Association between Bioimpedance Spectroscopy and Magnetic Resonance Lymphangiography in the Diagnosis and Assessment of Lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: This study assesses associations between bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) and magnetic resonance lymphangiography (MRL) in the staging and assessment of lymphedema. METHODS: Adults who received MRL and BIS between 2020 and 2022 were included. We collected fluid, fat, and lymphedema severity ratings, and measured fluid stripe thickness, subcutaneous fat width, and lymphatic diameter on MRL. BIS lymphedema index (L-Dex) scores were collected from patient charts. We assessed sensitivity and specificity of L-Dex scores to detect MRL-identified lymphedema, and examined associations between L-Dex scores and MRL imaging measures. RESULTS: Forty-eight limbs across 40 patients were included. L-Dex scores had 72.5% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity for detecting MRL-defined lymphedema, with a 96.7% estimated positive predictive value and 38.9% negative predictive value. L-Dex scores were associated with MRL fluid and fat content scores (p ≤ 0.05), and lymphedema severity (p = 0.01), with better discrimination between fluid than fat content levels on pairwise analysis, and poor discrimination between adjacent severity levels. L-Dex scores were correlated with distal and proximal limb fluid stripe thickness (distal: rho = 0.57, p < 0.01; proximal: rho = 0.58, p < 0.01), partially correlated with distal subcutaneous fat thickness when accounting for body mass index (rho = 0.34, p = 0.02), and were not correlated with lymphatic diameter (p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: L-Dex scores have high sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for the identification of MRL-detected lymphedema. L-Dex has difficulty distinguishing between adjacent severity levels of lymphedema and a high false negative rate, explained in part by reduced discrimination between levels of fat accumulation.

Impact of neighborhood deprivation and social vulnerability on long-term outcomes and desire for revision in patients with craniosynostosis.

OBJECTIVE: The authors utilized the area deprivation index (ADI), a validated composite measure of socioeconomic disadvantage, and the social vulnerability index (SVI) to examine whether differences in neighborhood deprivation impact interventions and outcomes among patients with craniosynostosis. METHODS: Patients who underwent craniosynostosis repair between 2012 and 2017 were included. The authors collected data about demographic characteristics, comorbidities, follow-up visits, interventions, complications, desire for revision, and speech, developmental, and behavioral outcomes. National percentiles for ADI and SVI were determined using zip and Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) codes. ADI and SVI were analyzed by tertile. Firth logistic regressions and Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between ADI/SVI tertile and outcomes/interventions that differed on univariate analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed to examine these associations in patients with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. Differences in length of follow-up among the nonsyndromic patients in the different deprivation groups were assessed with multivariate Cox regressions. RESULTS: In total, 195 patients were included, with 37% of patients in the most disadvantaged ADI tertile and 20% of patients in the most vulnerable SVI tertile. Patients in more disadvantaged ADI tertiles were less likely to have physician-reported desire (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.61, p < 0.01) or parent-reported desire (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.52, p < 0.01) for revision, independent of sex and insurance status. In the nonsyndromic subgroup, inclusion in a more disadvantaged ADI tertile was associated with increased odds of speech/language concerns (OR 4.42, 95% CI 1.41-22.62, p < 0.01). There were no differences in interventions received or outcomes among SVI tertiles (p ≥ 0.24). Neither ADI nor SVI tertile was associated with risk of loss to follow-up among nonsyndromic patients (p ≥ 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Patients from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods may be at risk for poor speech outcomes and different standards of assessment for revision. Neighborhood measures of disadvantage represent a valuable tool to improve patient-centered care by allowing for modification of treatment protocols to meet the unique needs of patients and their families.

Changes in Patient-Reported Pain Interference After Surgical Treatment of Painful Lower Extremity Neuromas.

Purpose: Painful neuromas commonly cause neuropathic pain, in up to 1 in 20 cases of traumatic or iatrogenic nerve injury. Despite the multiple surgical treatment types that reduce pain, no type has been universally accepted. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study by administering follow-up surveys to all surgical patients treated in our department for lower-extremity neuroma from September 1, 2015, to October 22, 2021, that could be contacted, excluding those with Morton neuroma. In addition to the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI) questionnaire, survey questions covered the time to pain reduction, use of physical or occupational therapy, and characteristics of the pain. When available, previously collected preoperative and postoperative PROMIS PI data were used for patients who could not be contacted for the telephone survey. Paired-sample nonparametric testing was used to compare preoperative and postoperative PROMIS PI scores. Results: Initial query in the medical record by Current Procedural Terminology codes yielded 1,812 patients for chart review, of whom 33 were eligible to call. In total, 9 (27%) patients completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMIS PIs: 6 (18.2%) completed full telephone surveys and 3 (9.1%) had preoperative and postoperative PROMIS PI data in the chart review but could not be contacted for the full telephone survey. Four of the 6 telephone-survey respondents reported pain reduction within 12 months of their surgery. Wilcoxon signed-rank testing demonstrated a moderate but nonstatistically significant reduction in PROMIS PI scores, with a median difference of -4.85 (P = .1; 95% CI -12 to 1.2). Conclusions: There were notable improvements in our cohort, but larger studies are needed to determine whether surgical treatment of lower-extremity neuroma results in a clinically important and significant difference in PROMIS PI scores, as well as to discern the advantages each treatment. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.