Forte, Antonio J.

Background: Many insurance companies in the United States rely on the Schnur sliding scale to predict resection weights to determine medical necessity for breast reduction surgery. Accurate methods to predict resection weights are needed to avoid insurance denials. The authors compared the accuracy of formulas such as the Schnur, Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales in predicting resection weights, and assessed whether they influence insurance coverage decision. Methods: A retrospective review of bilateral reduction mammaplasty procedures from June of 2017 to June of 2019 was performed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Oncoplastic reduction operations were excluded. The accuracy of each formula-based estimate was evaluated with linear regression analysis. Results: One hundred fifty-four patients (308 breasts) were reviewed. The Schnur scale had low correlation with actual resection weight (r 2 = 0.381; b1 = 1.153; p < 0.001). The Appel scale was the most accurate (r 2 = 0.642; b1 = 1.01; p < 0.001), followed by the Descamps (r 2 = 0.572, b1 = 0.934, p < 0.001) and Galveston (r 2 = 0.672; b1 = 0.654; p < 0.001) scales. The Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales were more accurate for resection weights of 500 g or greater, body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², and patients younger than 50 years. For resection weights of 500 g or greater, the median difference between the estimated and actual resection weight for the Schnur, Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales was −211.4 ± 272.3, −17.5 ± 272.3, −9.6 ± 229.5, and −99.2 ± 238.5 g, respectively. No scale was accurate for resection weights less than 500 g. Insurance reimbursement was denied in 15.56 percent of patients; of these, 23 percent had resection weights less than 500 g. The Schnur scale overestimated the resection weights in 28.9 percent of patients. Conclusions: The Schnur scale is a poor predictor of breast resection weight. The Appel scale is the most accurate estimator, especially in the young and obese population with larger resections. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, I.

Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) C156S is an engineering variant of VEGF-C that has the potential to promote lymphangiogenesis, activating on VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 3, without promoting angiogenesis (i.e., not acting on VEGFR-2). We conducted a systematic review of publications assessing the use of this growth factor in lymphedema treatment. We hypothesized that VEGF-C156S specificity for VEGFR-3 was an important differential for the lymphangiogenesis promoted by it. Methods and Results: We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the published literature on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Clinical Answers. Eligibility criteria included articles reporting data on the use of VEGF-C156S in lymphedema treatment. We excluded articles that investigated physiology action of VEGF-C156S and articles that focused on other therapies. From 304 potential articles found in the literature, four studies fulfilled the study eligibility criteria. To date, all studies about this growth factor have been experimental. The effect of VEGF-C156 on lymph node transfer was investigated in half of the experiments. Interestingly, delivery of VEGF-C156S was mostly performed through viral gene transfer, but injection (subcutaneously or intravenously) of it as a protein (liposomal or nonliposomal) was also investigated by one author to assess drug bioavailability. Conclusions: Although authors reported promotion of lymphangiogenesis, VEGF-C156S was correlated with lymphatic hyperplasia or nonstatistically significant lymphangiogenesis compared with controls. Scientific evidence about the use of VEGF-C156S in lymphedema treatment is still limited. However, authors have shown that its lymphangiogenic effect is inferior to VEGF-C.

Objectives: Traditional hospital at home models often have high patient experience scores. The purpose of this study is to look at the patient experience of a new virtual hybrid model of hospital at home called Advanced Care at Home. Methods: Patients in Mayo Clinic’s Advanced Care at Home program received a survey via email from 1 January–31 May 2021. Each survey consisted of 20 questions divided into 18 multiple-choice and two open-ended questions. Results: Ninety-nine surveys were sent and 41 partially or completely finished surveys were returned for a response rate of 41.4%. Patients responded positively, denoted by answering “strongly agree or somewhat agree,” with regard to the ability to reach the team right away 100% of the time, being kept informed 92% of the time, the command center responding promptly to their needs 95% of the time, the team providing comfort and support 98% of the time, feeling comfortable with interacting with their provider by phone or tablet 95% of the time, the ease of use from the equipment 97% of the time, the virtual and in-person staff working well together 98% of the time, the staff treating patients with courtesy and respect 100% of the time, and the ease of understanding the discharge process and feeling ready to leave the program 100% of the time. All providers received positive responses on listening ⩾88% of the time. Patients gave a top rating in likelihood to recommend the program 100% of the time. Conclusion: Overall, the Advanced Care at Home model of hospital at home was highly recommended by patients. Patients scored the program high on responsiveness, staff engagement and communication, ease of equipment use, and readiness for discharge, strengthening the overall confidence in this novel program.

Background Patients with mild to severe chronic systemic disease undergoing low-risk procedures are often hospitalized for observation. The Care Hotel is a novel virtual medicine hybrid model of care that offers patients a comfortable, out of hospital environment where they can receive both in-person and virtual care after a surgery or procedure. This study aimed to analyze if virtual hybrid post-procedure care in a hotel could be both conducted on and accepted by patients, even those with moderate to severe chronic diseases. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted between July 23, 2020 and June 4, 2021 at Mayo Clinic in Florida, a 306-bed community academic hospital. We collected the sex, age, race, ethnicity, acceptance rate, ASA score, and primary procedure of patients using the Care Hotel. Results Out of 392 patients, 272 (69.4%) opted for care in the program. Median patient age was 61.5 years, 59.56% were males, and 86.40% were white. We found that 50.37% had an ASA score of 2 and 43.4% had an ASA score of 3. Ten different surgical specialties were able to utilize the Care Hotel for care in 47 different procedure types. Urology had the most patients (n=70, 25.7%). Post-electrophysiologic procedures were the most common procedures (n=39, 14.3%). Conclusion Our virtual hybrid Care Hotel program was widely accepted by patients and could care for a multitude of post-operative procedures. Additionally, this novel program can care for patients with both mild and severe systemic diseases.

Background: Oculoorbital disproportion in patients with craniosynostosis has similarities and dissimilarities between syndromic and nonsyndromic cases. The authors hypothesized that these two conditions have specific individual influences as they relate to development of the orbital and periorbital skeletons. Methods: A total of 133 preoperative computed tomography scans (nonsyndromic bicoronal synostosis, n = 38; Apert syndrome bicoronal synostosis subtype, n = 33; Crouzon syndrome bicoronal synostosis subtype, n = 10; controls, n = 52) were included. Craniometric and volumetric analyses related to the orbit and periorbital anatomy were performed. Results: Orbital cavity volume was mildly restricted in nonsyndromic bicoronal synostosis (7 percent, p = 0.147), but more so in Apert and Crouzon syndromes [17 percent (p = 0.002) and 21 percent (p = 0.005), respectively]. The sphenoid side angle in Apert syndrome was wider than when compared to Crouzon syndrome (p = 0.043). The ethmoid side angle in Apert patients, however, was narrower (p = 0.066) than that in Crouzon patients. Maxilla anteroposterior length was more restricted in Apert syndrome than Crouzon syndrome (21 percent, p = 0.003) and nonsyndromic cases (26 percent, p < 0.001). The posterior nasal spine position was retruded in Crouzon syndrome (39 percent, p < 0.001), yet the anterior nasal spine position was similar in Apert and Crouzon syndromes. Conclusions: Orbit and periorbital malformation in syndromic craniosynostosis is likely the combined influence of syndromic influences and premature suture fusion. Apert syndrome expanded the anteriorly contoured lateral orbital wall associated with bicoronal synostosis, whereas Crouzon syndrome had more infraorbital rim retrusion, resulting in more severe exorbitism. Apert syndrome developed maxillary hypoplasia, in addition to the maxillary retrusion, observed in Crouzon syndrome and nonsyndromic bicoronal synostosis patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.