Citations

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to characterize content posted by orthopaedic surgeons on social media (SM) while investigating patient perceptions of this content from various regions of the United States. Analysis was included regarding how this content may influence the respondents’ healthcare decisions. Methods: SM posts by orthopaedic surgeons were reviewed and categorized. A patient survey was written to assess respondent SM usage practices as well as respondent perceptions of these categories. The survey was administered in the clinic of 13 separate orthopaedic surgeons via QR code. Survey results were analyzed for differences in SM utilization. Patient responses were assessed to judge perception of social medial content types. Results: There were 674 completed patient surveys. The 18-24 (89.3%) and 25-34 (87.6%) age groups were more likely to report daily use (p=0.002), but SM utilization was high among all age groups. 23% of patients reported using SM to see information about their healthcare at least once per month, 38% of patients reported reviewing the SM account of a physician at least once per month, and 23% of patients reported that they were likely or very likely to view the SM account of their own physician. 26% of patients reported that SM content is likely or very likely to influence which physician they see. Patients held the most consistently positive view of posts educating patients regarding common injuries, discussing sports team coverage, providing patient testimonials, and posts illustrating examples of imaging used to diagnose and treat patients. Patients held consistently neutral views of posts educating colleagues, discussing research and presentations at national meetings, displaying aspects of surgeons’ personal lives, and supporting marginalized groups. Several post categories elicited negative or highly polarized responses including those discussing research publications, showing surgical techniques or pictures/videos taken during surgery, or political statements. Conclusions: SM is an increasingly useful tool to help physicians interact with patients or build a practice. Physicians who wish to interact with patients should consider posting content viewed most positively including posts educating patients, discussing sports team coverage, and patient testimonials. Content that is viewed less favorably should be posted sparingly or with a sensitive tag. The most effective way to reach large patient populations appears to be through Instagram, Facebook, Tik Tok, Snapchat, and LinkedIn, in that order. Further ongoing study is required to understand the differences between physician SM content focused on interacting with patients compared to content focused on interacting with other physicians.

AbstractThe gold standard for enrollment and endpoint assessment in metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatosis clinical trials is histologic assessment of a liver biopsy performed on glass slides. However, obtaining the evaluations from several expert pathologists on glass is challenging, as shipping the slides around the country or around the world is time‐consuming and comes with the hazards of slide breakage. This study demonstrated that pathologic assessment of disease activity in steatohepatitis, performed using digital images on the AISight whole slide image management system, yields results that are comparable to those obtained using glass slides. The accuracy of scoring for steatohepatitis (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score ≥4 with ≥1 for each feature and absence of atypical features suggestive of other liver disease) performed on the system was evaluated against scoring conducted on glass slides. Both methods were assessed for overall percent agreement with a consensus “ground truth” score (defined as the median score of a panel of three pathologists’ glass slides). Each case was also read by three different pathologists, once on glass and once digitally with a minimum 2‐week washout period between the modalities. It was demonstrated that the average agreement across three pathologists of digital scoring with ground truth was noninferior to the average agreement of glass scoring with ground truth [noninferiority margin: −0.05; difference: −0.001; 95% CI: (−0.027, 0.026); and p < 0.0001]. For each pathologist, there was a similar average agreement of digital and glass reads with glass ground truth (pathologist A, 0.843 and 0.849; pathologist B, 0.633 and 0.605; and pathologist C, 0.755 and 0.780). Here, we demonstrate that the accuracy of digital reads for steatohepatitis using digital images is equivalent to glass reads in the context of a clinical trial for scoring using the Clinical Research Network scoring system.

OBJECTIVE The long-term effects of increased body mass index (BMI) on surgical outcomes are unknown for patients who undergo surgery for low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. The goal of this study was to assess long-term outcomes in obese versus nonobese patients after surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis. METHODS Patients who underwent surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the Quality Outcomes Database’s 12 highest enrolling sites (SpineCORe group) were identified. Long-term (5-year) outcomes were compared for patients with BMI ≥ 35 versus BMI < 35. RESULTS In total, 608 patients (57.6% female) were included. Follow-up was 81% (excluding patients who had died) at 5 years. The BMI ≥ 35 cohort (130 patients, 21.4%) was compared to the BMI < 35 cohort (478 patients, 78.6%). At baseline, patients with BMI ≥ 35 were more likely to be younger (58.5 ± 11.4 vs 63.2 ± 12.0 years old, p < 0.001), to present with both back and leg pain (53.8% vs 37.0%, p = 0.002), and to require ambulation assistance (20.8% vs 9.2%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the cohort with BMI ≥ 35 had worse baseline patient-reported outcomes including visual analog scale (VAS) back (7.6 ± 2.3 vs 6.5 ± 2.8, p < 0.001) and leg (7.1 ± 2.6 vs 6.4 ± 2.9, p = 0.031) pain, disability measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (53.7 ± 15.7 vs 44.8 ± 17.0, p < 0.001), and quality of life on EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire (0.47 ± 0.22 vs 0.56 ± 0.22, p < 0.001). Patients with BMI ≥ 35 were more likely to undergo fusion (85.4% vs 74.7%, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in 30- and 90-day readmission rates (p > 0.05). Five years postoperatively, there were no differences in reoperation rates or the development of adjacent-segment disease for patients in either BMI < 35 or ≥ 35 cohorts who underwent fusion (p > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, BMI ≥ 35 was a significant risk factor for not achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for VAS leg pain (OR 0.429, 95% CI 0.209–0.876, p = 0.020), but BMI ≥ 35 was not a predictor for achieving MCID for VAS back pain, ODI, or EQ-5D at 5 years postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS Both obese and nonobese patients benefit from surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis. At the 5-year time point, patients with BMI ≥ 35 have similarly low reoperation rates and achieve rates of satisfaction and MCID for back pain (but not leg pain), disability (ODI), and quality of life (EQ-5D) that are similar to those in patients with a BMI < 35.

Background The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.