Background: Virtual Reality (VR) has been used as a distraction tool in various medical settings to reduce pain and anxiety associated with procedures. This study evaluates the effectiveness of VR as a distraction tool for decreasing fear, anxiety, and pain in pediatric patients undergoing common outpatient orthopaedic procedures. Methods: A total of 210 patients were recruited from a single orthopaedic clinic between October 2017 and July 2019. Patients were randomized to the VR group or to the control group (standard of care). Outpatient procedures included cast and/or pin removals. Primary outcome measures were collected preprocedure and postprocedure using validated surveys, and included: fear (Children's Fear Scale), anxiety (Children's Anxiety Meter-State), and pain (Numerical Rating Scale). Patients and caregivers in the VR group completed a satisfaction survey at the end of their appointment. Fear, anxiety, and pain scores between the 2 groups were analyzed using multivariable linear regression models, and the satisfaction survey was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred twenty nine patients were included in the final analysis, with 85 patients in the VR group and 44 patients in the control group. During the procedure, patients in the VR group reported significantly lower average fear scores (P < 0.001) and anxiety scores (P = 0.003) as compared with controls. There were no differences between the groups in fear and anxiety scores before and after the procedure, or pain scores before, during, or after the procedure. Overall, patients and caregivers in the VR group reported high satisfaction scores, with 97% of patients and 95% of caregivers recommending this intervention to others. Conclusion:VR technology was found to be an effective distraction tool to improve fear and anxiety during cast removal procedures. Findings build on a body of evidence that supports the use of distraction tools in clinics, specifically pediatric orthopaedics, to improve fear and anxiety. The distraction tools can be easily translated into current practices. Level of Evidence: Level I.
Background Prevention of nosocomial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection for patients undergoing flap-based reconstructive surgery is crucial to providing care and maintaining operative volume and income to support plastic surgery programs. We conducted this study to (1) determine the postoperative incidence of COVID-19 among patients undergoing flap reconstruction from December 1, 2019 to November 1, 2020 and (2) compare 30-day outcomes between patients who underwent surgery before and during the early pandemic. Methods We conducted an 11-month retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent flap reconstruction across our institution. We abstracted patient demographics, intraoperative management, COVID-19 testing history, and 30-day postoperative complications from electronic health records. Nosocomial COVID-19 infection was defined as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) viral ribonucleic acid detection within 30 days of patients' postoperative course or during initial surgical admission. We used chi-squared tests to compare postoperative outcomes between patients who underwent surgery before (prior to March 12, 2021, when our institution admitted its first COVID-19 patient) versus during (on/after March 12, 2021) the pandemic. Results Among the 220 patients (mean [standard deviation] age = 53.8 [18.1] years; female = 54.8%) who underwent flap reconstruction, none had nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Five (2%) patients eventually tested COVID-19 positive (median time from surgery to diagnosis: 9 months, range: 1.5–11 months) with one developing partial flap loss while infected. Between patients who underwent free flap surgery before and during the pandemic, there were no significant differences in 30-day takebacks (15.6% vs. 16.6%, respectively; p > 0.999), readmissions (9.4% vs. 12.6%, respectively; p = 0.53), and surgical complications (e.g., total flap loss 1.6% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.81). Conclusion Robust precautions can ensure the safety of patients undergoing flap surgeries across an academic medical institution, even during periods of high COVID-19 admission rates. Further studies are needed to generate evidence-based guidelines that optimize infection control and flap survival for patients undergoing reconstruction.
Objective Identifying when and how often decisions are made based on high-quality evidence can inform the development of evidence-based treatment plans and care pathways, which have been shown to improve quality of care and patient safety. Evidence to guide decision making, national guidelines, and clinical pathways for many conditions in pediatric orthopaedic surgery are limited. This study investigated decision making rationale and quantified the evidence supporting decisions made by pediatric orthopaedic surgeons in an outpatient clinic. Design/Setting/Participants/Intervention(s)/Main Outcome Measure(s) We recorded decisions made by eight pediatric orthopaedic surgeons in an outpatient clinic and the surgeon’s reported rationale behind the decisions. Surgeons categorized the rationale for each decision as one or a combination of 12 possibilities (e.g. “Experience/anecdote”, “First Principles”, “Trained to do it”, “Arbitrary/Instinct”, “General Study”, “Specific Study”). Results Out of 1150 total decisions, the most frequent decisions were follow-up scheduling, followed by bracing prescription/removal. The most common decision rationales were “First principles” (N=310, 27.0%) and “Experience/anecdote” (N=253, 22.0%). Only 17.8% of decisions were attributed to scientific studies, with 7.3% based on studies specific to the decision. 34.6% of surgical intervention decisions were based on scientific studies, while only 10.4% of follow-up scheduling decisions were made with studies in mind. Decision category was significantly associated with a basis in scientific studies: surgical intervention and medication prescription decisions were more likely to be based on scientific studies than all other decisions. Conclusions With increasing emphasis on high value, evidence-based care, understanding the rationale behind physician decision-making can educate physicians, identify common decisions without supporting evidence, and help create clinical care pathways in pediatric orthopaedic surgery. Decisions based on evidence or consensus between surgeons can inform pathways and national guidelines that minimize unwarranted variation in care and waste. Decision support tools & aids could also be implemented to guide these decisions.
Background Age is a poor predictor of postoperative outcomes in breast reconstruction necessitating new methods for risk-stratifying patients preoperatively. The 5-item modified frailty index (mFI-5) is a validated measure of frailty which assesses patients' global health. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of mFI-5 and age as independent predictors of 30-day postoperative complications following autologous breast reconstruction. Methods Patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction between 2005 and 2019 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients were stratified based on presence of major, minor, both minor and major, and no complications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to determine the predictive power of mFI-5, age, and other preoperative risk factors for development of minor and major 30-day postoperative complications in all patients and stratified by flap type. Results A total of 25,215 patients were included: 20,366 (80.8%) had no complications, 2,009 (8.0%) had minor complications, 1,531 (6.1%) had major complications, and 1,309 (5.2%) had both minor and major complications. Multivariate regression demonstrated age was not a predictor of minor (odds ratio [OR]: 1.0, p = 0.045), major (OR: 1.0, p = 0.367), or both minor and major (OR: 1.0, p = 0.908) postoperative complications. mFI-5 was a significant predictor of minor complications for mFI-5 scores 1 (OR: 1.3, p < 0.001), 2 (OR: 1.8, p < 0.001), and 3 (OR: 2.8, p = 0.043). For major complications, mFI-5 was a significant predictor for scores 1 (OR: 1.2, p = 0.011) and 2 (OR: 1.3, p = 0.03). Conclusion Compared with age, mFI-5 scores were better predictors of 30-day postoperative complications following autologous breast reconstruction regardless of flap type. Additionally, higher mFI-5 scores were associated with increased odds of minor and major complications. Our findings indicate that reconstructive breast surgeons should consider using the mFI-5 in lieu of age to risk-stratify patients prior to autologous breast reconstruction surgery.
BACKGROUND: Successful intraoperative microvascular anastomoses are essential for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap survival. This study identifies factors associated with anastomotic failure during DIEP flap reconstruction and analyzes the impact of these anastomotic failures on post-operative patient outcomes and surgical costs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction at two high-volume tertiary care centers from January 2017 to December 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative management, anastomotic technique, and post-operative outcomes were collected. Data were analyzed using Student’s t-tests, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 270 patients included in our study (mean age 52, majority Caucasian [74.5%]), intraoperative anastomotic failure occurred in 26 (9.6%) patients. Increased number of circulating nurses increased risk of anastomotic failure (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.00-1.03, P<0.05). Presence of a junior resident also increased risk of anastomotic failure (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.01-6.34, P<0.05). Increased surgeon years in practice was associated with decreased failures (OR 0.12, CI 0.02-0.60, P<0.05). Intraoperative anastomotic failure increased the odds of post-operative hematoma (OR 8.85, CI 1.35-59.1, P<0.05) and was associated with longer operating room times (bilateral DIEP: 2.25 hours longer, P<0.05), longer hospital stays (2.2 days longer, P<0.05), and higher total operating room cost ($28,529.50 versus $37,272.80, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative anastomotic failures during DIEP flap reconstruction are associated with longer, more expensive cases and increased rates of post-operative complications. Presence of increased numbers of circulators and junior residents was associated with increased risk of anastomotic failure. Future research is necessary to develop practice guidelines for optimizing patient and surgical factors for intraoperative anastomotic success.
PSTM Top Abstractsmicrosomia (HFM). Eye-tracking was used to register visual fixations. Four areas of interest (AOIs) were defined on each face: cheek and ear, forehead and orbit, mandible and chin, and nose and lips. Linear mixed effects models (LMEMs) in R Studio tested whether locations of participant fixations were affected by surgical correction of HFM and influenced by IAT, EBQ, or social disposition scores. RESULTS:Sixty participants (38 women) were prospectively enrolled. LMEMs revealed participants with higher IAT scores fixated significantly less on the cheek and ear region preoperatively compared to postoperatively (β = 0.115, SE = 0.040, z = 2.855, p = 0.004). Participants with higher scores on empathic concern fixated more on the forehead and orbit preoperatively compared to postoperatively (β = -0.107, SE = 0.053, z = -2.007, p = 0.045) and participants with higher scores in perspective taking fixated more on the nose and lips (β = -0.085, SE = 0.038, z = -2.215, p = 0.027) preoperatively compared to postoperatively. EBQ scores and other social disposition scores did not significantly influence visual fixations in any AOIs based on better fit to the null models.CONCLUSION: Levels of biases, empathic concern, and other social dispositions may influence visual attention toward people with facial anomalies. Those with higher levels of implicit bias may avoid looking at anomalous anatomy, while those with higher levels of empathic concern and perspective taking do not show similar avoidance behaviors. These findings may have neural underpinnings with amygdala reactivity modulating visual activity in response to facial anomalies. This study has implications for the experience of patients with craniofacial anomalies and for characterizing neurologic mechanisms of the 'beauty-is-good' and 'anomalous-is-bad' biases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.