A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison of the STAM and STAMCO Classification and EAONO/JOS Cholesteatoma Staging System in Predicting Surgical Treatment Outcomes of Middle Ear Cholesteatoma

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the STAM classification, STAMCO classification and the EAONO/JOS staging system as predictors for cholesteatoma recidivism and postoperative hearing, using a large patient cohort in our tertiary referral center. METHOD: Two hundred thirty-one patients who underwent surgery for primary cholesteatoma between 2003 and December 2012 were included and retrospectively classified and staged according to the STAM classification, STAMCO classification, and EAONO/JOS staging system. Data on cholesteatoma recidivism rates and postoperative hearing were collected. The predictive value of the three instruments for recurrent and residual cholesteatoma was compared by using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: For predicting recurrent cholesteatoma, the STAMCO classification was significantly superior compared to the other two instruments. For predicting residual cholesteatoma, the STAMCO classification was superior to the EANO/JOS Staging system. The postoperative hearing shows a significant increase in ABG with increasing extension of cholesteatoma in the CWU group and a significant decrease in AC threshold level with increasing stage and a significant increase in AC with increasing ossicular chain status in the CWD group. CONCLUSION: Based on our study, the STAMCO classification represents the best available predictor for recurrent cholesteatoma and holds most promise for predicting residual cholesteatoma. Extension of cholesteatoma seems to be linked to postoperative hearing and thus the classifications and staging systems may be able to predict postoperative hearing. More studies are needed to assess the validation of these classifications

Probable pain on the pain assessment in impaired cognition (PAIC15) instrument: assessing sensitivity and specificity of cut-offs against three standards

Observational pain scales can help to identify pain in persons with dementia who may have difficulty expressing pain verbally. The Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition-15 (PAIC15) covers 15 items that indicate pain, but it is unclear how probable pain is, for each summed score (range 0-45). We aimed to determine sensitivity and specificity of cut-offs for probable pain on the PAIC15 against three standards: (1) self-report when able, (2) the established Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) cut-off of 2, and (3) observer's overall estimate based on a series of systematic observations. We used data of 238 nursing home residents with dementia who were observed by their physician in training or nursing staff in the context of an evidence-based medicine (EBM) training study, with re-assessment after 2 months in 137 residents. The area under the ROC curve was excellent against the PAINAD cut-off (>= 0.8) but acceptable or less than acceptable for the other two standards. Across standards and criteria for optimal sensitivity and specificity, PAIC15 scores of 3 and higher represent possible pain for screening in practice, with sensitivity and specificity against self-report in the 0.5 to 0.7 range. While sensitivity for screening in practice may be too low, a cut-off of 4 is reasonable to indicate probable pain in research.Geriatrics in primary carePublic Health and primary car

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)