A cross-sectional study of psychological complaints and quality of life in severely injured patients

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of psychological complaints and the relationship of these complaints with the quality of life (QOL) and accident- and patient-related factors among severely injured patients after the rehabilitation phase. Methods: Patients of 18 years or older with an injury severity score above 15 were included 15-53 months after their accident. Accident and patient characteristics were obtained from questionnaires and the trauma registry. Several questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Events Scale, and Cognitive Failure Questionnaire) were used to determine the symptoms of psychological problems (anxiety or depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or subjective cognitive complaints, respectively). The World Health Organization Quality of Life-Bref was used to determine QOL. A reference group of the Dutch general population was used for comparison of QOL scores. Results: The participation rate was 62 % (n = 173). At the time of the study, 30.1 % (n = 52) of the investigated patients had psychological complaints. No relation between psychological complaints and somatic severity or type of injury was found. Patients who were employed before the accident or resumed working reported less psychological complaints. Use of any medication before the accident and treatment for pre-accidental psychological problems were positively related to psychological complaints afterwards. QOL of severely injured patients was impaired in comparison with the general Dutch population, but only for those with psychological complaints. Conclusions: Psychological complaints seem to be an important and underestimated factor for a decreased QOL among severely injured patients

Quality of life in severely injured patients depends on psychosocial factors rather than on severity or type of injury

Background: Former studies have demonstrated that health-related quality of life is decreased in severely injured patients. However, in those studies patients were asked about their functioning and not about their (dis)contentment concerning their functioning. Little is known about how severely injured patients experience their quality of life (QOL). The objective of this cross-sectional study was to measure this subjective QOL of severely injured patients after their rehabilitation phase and to examine which accident- and patient-related factors affect the QOL of these patients. Methods: Patients of 18 years or older with an injury severity score (ISS) above 15 were included 15-53 months after their accident. Comorbidity before the accident, accident and sociodemographic characteristics, and QOL were obtained from the trauma registry and questionnaires. The WHOQOL-BREF was used to measure QOL. A reference group of the Dutch general population was used for comparison. Results: The participation rate was 61% (n = 173). Compared with the reference data, severely injured patients experienced a significantly worse QOL in all domains except social relations. The QOL scores were significantly decreased in all domains for patients with intracranial injury in combination with other injuries. Patients with a severe intracranial injury (AIS > 3) only reported significantly impaired QOL in the general and physical domains. Patients who resumed working or lived with others had significantly higher scores in all domains of QOL than patients who did not work anymore or were living alone. Significantly lower QOL scores were obtained from patients with comorbidity before the accident and from patients with longer durations of intensive care unit (ICU) treatment or hospitalisation. Gender, accident characteristics and time since the accident did not appear to be important for experienced QOL. Conclusions: The experience of impaired QOL appears to depend on living alone, inability to return to work and pre-accidental comorbidity rather than on the injured body area or the severity of the injury. Duration of hospital or ICU stay is important to subsequent QOL, even if ISS or body region is not

(Cost-)effectiveness of an individualised risk prediction tool (PERSARC) on patient’s knowledge and decisional conflict among soft-tissue sarcomas patients:protocol for a parallel cluster randomised trial (the VALUE-PERSARC study)

Introduction Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients. Methods The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/ orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals. Ethics and dissemination The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.</p

(Cost-)effectiveness of an individualised risk prediction tool (PERSARC) on patient’s knowledge and decisional conflict among soft-tissue sarcomas patients:protocol for a parallel cluster randomised trial (the VALUE-PERSARC study)

Introduction Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients. Methods The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/ orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals. Ethics and dissemination The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.</p

Health-related quality of life after isolated limb perfusion compared to extended resection, or amputation for locally advanced extremity sarcoma:Is a limb salvage strategy worth the effort?

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare long-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with locally advanced extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS) after isolated limb perfusion followed by resection (IR), compared to extended resection (ER), primary amputation (A) or secondary amputation after IR (IR-A). Methods: Patients were selected from the respondents of a multi-institutional cross-sectional cohort survivorship study (SURVSARC) conducted among sarcoma survivors registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), 2–10 years after diagnosis. Used PROs were the EORTC QLQ-C30, the Cancer worry scale (CWS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). Results: We identified 97 eSTS survivors: IR = 20, ER = 49, A = 20, IR-A = 8. While there were no differences in PROs between IR and ER, results showed better functioning and functionality in both groups versus the amputation groups. The amputation groups scored significantly lower on physical functioning (A = 62.7, IR-A = 65.7 versus IR = 78.0, ER = 82.7, p = 0.001) and role functioning (A = 67.5, IR-A = 52.8 versus IR = 79.2, ER = 80.6, p = 0.039), both EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Also for the TESS, the scores were significantly lower for the amputation groups compared to the limb sparing groups (upper extremity p = 0.007 with A = 68.9, IR-A = 71.6 versus IR = 93.3, ER = 91.1; lower extremity p < 0.001 with A = 72.2, IR-A50.9 versus IR = 84.5 and ER = 85.5). There were no significant differences between the groups on cancer worry, anxiety and depression. Conclusion: HRQoL in eSTS survivors treated with IR or ER is equal; for maintenance of physical functioning and functionality IR and ER outperform an amputation

Use of the Composite Pedicled Pectoralis Minor Flap after Resection of Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Reconstruction of the Glenohumeral Joint

The surgical repair of an extensive anterior glenohumeral soft tissue defect is complicated by glenohumeral instability and subsequent significant functional deficit. This surgical note offers a relatively simple reconstruction of the anterior capsule and subscapularis muscle using a pectoralis minor pedicle flap. This reconstruction is supplemented with functional reconstruction of the anterior glenohumeral joint. A conventional deltopectoral approach is utilized and pectoralis minor is freed from its coracoid insertion, released, and mobilized without compromising the pedicle entering from the dorsum and inferior one-third of the muscle. The mobilized pectoralis minor vascular pedicle has sufficient length for the pectoralis minor to be transferred to provide coverage of the anterior shoulder joint even in full external rotation, providing anterior stability. To further improve glenohumeral stability and shoulder function, the pectoralis major muscle can be split with the clavicular part reinserted lateral to the bicipital groove onto the lesser tuberosity replacing subscapularis function while stabilising the glenohumeral joint

Multimodality treatment of undifferentiated pleomorphic soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity (eUPS) in the elderly

Introduction: This subgroup analysis of undifferentiated pleomorphic soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity (eUPS) from the PERSARC collaborative group aimed to achieve a more personalized multimodality treatment approach for primary eUPS in elderly patients. Material and methods: A multicenter retrospective study including primary high-grade eUPS surgically treated with curative intent between 2000 and 2016. Overall survival (OS), local recurrence (LR) and distant metastasis (DM) curves were calculated by Kaplan Meier analysis. Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the effect of radiotherapy. Results: From a total of 2511 patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS) of the PERSARC study collaborative; 703 patients with eUPS were included in this study. In elderly patients with eUPS 5-year OS, LR and DM were 35.4 (95%CI 29.3–42.8), 17.7 (95%CI 12.7–22.6) and 24.6 (95%CI 19.1–30.1). eUPS was significantly less treated with radiotherapy compared with other eSTS, especially in elderly patients. Patients with R1-R2 margins treated with radiotherapy had about half the risk of developing LR compared with patients treated without radiotherapy (HR = 0.454, p = 0.033). Conclusion: Elderly patients with eUPS were less often treated with radiotherapy and showed higher LR. Nowadays, given an increasing life expectancy in elderly patients, multimodality treatment should be considered