Citations

ABSTRACT Objectives The purpose of this study is to compare the economics of in‐office tympanostomy tube placement using single use devices versus standard placement in the operating room (OR). Methods A retrospective chart review was completed for all pediatric patients who underwent in‐office tympanostomy tube placement (CPT 69433) along with insurance and date matched patients with placement in the OR (CPT 69436) between 12/1/21–3/1/24. Financial data were compared among the public vs. private insurance cohorts using the Wilcoxon rank‐sum test with a two‐sided significance level of 5%. Results One hundred and thirty‐six in‐office patients were identified, 102 private versus 34 public, and compared with 136 insurance and date matched OR patients. The average total payment for both privately insured patients, $647.14 in‐office versus $6873.45 in the OR, and publicly insured patients, $312.74 in‐office versus $2656.34 in the OR, was statistically significant. The average insurance payment for both privately insured patients, $301.58 in‐office versus $5445.73 in the OR, and publicly insured patients, $310.63 in‐office versus $2258.65 in the OR, was statistically significant. For the patient payment, public insurance usually has 0 copay and is therefore excluded. The patient payment of the private insurance cohort, $308.30 in‐office versus $670.61 in the OR, was not found to be statistically significant. Conclusion As expected, this study demonstrates significant reductions in overall cost with in‐office tympanostomy tube placement even with the added cost of single‐use devices compared to the standard placement in the OR, particularly for insurance companies, suggesting the potential benefit of providing reimbursement for these devices. Level of Evidence N/A.

Abstract Purpose Professional identities impact professional boundaries and hierarchies, influencing how physicians approach collaboration. Despite the growing emphasis on developing students to become effective collaborators, little is known about how other health professionals (OHPs) shape students' professional identity formation (PIF). This study explored how interacting with OHPs during clinical care contributed to medical students' construction of what it means to be a physician. Methods For this constructivist grounded theory study, researchers conducted 20 semi‐structured interviews with medical students during clinical clerkships. Students drew rich pictures representing their interactions with OHPs and described these pictures during their interviews. Interviews were iteratively conducted and analysed, enabling the research team to theorize how interacting with OHPs contributed to medical students' PIF. Results Participants expressed a strong desire to contribute to patient care and described how interprofessional interactions provided opportunities to do so in ways aligned with their current capabilities. These opportunities were often more accessible than the roles and responsibilities of physicians, and participating alongside OHPs fostered participants' sense of their own developing capabilities and belonging on healthcare teams. Interactions with OHPs helped participants to see the expertise of OHPs and the value of collaborating with them in ways that shifted their focus away from becoming independent. Conceptually, participants' interactions with OHPs became both a mirror reflecting their present readiness to meaningfully contribute and a prism through which they could envision their future identities as physicians in new ways. Conclusions Interprofessional interactions influenced medical students' current and future professional identities, enabling students to see themselves as contributors on health care teams and highlighting collaboration and interdependence as core attributes of the physician profession. These findings highlight opportunities to amplify the impact of interprofessional interactions on the PIF of medical students and the need for research into how OHPs view their roles in these processes.

OBJECTIVE Epilepsy affects nearly 50 million individuals worldwide, with one-third of cases resistant to antiseizure medications. For these patients, surgical intervention offers a potential path to seizure freedom. While resective surgery has been the gold standard, laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LITT versus resective surgery in patients with nontumoral epilepsy. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, including studies comparing seizure freedom rates, complications, and procedural outcomes between LITT and open surgery in nontumoral epilepsy. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 389 LITT and 557 open surgery patients with varying epilepsy etiologies, including temporal lobe epilepsy, focal cortical dysplasia, and tuberous sclerosis. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model to assess seizure freedom, complications, and reoperation rates. RESULTS Open surgery demonstrated higher rates of complete seizure freedom, although not reaching significance (68.1% vs 53.7%, RR 0.81, p = 0.07). This outcome was sensitive to influential analysis and reached significance in the epileptogenic zone–directed resection subgroup analysis. Although adequate seizure freedom was comparable between the groups (LITT: 63.0% vs open: 74.0%, RR 0.90, p = 0.11), the open surgery group had higher rates of control in the pediatric and non–temporal lobe epilepsy subgroups. Complication rates were significantly higher in the open surgery group (30.0% vs 18.3%, RR 0.55, p < 0.01). LITT patients had significantly shorter hospital stays (3.4 vs 6.8 days, standardized mean difference −0.93, p < 0.01). Reoperation rates were comparable between groups (13.1% for LITT vs 13.4%, RR 1.59, p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS While LITT offers a less invasive approach with reduced hospitalization and morbidity, open surgery remains slightly superior in achieving long-term seizure freedom. Patient selection remains critical, and further studies are needed to refine decision-making criteria based on epilepsy subtype and lesion characteristics.

OBJECTIVE Early discharge following uncomplicated endonasal resection of pituitary adenoma has been described as safe and feasible. Discharge on postoperative day (POD) 1 is not a widely implemented practice in the United States. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of routine POD1 discharges by assessing postoperative unplanned medical care rates compared with those of patients discharged on POD 2 or later (POD2+). The secondary endpoint was to identify predictors of delayed discharge in the POD2+ cohort. METHODS A retrospective database review of the medical records of 534 patients who underwent endonasal resection of pituitary adenoma at the Mayo Clinic was performed. Relevant demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative metrics were abstracted from the medical record, including intraoperative CSF leakage, postoperative complications, emergency department visits, or inpatient readmissions within 30 days. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS In comparison to 422 (79%) patients discharged on POD1, 112 (21%) patients discharged on POD2+ had a higher unplanned medical care rate (13% vs 5.5%, p = 0.019). There were significantly more men in the POD1 group (48%) than in the POD2+ group (37%) (p < 0.04). The most common reasons for POD1 unplanned care were endocrine dysfunction (2.4%), split evenly between syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone and adrenal insufficiency, whereas the most frequent reason in the POD2+ cohort was medical (0.06%). Univariate analyses indicated that female sex, higher BMI, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, obstructive sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure dependence, intraoperative CSF leakage, and diabetes insipidus (DI) increased the likelihood of POD2+ discharge. The reduced logistic regression model demonstrated a higher likelihood of POD2+ discharge with older age, ICU admission, intraoperative CSF leakage, and DI (p < 0.001). Common factors contributing to discharge after POD1 included endocrine (n = 66, 35%) and/or medical (n = 65, 34%) reasons. CONCLUSIONS Routine patient discharge on POD1 following uncomplicated endonasal resection of pituitary adenoma is a safe practice, as evidenced by the significantly lower rates of unplanned medical care and complications compared with those of patients discharged on POD2 or later. Delayed discharge was associated with older age, ICU admission, intraoperative CSF leakage, and DI. The most frequent reasons for POD1 readmission were endocrine versus medical reasons for POD2+. Preoperative identification of risk factors for delayed discharge and preemptive management of endocrine and medical complications may reduce the length of stay and return to medical care.

OBJECTIVE The minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) are two metrics that bridge the gap between statistical significance and clinical relevance and are critical to managing clinical decisions and conducting clinical research. The objective of this study was to define MIDs to evaluate cross-sectional differences among groups and to define MICs to evaluate longitudinal within-patient changes for the Mayo Clinic Vestibular Schwannoma Quality of Life (VSQOL) Index. METHODS Anchor-based methods were used to define MIDs and MICs for the VSQOL Index domain scores, which range from 0 to 100 points, for a national cohort of 1050 patients with sporadic vestibular schwannoma, 644 of whom completed the VSQOL Index twice approximately 1 year apart. RESULTS The median of the MID estimates for the VSQOL Index domains were: hearing problems (17, IQR 12.5–21); dizziness and imbalance (21, IQR 18–23); pain, discomfort, and tinnitus (19.5, IQR 15–23.5); problems with face or eyes (18, IQR 17–28); impact on physical, emotional, and social well-being (19.5, IQR 14.5–23.5); difficulty with thinking and memory (23.5, IQR 18.5–28.5); global quality of life (12, IQR 8–16); and satisfaction or regret (13.5, IQR 7–17). MIC estimates for the hearing problems and satisfaction and regret domains were not obtained because the correlations between these domain scores and their associated anchors were not sufficiently strong. The MIC estimates (minimum and maximum) for the remaining domains were: dizziness and imbalance (7.2 and 8.3); pain, discomfort, and tinnitus (8.3 and 8.5); problems with face or eyes (7.0 and 7.4); impact on physical, emotional, and social well-being (2.1 and 8.0); and difficulty with thinking and memory (12.9 and 15.0). The median of the MIC estimates for global quality of life was 5.2 (IQR 3.7–5.6). CONCLUSIONS The MIDs and MICs reported herein provide a framework to interpret quality-of-life benefit or harm cross-sectionally among groups and longitudinally within patients. Moving forward, these values should be considered when interpreting studies using the VSQOL Index to assess disease-specific quality of life in patients with sporadic vestibular schwannoma.