No abstract

The United States and Canada are in the midst of an epidemic of the use, misuse and overdose of opioids, and deaths related to overdose. This is the direct result of overstatement of the benefits and understatement of the risks of using opioids by advocates and pharmaceutical companies. Massive amounts of prescription opioids entered the community and were often diverted and misused. Most other parts of the world achieve comparable pain relief using fewer opioids. The misconceptions about opioids that created this epidemic are finding their way around the world. There is particular evidence of the increased prescription of strong opioids in Europe. Opioids are addictive and dangerous. Evidence is mounting that the best pain relief is obtained through resilience. Opioids are often prescribed when treatments to increase resilience would be more effective. Cite this article: 2017;99-B:856-64.

Background Tumors of the appendicular skeleton commonly affect the proximal humerus, but there is no consensus regarding the best reconstructive technique after proximal humerus resection for tumors of the shoulder. Questions/purposes We wished to perform a systematic review to determine which surgical reconstruction offers the (1) best functional outcome as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, (2) longest construct survival, and (3) lowest complication rate after proximal humerus resection for malignant or aggressive benign tumors of the shoulder. Methods We searched the literature up to June 1, 2013, from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Only studies reporting results in English, Dutch, or German and with followups of 80% or more of the patients at a minimum of 2 years were included. Twenty-nine studies with 693 patients met our criteria, seven studies (24%) were level of evidence III and the remainder were level IV. Studies reported on reconstruction with prostheses (n = 17), osteoarticular allografts (n = 10), and allograftprosthesis composites (n = 11). Owing to substantial heterogeneity and bias, we narratively report our results. Results Functional scores in prosthesis studies ranged from 61% to 77% (10 studies, 141 patients), from 50% to 78% (eight studies, 84 patients) in osteoarticular graft studies, and from 57% to 91% (10 studies, 141 patients) in allograftprosthesis composite studies. Implant survival ranged from 0.38 to 1.0 in the prosthesis group (341 patients), 0.33 to 1.0 in the osteoarticular allograft group (143 patients), and 0.33 to 1.0 in allograft-prosthesis group (132 patients). Overall complications per patient varied between 0.045 and 0.85 in the prosthesis group, 0 and 1.5 in the osteoarticular graft group, and 0.19 and 0.79 in the prosthesis-composite graft group. We observed a higher fracture rate for osteoarticular allografts, but other specific complication rates were similar. Conclusions Owing to the limitations of our systematic review, we found that allograft-prosthesis composites and prostheses seem to have similar functional outcome and survival rates, and both seem to avoid fractures that are observed with osteoarticular allografts. Further collaboration in the field of surgical oncology, using randomized controlled trials, is required to establish the superiority of any particular treatment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

Studies included in this meta-analysis have several limitations. However, most studies find a large clinical advantage of CTA over Doppler US, which reaches statistical significance when combined. As results show that CTA prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction offers significant clinical benefits, we suggest the routine use of preoperative CTA.

BackgroundSince the start of out-of-hours (OOH) primary care clinics, the number of patient consultations has been increasing. Triage plays an important role in patient selection for a consultation, and in providing reassurance and self-management advice.ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate whether the smartphone application “Should I see a doctor?” (in Dutch:”moet ik naar de dokter?”) could guide patients in appropriate consultation at OOH clinics by focusing on four topics: 1) app usage, 2) user satisfaction, 3) whether the app provides the correct advice, and 4) whether users intend to follow the advice.Design and settingA prospective, cross-sectional study amongst app users in a routine primary care setting.MethodsThe app is a self-triage tool for acute primary care. A built-in questionnaire asked users about the app’s clarity, their satisfaction and whether they intended to follow the app’s advice (n = 4456). A convenience sample of users was phoned by a triage nurse (reference standard) to evaluate whether the app’s advice corresponded with the outcome of the triage call (n = 126). Suggestions of phoned participants were listed.ResultsThe app was used by patients of all ages, also by parents for their children, and mostly for abdominal pain, skin disorders and cough. 58% of users received the advice to contact the clinic, 34% a self-care advice and 8% to wait-and-see. 65% of users intended to follow the app’s advice. The app was rated as ‘neutral’ to ‘very clear’ by 87%, and 89% were ‘neutral’ to ‘very satisfied’. In 81% of participants the app’s advice corresponded to the triage call outcome, with sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative predictive values of 84%, 74%, 88% and 67%, respectively.ConclusionThe app “Should I see a doctor?” could be a valuable tool to guide patients in contacting the OOH primary care clinic for acute care. To further improve the app’s safety and efficiency, triaging multiple symptoms should be facilitated, and more information should be provided to patients receiving a wait-and-see advice.

Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BackgroundThis prospective study identifies the association between demographic, injury, psychological, and social variables, measured early during recovery, with limitations in function (measured by PROMIS UE) at 6-9 months after distal radius fracture. Additionally, we assessed variables associated with PROMIS UE, QuickDASH, PRWE, EQ-5D-3L over time. MethodsA total of 364 adult patients (73% female, median age 65 years , IQR 45.5 -77 years) sustaining an isolated distal radius fracture completed questionnaires within 1 week post fracture, between 2-4 weeks, and between 6-9 months after injury. We created a multivariable regression model and Generalized Least Square random effects models, accounting for multicollinearity using correlation matrices, variable inflation factor and partial R 2 . ResultsMultiple variables within a week of injury correlated with 6-9 month limitations in bivariate analysis. Being retired (Partial R 2 = 0.9, p<0.001), using opioids (Partial R 2 =0.04, p<0.001), using anti-depressants (Partial R 2 =0.11, p<0.001), greater pain interference (Partial R 2 =0.03, p=0.001) and greater pain catastrophization (Partial R 2 =0.04, p<0.002) within a week of injury were strong predictors of greater limitations (PROMIS UE) at 6-9 months in multivariable analysis. Longitudinal analysis of variables over time demonstrated greater pain interference, greater fear of movement, lower self-efficacy, older age and being female as strong predictors of limitations. ConclusionsRecovery from a distal radius fracture is influenced by a series of demographic, psychological and social variables. Of these factors, being retired, using opioids, using antidepressants, greater pain interference and greater pain catastrophization within a week of injury explain the largest amounts of unique variance in upper extremity physical function. Evaluating the impact of change in variables over time underlined the influence of pain interference as well as the influence of fear of movement and self-efficacy (or resiliency) on limitations in physical function and general health.These findings have important implications for identifying individuals who can benefit from behavioural interventions for these psychological factors to optimize recovery.

BackgroundAmong people with musculoskeletal disorders, much of the variation in magnitude of incapability and pain intensity is accounted for by mental and social health opportunities rather than severity of pathology. Current questionnaires seem to combine distinct aspects of mental health such as unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms, and they can be long and burdensome. To identify personalized health strategies, it would be helpful to measure unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms at the point of care with just a few questions in a way that feels relevant to a person’s health.Questions/purposes(1) Do questions that address unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms independently account for variation in accommodation of pain? (2) Which questions best measure unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms?MethodsThis is a cross-sectional questionnaire study of people seeking care regarding upper and lower extremity conditions from one of eight specialist clinicians (one upper extremity, one arthroplasty, and one sports surgeon and their three nurse practitioners and two physician assistants) in one urban office. Between June 2020 and September 2020, 171 new and returning patients were approached and agreed to participate, and 89% (153) of patients completed all questionnaires. The most common reason for noncompletion was the use of a pandemic strategy allowing people to use their phone to finish the questionnaire, with more people leaving before completion. Women and divorced, separated, or widowed people were more likely to not complete the survey, and we specifically account for sex and marital status as potential confounders in our multivariable analysis. Forty-eight percent (73 of 153) of participants were women, with a mean age 48 ± 16 years. Participants completed demographics and the validated questionnaires: Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Negative Pain Thoughts Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (a measure of accommodation to pain). In an exploratory factor analysis, we found that questions group together on four topics: (1) distress about symptoms (unhelpful feelings of worry and despair), (2) unhelpful thoughts about symptoms (such as worst-case thinking and pain indicating harm), (3) being able to plan, and (4) discomfort with uncertainty. We used a multivariable analysis, accounting for potential confounding demographics, to determine whether the identified question groupings account for variation in accommodation of pain—and thus are clinically relevant. Then, we used a confirmatory factor analysis to determine which questions best represent clinically relevant groupings of questions.ResultsAfter accounting for sex, marital status, work, and income, we found that distress and unhelpful thoughts about symptoms were independently associated with accommodation of pain, and together, they explained 60% of its variation (compared with 52% for distress alone and 40% for unhelpful tho...