Background Little is known regarding long-term outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods We conducted a prospective study of 6-month outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients with new neurological complications during hospitalization who survived were propensity score-matched to COVID-19 survivors without neurological complications hospitalized during the same period. The primary 6-month outcome was multivariable ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin Scale(mRS) comparing patients with or without neurological complications. Secondary outcomes included: activities of daily living (ADLs;Barthel Index), telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Neuro-QoL batteries for anxiety, depression, fatigue and sleep. Results Of 606 COVID-19 patients with neurological complications, 395 survived hospitalization and were matched to 395 controls; N = 196 neurological patients and N = 186 controls completed follow-up. Overall, 346/382 (91%) patients had at least one abnormal outcome: 56% had limited ADLs, 50% impaired cognition, 47% could not return to work and 62% scored worse than average on ≥1 Neuro-QoL scale (worse anxiety 46%, sleep 38%, fatigue 36%, and depression 25%). In multivariable analysis, patients with neurological complications had worse 6-month mRS (median 4 vs. 3 among controls, adjusted OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.23–3.48, P = 0.02), worse ADLs (aOR 0.38, 95%CI 0.29–0.74, P = 0.01) and were less likely to return to work than controls (41% versus 64%, P = 0.04). Cognitive and Neuro-QOL metrics were similar between groups. Conclusions Abnormalities in functional outcomes, ADLs, anxiety, depression and sleep occurred in over 90% of patients 6-months after hospitalization for COVID-19. In multivariable analysis, patients with neurological complications during index hospitalization had significantly worse 6-month functional outcomes than those without.

Sports-related concussion has emerged as a public health crisis due to increased diagnosis of the condition and increased participation in organized and recreational athletics worldwide. Under-recognition of concussions can lead to premature clearance for athletic participation, leaving athletes vulnerable to repeat injury and subsequent short- and long-term complications. There is overwhelming evidence that assessment and management of sports-related concussions should involve a multifaceted approach. A number of assessment criteria have been developed for this purpose. It is important to understand the available and emerging diagnostic testing modalities for sports-related concussions. The most commonly used tools for evaluating individuals with concussion are the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS), Standard Assessment of Concussion (SAC), Standard Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT3), and the most recognized computerized neurocognitive test, the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). The strengths and limitations of each of these tools, and the Concussion Resolution Index (CRI), CogSport, and King-Devick tests were evaluated. Based on the data, it appears that the most sensitive and specific of these is the ImPACT test. Additionally, the King-Devick test is an effective adjunct due to its ability to test eye movements and brainstem function.

Background: Little is known regarding long-term outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a prospective study of 6-month outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients with new neurological complications during hospitalization who survived were propensity score-matched to COVID-19 survivors without neurological complications hospitalized during the same period. The primary 6-month outcome was multivariable ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin Scale(mRS) comparing patients with or without neurological complications. Secondary outcomes included: activities of daily living (ADLs;Barthel Index), telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Neuro-QoL batteries for anxiety, depression, fatigue and sleep. Results: Of 606 COVID-19 patients with neurological complications, 395 survived hospitalization and were matched to 395 controls; N=196 neurological patients and N=186 controls completed follow-up. Overall, 346/382 (91%) patients had at least one abnormal outcome: 56% had limited ADLs, 50% impaired cognition, 47% could not return to work and 62% scored worse than average on ≥1 Neuro-QoL scale (worse anxiety 46%, sleep 38%, fatigue 36%, and depression 25%). In multivariable analysis, patients with neurological complications had worse 6-month mRS (median 4 vs. 3 among controls, adjusted OR 2.03, 95%CI 1.22-3.40, P=0.01), worse ADLs (aOR 0.38, 95%CI 0.29-0.74, P=0.01) and were less likely to return to work than controls (41% versus 64%, P=0.04). Cognitive and Neuro-QOL metrics were similar between groups. Conclusions: Abnormalities in functional outcomes, ADLs, anxiety, depression and sleep occurred in over 90% of patients 6-months after hospitalization for COVID-19. In multivariable analysis, patients with neurological complications during index hospitalization had significantly worse 6-month functional outcomes than those without.

BackgroundDisease of the cervical spine is widely prevalent, most commonly secondary to degenerative disc changes and spondylosis.ObjectiveThe goal of the paper was to identify a possible discrepancy regarding the length of stay (LOS) between the anterior and posterior approaches to elective cervical spine surgery and identify contributing factors.MethodsA retrospective study was performed on 587 patients (341 anterior, 246 posterior) that underwent elective cervical spinal surgery between October 2001 and March 2014. Pre- and intraoperative data were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 5 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA) and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY).ResultsAverage LOS was 3.21 ± 0.32 days for patients that benefited from the anterior approach cervical spinal surgery and 5.28 ± 0.37 days for patients that benefited from the posterior approach surgery, P-value < 0.0001. Anterior patients had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (2.43 ± 0.036 vs. 2.70 ± 0.044). Anterior patients also had fewer intervertebral levels operated upon (2.18 ± 0.056 vs. 4.11 ± 0.13), shorter incisions (5.49 ± 0.093 cm vs. 9.25 ± 0.16 cm), lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (183.8 ± 9.0 cc vs. 340.0 ± 8.7 cc), and shorter procedure times (4.12 ± 0.09 hours vs. 4.47 ± 0.10 hours). Chi-squared tests for hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma showed no significant difference between groups.Conclusions:Patients with anterior surgery performed experienced a length of stay that was 2.07 days shorter on average. Higher EBL, longer incisions, more intervertebral levels, and longer operating time were significantly associated with the posterior approach. Future studies should include multiple surgeons. The goal would be to create a model that could accurately predict the postoperative length of stay based on patient and operative factors.

BackgroundPostoperative surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication after spine surgery. Reduction of SSI has many benefits including, but not limited to, the reduced length of stay, readmission rates, and morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo determine whether an enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis reduced the rate of surgical site infections in spine surgery.MethodsThis is a retrospective observation study which analyzed the incidence of postoperative SSI following a consecutive series of 1,486 cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine operations performed at a single institution by the senior author between the dates of October 2001 to March 2014. Patients with surgeries between October 2001 and November 2005 received a standard institutional antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients between December 2005 and March 2014 underwent an enhanced antibiotic protocol.ResultsA total of nine cases met the criteria for SSI. All nine cases were recorded during the initial time period when the standard institutional prophylaxis was used. Further, these cases were only observed under posterior operative approaches. No further cases of SSI were observed after the institution of the enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis (p < 0.0001). This was statistically significant in the cervical and lumbar regions (p < 0.0042 and p < 0.0119, respectively).ConclusionsAlthough difficult to predict the incidence of SSI, this study found that the use of an enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis protocol significantly reduced one surgeon’s overall rates of surgical site infections after spine surgery.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: As the Hispanic/Latino (HL) population grows, so too does the need for HL family caregivers for persons with dementia. HL caregivers tend to have less education, lower health literacy, and lower income, each uniquely compounding burden. Research is needed to appropriately tailor interventions for this population. Objective: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to 1) provide an updated review of non-pharmacologic intervention studies for HL dementia caregivers, 2) characterize promising interventions, and 3) highlight opportunities for future research. Methods: Databases were searched for articles evaluating non-pharmacologic interventions for HL dementia caregivers. Studies were excluded if target populations did not include HLs or if no intervention was delivered. Data were extracted and random effects meta-analysis was performed on two primary outcomes: caregiver depression and burden. Effect sizes were calculated as pre- and post-intervention standardized mean differences (SMD), and further depression subgroup meta-analysis was performed. Other secondary outcome measures (e.g., perceived social support, caregiver knowledge, anxiety) were evaluated qualitatively. Results: Twenty-three studies were identified. Most included multiple components pertaining to psychosocial support, caregiver education, and community resource facilitation. Many studies were successful in improving caregiver outcomes, though intervention design varied. Meta-analysis revealed minimal to moderate heterogeneity and small effect size in improving depressive symptoms (SMD = –0.31, 95% CI –0.46 to –0.16; I2 = 50.16%) and burden (SMD = –0.28, 95% CI –0.37 to –0.18; I2 = 11.06%). Conclusion: Although intervention components varied, many reported outcome improvements. Future studies may benefit from targeting physical health, addressing sociocultural and economic contexts of caregivers, and leveraging technology.