Colchicine effects on the gut microbiome in adults with metabolic syndrome.

Obesity-induced inflammation plays a substantial role in the development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. The altered gut flora in obesity can also contribute to metabolic dysregulation and systemic inflammation. However, it remains unclear how dysregulation of systemic inflammation in obesity affects the gut microbiome. We hypothesized that colchicine's systemic anti-inflammatory effects in obesity would be associated with improvements in gut microbial diversity. We conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, in which 40 adults with obesity, high C-reactive protein (CRP) (≥2.0 mg/L), insulin resistance (homeostatic model of insulin resistance: HOMA-IR ≥2.6 mg/L), and metabolic syndrome (MetS) were randomized to three months of colchicine 0.6 mg or placebo tablets twice daily. Serum and stool samples were collected at baseline and final visit. Gut microbiota composition was characterized from stool DNA by dual-index amplification and sequencing of 16S ribosomal RNA. Pre- and post-intervention stool samples were available for 15 colchicine- and 12 placebo-treated subjects. Circulating high sensitivity CRP (hsCRP), interleukin-6, resistin, white blood count, and neutrophils were significantly decreased in the colchicine arm as compared to placebo. However, changes in stool microbiome alpha diversity, as assessed by the Chao1, Shannon, and Pielou indices, were not significant between groups. Amplicon sequence variant counts were unchanged among all examined phyla or families. Oscillibacter was the only genus to demonstrate even a nominally significant change. Among adults with obesity and MetS, colchicine significantly improved systemic inflammation. However, this anti-inflammatory effect was not associated with significant changes in the gut microbiome. Further studies are warranted to investigate this relationship.

FLOSEAL Versus SURGIFLO in Lumbar Surgery: Similar Outcomes, Different Costs in a Matched Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Flowable gelatin-based matrices with thrombin for hemostatic control are commercially available as Floseal (Baxter International Inc.) and Surgiflo (Ethicon Inc.). The objective of this study is to compare the rate of blood transfusions following the use of Floseal and Surgiflo in lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Elective lumbar spine surgery patients between September 2019 and March 2021 were identified via CPT codes. Floseal 10 mL (N=102) and Surgiflo matrix 8 mL (N=108) cohorts excluded those younger than 18 years or those who underwent surgeries for infection, trauma, or tumor. The primary outcome was blood transfusion. Surgical complexity was controlled using the Surgical Invasiveness Index and Adult Spinal Deformity Invasiveness Score. The 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using demographic information, Surgical Invasiveness Index, Adult Spinal Deformity Invasiveness Score, and tranexamic acid use. RESULTS: A total of 77 Floseal patients were propensity score matched with 77 Surgiflo patients. There was no difference in the rate of blood transfusion (p=0.441). There was also no difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, or postoperative hemoglobin levels. The Surgiflo cohort used more units per surgery (p=0.004) and cost $102.45 more per surgery. Switching to Floseal saves $102,450 per year per 1000 surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in transfusion rates between using Floseal or Surgiflo for lumbar spine surgery. Surgiflo had higher usage per surgery and costs than Floseal.

Similar Accuracy of Surgical Plans After Initial In-Person and Telemedicine Evaluation of Spine Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare accuracy of surgical plans generated from in-person and telemedicine evaluations and assess the reasons for surgical plan changes between initial evaluation and surgery. The secondary objective was to assess the effect of changes in surgical planning on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients who were evaluated as new patients by orthopaedic spine faculty between 2019 and 2021 were divided by appointment type: telemedicine (n = 39) and in-person (n = 92). Patients were included if the surgeon documented a definitive surgical plan at the initial visit. The primary outcome was change in surgical plan from initial assessment to actual procedure performed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the accuracy of initial surgical plans between the telemedicine and in-person cohorts (79.5% vs. 82.6%, P = 0.673). The most common modification in the surgical plan (79%) was change in the number of operated levels, of which 18 of 19 patients had 1 added operated level. Less common reasons were change in approach (13%) and change in procedure (8%). Patients with changes to their surgical plan experienced longer length of stay (3.1 vs. 2.0 days, P = 0.027) than patients with consistent surgical plans. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine and in-person evaluations generated similarly accurate surgical plans. Changes to the initial surgical plans most often involved adding operative levels. Our findings show that telemedicine visits are an acceptable option for preoperative assessment to generate surgical plans; however, further research is needed.