Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Disease in Short Segment Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a common problem after lumbar spinal fusions. Ways to reduce the rates of ASD are highly sought after to reduce the need for reoperation. OBJECTIVE: To find predisposing factors of ASD after lumbar interbody fusions, especially in mismatch of pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusions of less than 4 levels from June 2015 to July 2020 with at least 1 year of follow-up and in those who had obtained postoperative standing X-rays. RESULTS: We found 243 patients who fit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen patients (5.8%) developed ASD, at a median of 24 months. Postoperative lumbar lordosis was significantly higher in the non-ASD cohort (median 46.4° ± 1.4° vs 36.9° ± 3.6°, P < .001), pelvic tilt was significantly lower in the non-ASD cohort (16.0° ± 0.66° vs 20.3° ± 2.4°, P = .002), PI-LL mismatch was significantly lower in the non-ASD cohort (5.28° ± 1.0° vs 17.1° ± 2.0°, P < .001), and age-appropriate PI-LL mismatch was less common in the non-ASD cohort (34 patients [14.8%] vs 13 [92.9%] of patients with high mismatch, P < .001). Using multivariate analysis, greater PI-LL mismatch was predictive of ASD (95% odds ratio CI = 1.393-2.458, P < .001) and age-appropriate PI-LL mismatch was predictive of ASD (95% odds ratio CI = 10.8-970.4, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Higher PI-LL mismatch, both age-independent and when adjusted for age, after lumbar interbody fusion was predictive for developing ASD. In lumbar degenerative disease, correction of spinopelvic parameters should be a main goal of surgical correction.

Neuromuscular Scoliosis: A Dual-Surgeon Approach.

OBJECTIVE: Neuromuscular Scoliosis (NMS) causes severe deformity and operative correction for these patients carries high complication rates. We present a retrospective study comparing a series of consecutive patients who underwent posterior fusion via a single-surgeon (SS) approach with a consecutive series of patients treated via a dual-surgeon (DS) approach. METHODS: Patients with NMS who underwent posterior fusion via a SS approach from 2019 to 2022 were analyzed and compared to a series of patients with NMS who underwent posterior fusion via a DS approach. RESULTS: In the SS group, the average estimated blood loss (EBL) was 675 mL, average length of stay (LOS) was 6.3 days, average operative time (OT) was 6.5 hours, average packed red blood cell transfusion was 1.5 units, with a complication rate of 30%. The DS group had an average EBL of 400 mL, a LOS of 4.8 days, an OT of 4.75 hours, an average packed red blood cell transfusion of 0.8 units, with a complication rate of 20%. The DS approach was significant for a lower EBL, OT (P < 0.001), and LOS (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that for patients with NMS the DS approach decreases OT, EBL, complication rates, and LOS. This further supports that this approach may benefit outcomes in NMS patients.

Decision trees for COVID-19 prognosis learned from patient data: Desaturating the ER with Artificial Intelligence

ObjectivesTo present a model that enhances the accuracy of clinicians when presented with a possibly critical Covid-19 patient. MethodsA retrospective study was performed with information of 5,745 SARS-CoV2 infected patients admitted to the Emergency room of 4 public Hospitals in Madrid belonging to Quiron Salud Health Group (QS) from March 2020 to February 2021. Demographics, clinical variables on admission, laboratory markers and therapeutic interventions were extracted from Electronic Clinical Records. Traits related to mortality were found through difference in means testing and through feature selection by learning multiple classification trees with random initialization and selecting the ones that were used the most. We validated the model through cross-validation and tested generalization with an external dataset from 4 hospitals belonging to Sanitas Hospitals Health Group. The usefulness of two different models in real cases was tested by measuring the effect of exposure to the model decision on the accuracy of medical professionals. ResultsOf the 5,745 admitted patients, 1,173 died. Of the 110 variables in the dataset, 34 were found to be related with our definition of criticality (death in <72 hours) or all-cause mortality. The models had an accuracy of 85% and a sensitivity of 50% averaged through 5-fold cross validation. Similar results were found when validating with data from the 4 hospitals from Sanitas. The models were found to have 11% better accuracy than doctors at classifying critical cases and improved accuracy of doctors by 12% for non-critical patients, reducing the cost of mistakes made by 17%.

Observational Study of the Efficiency of Treatments in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 in Madrid

BackgroundMany different treatments were heavily administered to patients with COVID-19 during the peak of the pandemic in Madrid without robust evidence supporting them. MethodsWe examined the association between sixteen treatments in four groups (steroids, antivirals, antibiotics and immunomodulators) and intubation or death. Data were obtained from patients that were admitted to an HM hospital with suspicion of COVID-19 until 24/04/2020, excluding unconfirmed diagnosis, those who were admitted before the epidemic started in Madrid, had an outcome that was not discharge or death or died within 24 hours of presentation. We compared outcomes between treated and untreated patients using propensity-score caliper matching. ResultsOf 2,307 patients in the dataset, 679 were excluded. Of the remaining 1,645 patients, 263 (16%) died and 311 (18.9%) died or were intubated. Except for hydroxychloroquine and prednisone, patients that were treated with any of the medications were more likely to go through an outcome of death or intubation at baseline. After propensity matching we found an association between treatment with hydroxychloroquine and prednisone and better outcomes (hazard ratios with 95% CI of 0.83 {+/-} 0.06 and 0.85 {+/-} 0.03). Results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses. ConclusionsIn this multicenter study of patients admitted with COVID-19 hydroxychloroquine and prednisone administration was found to be associated with improved outcomes. Other treatments were associated with no effect or worse outcomes. Randomized, controlled trials of these medications in patients with COVID-19 are needed to avoid heavy administration of treatments with no strong evidence to support them.

Inhaled Methoxyflurane Provides Greater Analgesia and Faster Onset of Action Versus Standard Analgesia in Patients With Trauma Pain: InMEDIATE: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objective of the InMEDIATE study was to evaluate the change in intensity of traumatic pain over the first 20 min in adult patients treated with methoxyflurane versus standard analgesic treatment in Spain. This the first randomized, active-controlled, multicenter trial of methoxyflurane in the emergency setting in Europe. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled study that enrolled adult patients with acute moderate to severe (score ≥4 on the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale) trauma-associated pain in 14 Spanish emergency departments. Patients were randomized 1:1 to methoxyflurane (up to 2×3 mL) or standard analgesic treatment. Coprimary endpoints were the change from baseline in Numeric Rating Scale pain intensity score during the first 20 minutes of treatment and time to first pain relief. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were randomized (methoxyflurane 156; standard analgesic treatment 149). Most patients in the standard analgesic treatment group (70%) received intravenous first-step analgesics and 9.4% of patients were treated with opioids. Mean decrease from baseline in Numeric Rating Scale pain intensity score was greater for methoxyflurane than standard analgesic treatment at all points, with a significant treatment difference overall up to 20 minutes (repeated-measures model 2.47 versus 1.39; treatment difference 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.32). Median time to first pain relief was significantly shorter for methoxyflurane than standard analgesic treatment (3 versus 10 minutes). Methoxyflurane achieved better patient and clinician ratings for pain control and comfort of treatment than standard analgesic treatment and exceeded patient and clinician expectations of treatment in, respectively, 77% and 72% of cases compared with 38% and 19% for standard analgesic treatment. CONCLUSION: These results support consideration of methoxyflurane as a nonnarcotic, easy-to-administer, rapid-acting, first-line alternative to currently available analgesic treatments for trauma pain.