Citations

OBJECTIVE Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a known risk factor for postsurgical and systemic complications after lumbar spinal surgery. Smaller studies have also demonstrated diminished improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), with increased reoperation and readmission rates after lumbar surgery in patients with DM. The authors aimed to examine longer-term PROs in patients with DM undergoing lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. Patients were grouped into DM and non-DM groups and optimally matched in a 1:1 ratio on 31 baseline variables, including the number of operated levels. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 and 90 days after surgery in addition to improvements in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain scores and quality-adjusted life-years at 90 days after surgery. RESULTS The matched decompression cohort comprised 7836 patients (3236 [41.3] females) with a mean age of 63.5 ± 12.6 years, and the matched arthrodesis cohort comprised 7336 patients (3907 [53.3%] females) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 10.3 years. In patients undergoing lumbar decompression, no significant differences in nonroutine discharge, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, reoperations, and PROs were observed. In patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, nonroutine discharge (15.7% vs 13.4%, p < 0.01), LOS (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.01), 30-day (6.5% vs 4.4%, p < 0.01) and 90-day (9.1% vs 7.0%, p < 0.01) readmission rates, and the 90-day reoperation rate (4.3% vs 3.2%, p = 0.01) were all significantly higher in the DM group. For DM patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly higher risk of poor surgical outcomes with the open approach. CONCLUSIONS Patients with and without DM undergoing lumbar spinal decompression alone have comparable readmission and reoperation rates, while those undergoing arthrodesis procedures have a higher risk of poor surgical outcomes up to 90 days after surgery. Surgeons should target optimal DM control preoperatively, particularly for patients undergoing elective lumbar arthrodesis.

Abstract Background Context Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression. Purpose To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. Study Design/Setting Retrospective review. Patient Sample Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image‐guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery. Methods Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver‐Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors. Results A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively. Conclusions Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Background: Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) is an inflammatory biomarker that is used to predict mortality, readmission, early discharge, and LOS, thus, serves as a useful tool for ED physicians. Our study aims to analyze the efficacy of suPAR in predicting these prognostic markers in ED. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search on 6 databases from the inception to 30th November 2022, to select the following eligibility criteria; a) observation or triage trial studies investigating the role of suPAR levels in predicting: 30 day and 90-day mortality, 30-day readmission, early discharge (within 24hr), and LOS in patients coming to AMU. Results: A total of 13 studies were included, with a population size of 35,178, of which 52.9% were female with a mean age of 62.93 years. Increased risk of 30-day mortality (RR = 10.52; 95% CI = 4.82–22.95; I2 = 38%; P < .00001), and risk of 90-day mortality (RR = 5.76; 95% CI = 3.35–9.91; I2 = 36%; P < .00001) was observed in high suPAR patients. However, a slightly increased risk was observed for 30-day readmission (RR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.16–1.94; I2 = 54%; P = .002). More people were discharged within 24hr in the low suPAR level group compared to high suPAR group (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.40–0.53; I2 = 41%; P < .00001). LOS was thrice as long in high suPAR level patients than in patients with low suPAR (WMD = 3.20; 95% CI = 1.84–4.56; I2 = 99%; P < .00001). Conclusion: suPAR is proven to be a significant marker in predicting 30-day and 90-day mortality in ED patients.

The European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on Primary Angiitis of the Central Nervous System (PACNS), developed according to ESO standard operating procedures (SOP) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, was elaborated to assist clinicians in the diagnostic and treatment pathway of patients with PACNS in their decision making. A working group involving vascular neurologists, neuroradiologists, rheumatologists, a neuropathologist and a methodologist identified 17 relevant clinical questions; these were addressed according to the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) framework and systematic literature reviews were performed. Notably, each PICO was addressed with respect to large vessel (LV)-PACNS and small vessel (SV)-PACNS. Data to answer many questions were scarce or lacking and the quality of evidence was very low overall, so, for some PICOs, the recommendations reflect the ongoing uncertainty. When the absence of sufficient evidence precluded recommendations, Expert Consensus Statements were formulated. In some cases, this applied to interventions in the diagnosis and treatment of PACNS which are embedded widely in clinical practice, for example patterns of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) abnormalities. CSF analysis for hyperproteinorrachia and pleocytosis does not have evidence supporting their use as diagnostic tools. The working group recommended that caution is employed in the interpretation of non-invasive vascular imaging due to lack of validation and the different sensitivities in comparison with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and histopathological analyses. Moreover, there is not a neuroimaging pattern specific for PACNS and neurovascular issues are largely underreported in PACNS patients. The group’s recommendations on induction and maintenance of treatment and for primary or secondary prevention of vascular events also reflect uncertainty due to lack of evidence. Being uncertain the role and practical usefulness of current diagnostic criteria and being not comparable the main treatment strategies, it is suggested to have a multidisciplinary team approach in an expert center during both work up and management of patients with suspected PACNS. Highlighting the limitations of the currently accepted diagnostic criteria, we hope to facilitate the design of multicenter, prospective clinical studies and trials. A standardization of neuroimaging techniques and reporting to improve the level of evidence underpinning interventions employed in the diagnosis and management of PACNS. We anticipate that this guideline, the first comprehensive European guideline on PACNS management using GRADE methodology, will assist clinicians to choose the most effective management strategy for PACNS.

ImportanceLip, oral, and pharyngeal cancers are important contributors to cancer burden worldwide, and a comprehensive evaluation of their burden globally, regionally, and nationally is crucial for effective policy planning.ObjectiveTo analyze the total and risk-attributable burden of lip and oral cavity cancer (LOC) and other pharyngeal cancer (OPC) for 204 countries and territories and by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) using 2019 Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study estimates.Evidence ReviewThe incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to LOC and OPC from 1990 to 2019 were estimated using GBD 2019 methods. The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate the proportion of deaths and DALYs for LOC and OPC attributable to smoking, tobacco, and alcohol consumption in 2019.FindingsIn 2019, 370 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 338 000-401 000) cases and 199 000 (95% UI, 181 000-217 000) deaths for LOC and 167 000 (95% UI, 153 000-180 000) cases and 114 000 (95% UI, 103 000-126 000) deaths for OPC were estimated to occur globally, contributing 5.5 million (95% UI, 5.0-6.0 million) and 3.2 million (95% UI, 2.9-3.6 million) DALYs, respectively. From 1990 to 2019, low-middle and low SDI regions consistently showed the highest age-standardized mortality rates due to LOC and OPC, while the high SDI strata exhibited age-standardized incidence rates decreasing for LOC and increasing for OPC. Globally in 2019, smoking had the greatest contribution to risk-attributable OPC deaths for both sexes (55.8% [95% UI, 49.2%-62.0%] of all OPC deaths in male individuals and 17.4% [95% UI, 13.8%-21.2%] of all OPC deaths in female individuals). Smoking and alcohol both contributed to substantial LOC deaths globally among male individuals (42.3% [95% UI, 35.2%-48.6%] and 40.2% [95% UI, 33.3%-46.8%] of all risk-attributable cancer deaths, respectively), while chewing tobacco contributed to the greatest attributable LOC deaths among female individuals (27.6% [95% UI, 21.5%-33.8%]), driven by high risk-attributable burden in South and Southeast Asia.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this systematic analysis, disparities in LOC and OPC burden existed across the SDI spectrum, and a considerable percentage of burden was attributable to tobacco and alcohol use. These estimates can contribute to an understanding of the distribution and disparities in LOC and OPC burden globally and support cancer control planning efforts.

Abstract Modern histologic imaging platforms coupled with machine learning methods have provided new opportunities to map the spatial distribution of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. However, there exists no standardized method for describing or analyzing spatial immune cell data, and most reported spatial analyses are rudimentary. In this review, we provide an overview of two approaches for reporting and analyzing spatial data (raster versus vector‐based). We then provide a compendium of spatial immune cell metrics that have been reported in the literature, summarizing prognostic associations in the context of a variety of cancers. We conclude by discussing two well‐described clinical biomarkers, the breast cancer stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes score and the colon cancer Immunoscore, and describe investigative opportunities to improve clinical utility of these spatial biomarkers. © 2023 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

AbstractThe clinical significance of the tumor‐immune interaction in breast cancer is now established, and tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have emerged as predictive and prognostic biomarkers for patients with triple‐negative (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2‐negative) breast cancer and HER2‐positive breast cancer. How computational assessments of TILs might complement manual TIL assessment in trial and daily practices is currently debated. Recent efforts to use machine learning (ML) to automatically evaluate TILs have shown promising results. We review state‐of‐the‐art approaches and identify pitfalls and challenges of automated TIL evaluation by studying the root cause of ML discordances in comparison to manual TIL quantification. We categorize our findings into four main topics: (1) technical slide issues, (2) ML and image analysis aspects, (3) data challenges, and (4) validation issues. The main reason for discordant assessments is the inclusion of false‐positive areas or cells identified by performance on certain tissue patterns or design choices in the computational implementation. To aid the adoption of ML for TIL assessment, we provide an in‐depth discussion of ML and image analysis, including validation issues that need to be considered before reliable computational reporting of TILs can be incorporated into the trial and routine clinical management of patients with triple‐negative breast cancer. © 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Abstract Background Time spent awaiting discharge after the acute need for hospitalization has resolved is an important potential contributor to hospital length of stay (LOS). Objective To measure the prevalence, impact, and context of patients who remain hospitalized for prolonged periods after completion of acute care needs. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross‐sectional “point‐in‐time” survey at each of 15 academic US hospitals using a structured data collection tool with on‐service acute care medicine attending physicians in fall 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were number and percentage of patients considered “medically ready for discharge” with emphasis on those who had experienced a “major barrier to discharge” (medically ready for discharge for ≥1 week). Estimated LOS attributable to major discharge barriers, contributory discharge needs, and associated hospital characteristics were measured. Results Of 1928 patients sampled, 35.0% ( n = 674) were medically ready for discharge including 9.8% ( n = 189) with major discharge barriers. Many patients with major discharge barriers (44.4%; 84/189) had spent a month or longer medically ready for discharge and commonly (84.1%; 159/189) required some form of skilled therapy or daily living support services for discharge. Higher proportions of patients experiencing major discharge barriers were found in public versus private, nonprofit hospitals (12.0% vs. 7.2%; p = .001) and county versus noncounty hospitals (14.5% vs. 8.8%; p = .002). Conclusions Patients experience major discharge barriers in many US hospitals and spend prolonged time awaiting discharge, often for support needs that may be outside of clinician control.

Background The analgesic effectiveness of contemporary motor-sparing nerve blocks used in combination for analgesia in total knee arthroplasty is unclear. This network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of adding single-injection or continuous adductor canal block (ACB) with or without infiltration of the interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee (iPACK) to intraoperative local infiltration analgesia (LIA), compared to LIA alone, after total knee arthroplasty. Methods Randomized trials examining the addition of single-injection or continuous ACB with or without single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA for total knee arthroplasty were considered. The two primary outcomes were area-under-the-curve pain scores over 24 to 48 h and postoperative function at greater than 24 h. Secondary outcomes included rest pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h; opioid consumption (from 0 to 24 h and from 25 to 48 h); and incidence of nausea/vomiting. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach. Results A total of 27 studies (2,317 patients) investigating the addition of (1) single-injection ACB, (2) continuous ACB, (3) single-injection ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK, and (4) continuous ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA, as compared to LIA alone, were included. For area-under-the-curve 24- to 48-h pain, the addition of continuous ACB with single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P -score probability (89%) of being most effective for pain control. The addition of continuous ACB without single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P -score probability (87%) of being most effective for postoperative function. Conclusions The results suggest that continuous ACB, but not single-injection ACB and/or single-injection block at the iPACK, provides statistically superior analgesia when added to LIA for total knee arthroplasty compared to LIA alone. However, the magnitude of these additional analgesic benefits is clinically questionable. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New