Study Design. Retrospective questionnaire analysis.Objective. The goal of this study was to analyze patients' understanding and preferences for minimally invasive spine (MIS) versus open spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. MIS surgery is increasing in prevalence. However, there is insufficient literature to evaluate how the availability of MIS surgery influences the patients' decision-making process and perceptions of spine procedures. Methods. A survey was administered to patients who received a microdiscectomy or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion between 2016 and 2020. All eligible patients were stratified into two cohorts based on the use of minimally invasive techniques. Each cohort was administered a survey that evaluated patient preferences, perceptions, and understanding of their surgery. Results. One hundred fifty two patients completed surveys (MIS: 88, Open: 64). There was no difference in time from surgery to survey (MIS: 2.1 AE 1.4 yrs, Open: 1.9 AE 1.4 yrs; P ¼ 0.36) or sex (MIS: 56.8% male, Open: 53.1% male; P ¼ 0.65). The MIS group was younger (MIS: 53.0 AE 16.9 yrs, Open: 58.2 AE 14.6 yrs; P ¼ 0.05). More MIS patients reported that their technique influenced their surgeon choice (MIS: 64.0%, Open: 37.5%; P < 0.00001) and increased their preoperative confidence (MIS: 77.9%, Open: 38.1%; P < 0.00001). There was a trend towards the MIS group being less informed about the intraoperative specifics of their technique (MIS: 35.2%, Open: 23.4%; P ¼ 0.12). More of the MIS cohort reported perceived advantages to their surgical technique (MIS: 98.8%, Open: 69.4%; P < 0.00001) and less reported disadvantages (MIS: 12.9%, Open: 68.8%; P < 0.00001). 98.9% and 87.1% of the MIS and open surgery cohorts reported a preference for MIS surgery in the future. Conclusion. Patients who received a MIS approach more frequently sought out their surgeons, were more confident in their procedure, and reported less perceived disadvantages following their surgery compared with the open surgery cohort. Both cohorts would prefer MIS surgery in the future. Overall, patients have positive perceptions of MIS surgery.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Spinal epidural abscess (SEA) is a rare but potentially life-threatening infection treated with antimicrobials and, in most cases, immediate surgical decompression. Previous studies comparing medical and surgical management of SEA are low powered and limited to a single institution. As such, the present study compares readmission in surgical and non-surgical management using a large national dataset. Methods: We identified all hospital admissions for SEA using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), which is the largest collection of hospital admissions data. Patients were grouped into surgically and non-surgically managed cohorts using ICD-10 coding and compared using information retrieved from the NRD such as demographics, comorbidities, length of stay and cost of admission. Results: We identified 350 surgically managed and 350 non-surgically managed patients. The 90-day readmission rates for surgical and non-surgical management were 26.0% and 35.1%, respectively ( P < .05). Expectedly, surgical management was associated with a significantly higher charge and length of stay at index hospital admission. Surgically managed patients had a significantly lower risk of readmission for osteomyelitis ( P < .05). Finally, in patients with a low comorbidity burden, we observed a significantly lower 90-day readmission rate for surgically managed patients (surgical: 23.0%, non-surgical: 33.8%, P < .05). Conclusion: In patients with a low comorbidity burden, we observed a significantly lower readmission rate for surgically managed patients than non-surgically managed patients. The results of this study suggest a lower readmission rate as an advantage to surgical management of SEA and emphasize the importance of SEA as a not-to-miss diagnosis.

No abstract

Background: Achieving health equity includes training surgeons in environments exemplifying access, treatment, and outcomes across the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic spectrum. Increased attention on health equity has generated metrics comparing hospitals. To establish the quality of health equity in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residency training, we determined the mean equity score (MES) across training hospitals of US PRS residencies. Methods: The 2021 Lown Institute Hospital Index database was merged with affiliated training hospitals of US integrated PRS residency programs. The Lown equity category is composed of three domains (community benefit, inclusivity, pay equity) generating a health equity grade. MES (standard deviation) was calculated and reported for residency programs (higher MES represented greater health equity). Linear regression modeled the effects of a program's number of training hospitals, safety net hospitals, and geographical region on MES. Results: The MES was 2.64 (0.62). An estimated 5.9% of programs had an MES between 1-2. In total, 56.5% of programs had an MES between 2 and 3, and 37.7% had an MES of 3 or more. The southern region was associated with a higher MES compared with the reference group (Northeast) (P = 0.03). The number of safety net hospitals per program was associated with higher MES (P = 0.02). Conclusions: Two out of three programs train residents in facilities failing to demonstrate high equity healthcare. Programs should promote health equity by diversifying care delivery through affiliated hospitals. This will aid in the creation of a PRS workforce trained to provide care for a socioeconomically, racially, and ethnically diverse population.

Introduction Burn management is complex and outcomes depend on injury severity, timing of presentation, and specialized multidisciplinary care. Burn injuries among the homeless are an increasing problem in the United States (US) as record numbers of people are unsheltered and using unsafe heating practices. This study aims to characterize mechanism, demographic, and social factors related to burn injuries in homeless persons. Methods Burn encounters were extracted from the 2019 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) database. Two cohorts were created comparing homeless and non-homeless encounters. Burn characteristics (size, depth, location and mechanism), comorbidities, demographics, and ED treatments were compared with univariate testing. Multivariable regression evaluated the likelihood of admission. Discharge weights were used to yield national estimates. Results Of 316,334 ED visits meeting criteria for burn injuries in 2019, 1,919 (0.6%) had a diagnosis code for homelessness. Homelessness burn encounters were significantly older (mean age 32.4 vs. 44.8), were more often male (71% vs. 52%), were more often White (59% vs. 54%) or Black (24% vs. 21%), were more often presenting to EDs in the Western region of the US (43% vs. 19%), and more often had Medicaid as primary payer (51% vs 33%). Burns in homeless encounters more commonly resulted from flame injury and more commonly involved the lower extremity (p&lt; 0.001). Among homeless encounters, burn injuries were more often due to self-harm (12% vs. 2%) or assault (5% vs. 1%)(p&lt; 0.001). In addition, homeless encounters had significantly greater mental illness related to substance abuse (69% vs 16%, p&lt; 0.001) and had greater comorbidity burden (38% vs. 6% had Elixhauser index scores of 3 or higher; p&lt; 0.001). Homeless encounters experienced higher rates of third degree burns and concomitant injuries (p≤0.003). 49% vs 7% of homeless and non-homeless encounters, respectively, required admission, and homelessness was associated with higher odds of admission (adjusted OR 4.58; 95% CI 3.066–6.828; p&lt; 0.001). Conclusions Burn injuries in the homeless affect a vulnerable population who is older, has more comorbidities, and has deeper burns. Mental illness is over 4 times more likely in this population who is also at increased risk of getting burned through assault. Applicability of Research to Practice Burn injuries presenting to the ED should be screened for homelessness given the associated risk factors. Legal, medical, and mental health resources can then be appropriately targeted.