No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

No abstract

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can produce prolonged multi-organ system dysfunction and a worsened quality of life, a condition known as Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC). In response, clinics have emerged dedicated to the treatment of individuals with PASC. Objective: To better understand the current characteristics of these clinics, the barriers they face, and the interest in collaboration between clinics. Design: A cross-sectional survey study. Participants: Clinicians working within dedicated PASC centers (N = 94) identified primarily through the Survivor Corps database of Post-COVID Care Centers. Additional clinics were found through news articles, an American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Database, and word of mouth. Methods: The branching logic electronic survey consisting of up to 39 questions was sent electronically to potential participants. Results: Complete survey responses were obtained from 45 clinics. There was a wide variety of different clinical models and specialties involved. The majority of clinics were homed in physical medicine and rehabilitation (40%), pulmonology (22%), and internal medicine (16%). Most clinics (73%) reported experiencing obstacles in the treatment of their patients, the most common of which included needing more established protocols (45%) and more clinical resources (24%). Most clinics (76%) also reported an interest in participating in a collaborative clinical network. Conclusion: Despite wide variability in current clinical models of PASC clinics, there are common practices such as using telemedicine, having initial visits longer than 30 minutes, involving certain specialties in the treatment team, and having the ability for follow-up. Clinicians involved with PASC clinics have a strong interest in collaboration to improve patient care and overcome clinical obstacles, the most common of which is the lack of clear treatment protocols. More research is needed to identify which clinical models lead to better patient outcomes.

No abstract

Objective Prospectively evaluate the clinical outcomes of acute cervical radiculopathy with respect to soft disc herniations vs osteophytes. Methods Sixty consecutive patients who had had cervical radiculopathy for ≤1 month were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria were radicular pain greater than axial pain and a pain score ≥4 out of 10 on a numerical rating scale. Patients had at least one positive clinical finding: motor, sensory, or reflex changes. Plain films and magnetic resonance imaging were ordered. Follow-up was at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months. Outcomes included pain scores (neck and upper limb), neck disability index, medication use, opioid use, and need for surgery. Two attending musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed imaging findings for osteophytes vs soft disc herniations at the symptomatic level. Results More than 75% reduction in pain was seen in 77% of patients with soft disc herniations and 66% of patients with osteophytes (P > 0.05) at 12 months. A pain score ≤2 out of 10 within 6 to 12 months was seen in 86% of patients with soft disc herniations and 81% of patients with osteophytes (P > 0.05). Moderate or marked improvement at 12 months was seen in 85% of patients with soft discs and 77% of patients with osteophytes (P > 0.05). Baseline–to–12-month numerical rating scale pain scores of patients with soft discs vs osteophytes had overlapping confidence intervals at each follow-up. At 12 months, very few had undergone surgery (7% of patients with soft discs, 11% of patients with osteophytes; P > 0.05) or were on opioids (7% of patients with soft discs, 9% of patients with osteophytes; P > 0.05). Conclusions The majority of patients, but not all patients, with acute radiculopathies improved with time. This was seen with both soft disc herniations and osteophytes.