RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The use of new total joint arthroplasty technologies, including patient-specific implants/instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted (CA), and robotic-assisted (RA) techniques, is increasing. There is an ongoing debate regarding the value provided and potential concerns about conflicts of interest (COI). METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for total hip and knee arthroplasties, unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA), PSI, CA, and RA. Bibliometric data, financial COI, clinical/functional scores, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-seven studies were evaluated, with 35 (40.2%) including at least one author reporting COI, and 13 (14.9%) disclosing industry funding. COI and industry funding had no significant effects on outcomes (P = 0.682, P = 0.447), and there were no significant effects of conflicts or funding on level of evidence (P = 0.508, P = 0.826). Studies in which author(s) disclosed COI had significantly higher relative citation ratio (RCR) and impact factor (IF) than those without (P < 0.001, P = 0.032). Subanalysis demonstrated RA and PSI studies were more likely to report COI or industry funding (P = 0.045). RA (OR = 6.31, 95% CI: 1.61-24.68) and UKA (OR = 9.14, 95% CI: 1.43-58.53) had higher odds of reporting favorable outcomes than PSI. CONCLUSIONS: Author COIs (about 40%) may be lower than previously reported in orthopedic technologies/techniques reviews. Studies utilizing RA and PSI were more likely to report COI, while RA and UKA studies were more likely to report favorable outcomes than PSI. No statistically significant association between the presence of COIs and/or industry funding and the frequency of favorable outcomes or study level of evidence was found. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V Systematic Review.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Effective pain management results in improved patient satisfaction, reduced anxiety, and improved comfort. However, concern exists regarding the effects of pain medications on cognition and patient ability to consent for procedures, hospital admission, or to refuse recommended medical interventions. METHODS: This prospective, case-control study was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma Center. Eligible subjects included ED patients ages 18 and older with a triage pain score of 1 or higher, who received non-narcotic analgesic agents. Cognition was measured before and after non-narcotic pain medication using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). A control group consisted of 35 healthy volunteers who completed the DSST at baseline and one hour. RESULTS: Among 46 subjects, the mean age was 33. The mean triage pain score was 7. Before medication, the average DSST score was 39.5. After medication, the average DSST score was 42.9. There was a significant within-subject average change in DSST score (pre-post) of 3.4 (95% confidence interval: 1.6, 5.2), p < 0.001. Among the control group, the mean baseline DSST score was 64.2 (SD 10.7). One hour later the mean DSST score had increased to 71.1 (SD 10.4). Overall, the mean within-subject change over time in DSST was 6.9 (SD 8.0) with 95% CI 4.2 to 9.7. There was not enough evidence to detect relationships between change in DSST scores and age, triage pain, triage HR, triage RR, change in pain scores, gender, ethnicity, mode of arrival nor insurance (all with p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found significant variation in DSST scores among ED patients with pain. Treatment of pain with nonsedating analgesic agents was not associated with improved scores on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test among ED patients with acute painful conditions, compared to control subjects.
