Purpose The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon's geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries. Methods A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options. Results A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and > 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted. Conclusion More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe.
Background:Patient’s final satisfaction with endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) is still unpredictable. The study aims to find the predictive factors for satisfaction in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) treated by ECTR using the Boston CTS questionnaire.Methods:We conducted a retrospective chart review of 37 patients (55 hands) who received ECTR and completed Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire at preoperative visit, 1 month and 6 months after operation while a telephone interview was conducted at 2 years after operation. Independent risk variables, including mean symptom severity scale, functional status scale, each item in questionnaire at all the time points, ASA physical status scale, age, gender, dominant site lesion, bilateral lesions, duration of symptoms and anesthesia method were recorded. Final outcome was determined by the patient’s satisfaction at the interval of 2 years. Predictors to outcome were analyzed by stepwise multiple regression analysis and tested with Pearson correlation test. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.Results:The severity of hand or wrist numbness during the daytime (Q6, explained 6.5% variances), the severity of numbness or tingling at night (Q9, explained 16.2% variances), the functional status of writing (q1, explained 13.9% variances), carrying grocery bags (q7, explained 13.6% variances) had significant predictive value (p<0.001). Other factors were not significant in the analysis including ASA, gender, age, dominant site lesion, bilateral lesions, anesthesia method and duration of symptoms.Conclusions:Boston questionnaire is a simple and reliable tool with high predictive values to evaluate patient’s outcome and satisfaction in ECTR.
Objective: The ever-growing number of articles related to full-endoscopic spine surgery published in the last few decades presents a challenge which is perplexing and time-consuming in identifying the current research status. The study aims to identify and analyze the most cited works related to full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery, compare the articles published by different publishers and area, and show the current publication status of full-endoscopic research.Methods: Using Bibliometrix, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer, we analyzed the bibliometric data selected from the Web of Science database between 1992 and 2022. Spine has the highest H-index with the most-cited journal in the field of full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery. China ranked as the most productive country, whereas the most cited with high H-index papers came from South Korea. For the author analysis, Yeung AT, Ruetten S, Hoogland T, Ahn Y, Choi G, and Mayer HM were the most impactful authors in the global and local citations. The most productive organization is Wooridul Spine Hospital.Conclusion: The bibliometric study showed a growing trend of research on full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery over the past 30 years. It has demonstrated that there is a significant increase in the number of authors, institutions, and internationally collaborated countries. However, the quality of studies is still low, and the lack of high-quality clinical evidence and the trend of general journal submissions has somewhat affected the quality of endoscopy journals in recent years.
Bisphosphonates are used as first-line treatment for the prevention of fragility fracture (FF); they act by inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. The timing of their administration after FF surgery is controversial; thus, we compared the incidence of second FF, surgery for second FF, and adverse events associated with early initiation of bisphosphonates (EIBP, within 3 months of FF surgery) and late initiation of bisphosphonates (LIBP, 3 months after FF surgery) in bisphosphonate-naïve patients. This retrospective population-based cohort study used data from Taiwan’s Health and Welfare Data Science Center (2004–2012). A total of 298,377 patients received surgeries for FF between 2006 and 2010; of them, 1209 (937 EIBP and 272 LIBP) received first-time bisphosphonates (oral alendronate, 70 mg, once a week). The incidence of second FF (subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) = 0.509; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.352–0.735), second FF surgery (SHR = 0.452; 95% CI: 0.268–0.763), and adverse events (SHR = 0.728; 95% CI: 0.594–0.893) was significantly lower in the EIBP group than in the LIBP group. Our findings indicate that bisphosphonates should be initiated within 3 months after surgery for FF.
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.