Symptoms are determined in large part by mindsets. Feelings of distress and unhelpful thoughts (misinterpretations) of symptoms account for much of the variability in comfort and capability with the severity of the underlying pathophysiology making a more limited contribution. Incorporating this experimental evidence into the daily practice of hand surgery will help us find ways to develop healthy mindsets, to prioritize the alleviation of distress and the gentle redirection of unhelpful thoughts, to avoid unnecessary surgery, and to provide better psychological and social support for people recovering from injury and surgery.
Background Utilization of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) increases annually, raising concerns about overuse. Imaging appropriateness guidelines have the potential to standardize decisions regarding imaging based on best evidence, which might reduce unhelpful or potentially misleading imaging. We studied expert use of advanced imaging for musculoskeletal illness compared to published appropriateness recommendations.
Methods First, 15 imaging guidelines with recommendations for advanced imaging of the upper extremity were collated. Next, members of the Science of Variation Group (SOVG) were invited to participate in a survey of 11 patient scenarios of common upper extremity illnesses and asked whether they would recommend MRI or CT. Guideline recommendations for imaging were compared with surgeon recommendations using Fisher's exact tests. We used Fleiss' kappa to measure the interobserver agreement among surgeons.
Results For the 11 scenarios, most imaging appropriateness guidelines suggested that MRI or CT is useful, while most surgeons (n = 108) felt it was not. There was no correlation between surgeons and guidelines recommendations for imaging (ρ = 0.28; p = 0.40). There was slight agreement among surgeons regarding imaging recommendations (kappa: 0.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.023–0.32).
Conclusion The available imaging appropriateness guidelines appear to be too permissive and therefore seem to have limited clinical utility for upper extremity surgeons. The notable surgeon-to-surgeon variation (unreliability) in recommendations for advanced imaging in this and other studies suggests a role for strategies to ensure that patient decisions about imaging are consistent with their values (what matters most to them) and not unduly influenced by patient misconceptions about imaging or by surgeon beliefs and habits.
Level Of Evidence II, diagnostic
Background: We analyzed association between viewing two-dimensional computed tomography (2D CT) images in addition to radiographs with radial head treatment recommendations after accounting for patient and surgeon factors in a survey-based experiment.Methods: One hundred and fifty-four surgeons reviewed 15 patient scenarios with terrible triad fracture dislocations of the elbow. Surgeons were randomized to view either radiographs only or radiographs and 2D CT images. The scenarios randomized patient age, hand dominance, and occupation. For each scenario, surgeons were asked if they would recommend fixation or arthroplasty of the radial head. Multi-level logistic regression analysis identified variables associated with radial head treatment recommendations. Results: Reviewing 2D CT images in addition to radiographs had no statistical association with treatment recommendations. A higher likelihood of recommending prosthetic arthroplasty was associated with older patient age, patient occupation not requiring manual labor, surgeon practice location in the United States, practicing for five years or less, and the subspecialties “trauma” and “shoulder and elbow.”Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that in terrible triad injuries, the imaging appearance of radial head fractures has no measurable influence on treatment recommendations. Personal surgeon factors and patient demographic characteristics may have a larger role in surgical decision making.
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.