Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Outcomes Were Not Negatively Affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic / Os desfechos da artroplastia anatômica total do ombro não foram afetados negativamente pela pandemia de Covid-19

Abstract Objective To investigate whether patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) between January and March 2020 experienced different postoperative outcomes than patients in 2019. We hypothesized that patients in 2020 would have less access to physical therapy (PT) and experience different postoperative outcomes. Methods Records from patients who received ATSA between January 1st, 2019, and March 17th, 2019, and January 1st, 2020, to March 17th, 2020, were analyzed. Patient data, including demographic information, range of motion (ROM), strength, and PT was collected and compared between the two groups. The 2020 patients were contacted by phone during October 2022 and patient-reported metrics were gathered. Results The present study identified 24 patients in 2019 and 27 patients in 2020 who underwent ATSA during the specified time frame and had a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients in 2019 experienced improvements in forward elevation (FE) ROM (125.4° to 146.7°; p = 0.008), external rotation (ER; 33.0° to 47.7°; p < 0.001), and internal rotation (IR; S1 to L4; p = 0.019). Patients in 2020 also experienced significant improvements in FE (120.2° to 141.1°; p = 0.009), ER (32.9° to 42.0°; p = 0.037), and IR (S1 to L3; p = 0.002). Patients in 2020 terminated PT earlier (2019: 125.8 days; 2020: 91.1 days; p = 0.046) and completed fewer sessions (2019: 21.4 sessions; 2020: 13.1 sessions; p = 0.003). At the final follow-up, patients in 2020 reported an average Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score of 1.67 ± 1.1. Conclusion Despite decreased PT, patients who underwent ATSA in 2020 had significant improvements in ROM and strength and were comparable to patients in 2019.

Resumo Objetivo Investigar se os pacientes submetidos à artroplastia total anatômica do ombro (ATAO) entre janeiro e março de 2020 tiveram resultados pós-operatórios diferentes dos pacientes operados em 2019. Nossa hipótese é a de que os pacientes de 2020 teriam menos acesso à fisioterapia (FT) e apresentariam desfechos pós-opera-tórios diferentes. Métodos Foram analisados os prontuários de pacientes submetidos à ATAO de 1° de janeiro de 2019 a 17 de março de 2019 e de 1° de janeiro de 2020 a 17 de março de 2020. Os dados dos pacientes, incluindo informações demográficas, amplitude de movimento (ADM), força e FT foram coletados e comparados entre os dois grupos. Os pacientes de 2020 foram contatados por telefone durante outubro de 2022, e as métricas relatadas por eles pacientes foram coletadas. Resultados Este estudo identificou 24 pacientes em 2019 e 27 pacientes em 2020 que foram submetidos à ATAO durante o período especificado e tiveram acompanhamento mínimo de 1 ano. Os pacientes em 2019 apresentaram melhoras na ADM de elevação anterior (EA; 125,4° a 146,7°; p = 0,008), rotação externa (RE; 33,0° a 47,7°; p < 0,001) e rotação interna (RI; S1 a L4; p = 0,019). Os pacientes em 2020 também apresentaram melhoras significativas de EA (120,2° a 141,1°; p = 0,009), RE (32,9° a 42,0°; p = 0,037) e RI (S1 a L3; p = 0,002). Os pacientes de 2020 terminaram a FT mais cedo (2019: 125,8 dias; 2020: 91,1 dias; p = 0,046) e fizeram menos sessões (2019: 21,4 sessões; 2020: 13,1 sessões; p = 0,003). No acompanhamento final, os pacientes de 2020 relataram uma pontuação média de dor na Escala Visual Analógica (EVA) de 1,67 ± 1,1. Conclusão Apesar da menor realização de FT, os pacientes submetidos à ATAO em 2020 apresentaram melhoras significativas na ADM e na força e foram comparáveis aos pacientes de 2019.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs palliative care: A systematic review. / [Artículo traducido] Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by two independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of the 5,791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1,050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4,741), and full reading (n = 41), only one study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to two groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only one of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review

Objectives Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review

Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.