ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Information on weight loss is used in screening and assessment tools. It is essential that the data are correct. Anamnestic data of weight changes were compared with records for hospitalized patients and outpatients. SUBJECTS/METHODS: For hospitalized patients, anamnestic and recorded weight data were obtained. For outpatients, data of weight changes since last visit were obtained. RESULTS: Of 34 hospitalized patients, 21 stated change of weight (15 lost, 6 gained). Weight loss in 9 and weight gain in 12 patients were recorded. Ten patients stated no change of weight. Weight loss in 4 and weight gain in 3 patients were recorded. Of 15 patients who stated weight loss, it was correct for 9 patients. Six of 21 patients stated weight changes opposite the records. Of 43 patients, 14 stated weight changes before admission; only 9 could indicate the time span. Ten patients stated 'Do not know' to the question of weight changes. For 156 outpatients, 86 stated change of weight (39 lost, 47 gained). Weight loss in 42 and weight gain in 47 patients were recorded. Fifty-eight patients stated no change of weight. Weight loss in 26 and weight gain in 29 patients were recorded. Of 38 patients who stated weight loss, it was correct for 31. Seventeen of 85 patients stated weight changes opposite the records. CONCLUSIONS: Recollection of weight changes is poor for a large percentage of patients. In patients who stated weight loss it was only correct for 75%, and for patients who stated unchanged weight 25% have lost more than 1 kg. Thus, incorrect weight loss data can cause over- and underestimation of nutritional risk.
Subject(s)
Memory, Long-Term , Memory, Short-Term , Nutrition Assessment , Weight Gain , Weight Loss , Denmark , Hospitals, County , Humans , Length of Stay , Mass Screening , Medical Records , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital , Self ReportABSTRACT
We studied retrospectively the results of revision arthroplasty of the elbow using a linked Coonrad-Morrey implant in 23 patients (24 elbows) after a mean follow-up period of 55 months. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 19 elbows were satisfactory, nine were excellent and ten good. The median total score had improved from 35 points (20 to 75) before the primary arthroplasty to 85 points (40 to 100) at the latest follow-up. There was a marked relief of pain, but the range of movement showed no overall improvement. Two patients had a second revision because of infection and two for aseptic loosening. The estimated five-year survival rate of the prosthesis was 83.1% (95% confidence interval 61.1 to 93.3). Revision elbow arthroplasty using the Coonrad-Morrey implant provided satisfactory results but with complications occurring in 13 cases.
