eleven revision surgeries (mean levels fused 10.3) occurred up to 1-year, with an average cost of$41,510. Indications for revisions were DJK (5/11), neurologic impairment [4], infection [1], prominent/painful instrumentation [1]. Average QALYs gained was 1.62 per revision patient. Cost was $28,138 per QALY for reoperations. Conclusions: CD revisions had a cost of$28,138 per QALY, in addition to the $27,267 per QALY for primary CD surgeries. For primary CD patients, CD surgery has the potential to be cost effective, with the caveats that a patient livelihood extends long enough to have the benefits and durability of the surgery is maintained. Efforts in research and surgical technique development should emphasize minimization of reoperation causes just as DJK that significantly affect cost utility of these surgeries to bring cost-utility to an acceptable range

Design of an Active-Assistance Balancing Mechanism for a Bicycle

The goal of this project is to design and build a prototype self balancing bicycle for use as a teaching tool for someone learning to ride a bicycle and as means for a disabled person to ride a bicycle who would otherwise not be able to do so. The project consists of a research phase in which similar systems have been investigated to help determine a sensible design approach and to establish appropriate design specifications; a design phase in which a prototype was designed to meet the aforementioned specifications; and a construction phase, in which the prototype was built and tested

Correction: Age-specific global epidemiology of hydrocephalus: Systematic review, metanalysis and global birth surveillance.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204926.]

Age-specific global epidemiology of hydrocephalus: Systematic review, metanalysis and global birth surveillance.

BACKGROUND:Hydrocephalus is a debilitating disorder, affecting all age groups. Evaluation of its global epidemiology is required for healthcare planning and resource allocation. OBJECTIVES:To define age-specific global prevalence and incidence of hydrocephalus. METHODS:Population-based studies reporting prevalence of hydrocephalus were identified (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (1985-2017)). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Two authors reviewed abstracts, full text articles and abstracted data. Metanalysis and meta-regressions were used to assess associations between key variables. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Main outcome of interest was hydrocephalus prevalence among pediatric (≤ 18 years), adults (19-64 years), and elderly (≥ 65) patients. Annual hydrocephalus incidence stratified by country income level and folate fortification requirements were obtained (2003-2014) from the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research (ICBDSR). RESULTS:Of 2,460 abstracts, 52 met review eligibility criteria (aggregate population 171,558,651). Mean hydrocephalus prevalence was 85/100,000 [95% CI 62, 116]. The prevalence was 88/100,000 [95% CI 72, 107] in pediatrics; 11/100,000 [95% CI 5, 25] in adults; and 175/100,000 [95% CI 67, 458] in the elderly. The ICBDSR-based incidence of hydrocephalus diagnosed at birth remained stable over 11 years: 81/100,000 [95% CI 69, 96]. A significantly lower incidence was identified in high-income countries. CONCLUSION:This systematic review established age-specific global hydrocephalus prevalence. While high-income countries had a lower hydrocephalus incidence according to the ICBDSR registry, folate fortification status was not associated with incidence. Our findings may inform future healthcare resource allocation and study

Clinical Uncertainty and Equipoise in the Management of Recurrent Glioblastoma.

peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of glioblastoma (GBM) patients are considered for repeat resection, but evidence regarding best management remains elusive. Our aim was to measure the degree of clinical uncertainty regarding reoperation for patients with recurrent GBM. METHODS: We first performed a systematic review of agreement studies examining the question of repeat resection for recurrent GBM. An electronic portfolio of 37 pathologically confirmed recurrent GBM patients including pertinent magnetic resonance images and clinical information was assembled. To measure clinical uncertainty, 26 neurosurgeons from various countries, training backgrounds, and years' experience were asked to select best management (repeat surgery, other nonsurgical management, or conservative), confidence in recommended management, and whether they would include the patient in a randomized trial comparing surgery with nonsurgical options. Agreement was evaluated using κ statistics. RESULTS: The literature review did not reveal previous agreement studies examining the question. In our study, agreement regarding best management of recurrent GBM was slight, even when management options were dichotomized (repeat surgery vs. other options; κ=0.198 [95% confidence interval: 0.133-0.276]). Country of practice, years' experience, and training background did not change results. Disagreement and clinical uncertainty were more pronounced within clinicians with (κ=0.167 [0.055-0.314]) than clinicians without neuro-oncology fellowship training (κ=0.601 [0.556-0.646]). A majority (51%) of responders were willing to include the patient in a randomized trial comparing repeat surgery with nonsurgical alternatives in 26/37 (69%) of cases. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient uncertainty and equipoise regarding the question of reoperation for patients with recurrent glioblastoma to support the need for a randomized controlled trial