Introduction: Race and socioeconomic status correlate with disease outcomes and treatment in patients with idiopathic scoliosis (IS) to varying degrees, although there is no clear association with Cobb angle and curve type. The purpose of this study was to assess socioeconomic factors and their association with Cobb angles in patients with IS.Methods: A retrospective chart review was completed with the radiographic analysis of 89 patients diagnosed with IS and spinal curves >10° between the ages of six and 18. Associations between the Cobb angles and socioeconomic categorical variables were analyzed using a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test and continuous variables using a Spearman Rank correlation.Results: There were no significant associations between proximal thoracic, main thoracic, or thoracolumbar/lumbar Cobb angles and sex, insurance type, race, access to healthy food, financial difficulty, or income. BMI and proximal thoracic Cobb angle (ρ = 0.2375, p=0.0268) had a significant positive correlation, and BMI and income (ρ = -0.2468, p=0.0228) shared a significant negative correlation.Conclusions: The severity of IS proximal thoracic Cobb angles was positively associated with BMI and income. Other socioeconomic factors such as age, race, sex, access to food, insurance, and financial difficulties related to scoliosis treatment were not correlated with Cobb angle severity. The data presented suggest that patients with IS have varying degrees of curve type and severity that overall do not correlate with various socioeconomic factors. Validating which factors are predictive of curve severity could lead to early intervention preventing further morbidity of IS.
Introduction: Smoking and general categorizations of substance use are linked with increased postoperative complications following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is a lack of similar evidence on how cannabis use may affect outcomes after arthroplasty. The present study aims to compare postoperative outcomes in cannabis users versus non-cannabis users who underwent THA/TKA. We hypothesize that cannabis users will have no difference in primarily the complication rate, revision rate, and secondarily post-operative Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) scores, hospital stay, or pain compared to matched controls.Methods: Billing codes were used to generate lists of hip/knee arthroplasty patients from 2013 to 2019 at our institution. In the case group, cannabis use was confirmed via chart review. Cannabis-using patients were matched appropriately with non-users by (1) the same arthroplasty procedure; (2) BMI ± 3.5; (3) age ± 3 years; (4) sex. Data on postoperative outcomes were collected from charts and compared between groups using either a Chi-square test for qualitative variables or a paired t-test for quantitative variables.Results: A total of 24 patients with an average age of 57.1 and a BMI of 30.6 were confirmed to have isolated cannabis use. They were matched to 24 patients with an average age of 57.6 and a BMI of 31.4. There were no significant differences in the complication rate (4.2% vs 4.2%, p=1.00), the revision rate (0% vs 4.2%, p=0.31), days of hospital stay (2.7 vs 3.3, p=0.22), or postoperative pain (4.7 vs 4.9, p=0.86). Similarly, there were no significant differences in all PROMIS score measures. Discussion/conclusions: Current research shows that cannabis use may lead to increased revision arthroplasty and decreased mortality, with mixed findings regarding post-surgical complications. The present study suggests that cannabis-using patients have no difference in postoperative complication rate, revision rate, PROMIS scores, hospital stay, or pain compared to matched controls.
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.