Care seek behavior for low back pain in southern Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic: a panel data analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, people with low back pain (LBP) might have avoided seeking care for their pain. We aimed to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected LBP care seeking behavior among adults. METHODS: Data from four assessments of the PAMPA cohort were analyzed. Participants who reported experiencing LBP during wave one both before and during social restrictions (n = 1,753 and n = 1,712, respectively), wave two (n = 2,009), and wave three (n = 2,482) were included. We asked participants about sociodemographic, behavioral, and health factors and outcomes related to LBP. Poisson regression analyses were conducted, and data are presented as prevalence ratios (PR) and respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI). RESULTS: Overall, care seeking behavior decreased by half in the first months of restrictions, from 51.5% to 25.2%. Although there was an increase in care seeking behavior observed in the other two assessments (nearly 10 and 16 months after restrictions), it was insufficient to reach pre-pandemic levels. In the first months of restrictions, a similar scenario was observed for specific care, such as general practitioner and exercise professional care, with proportions of pre-pandemic levels reached after 10 and 16 months. Women were more likely to seek care for LBP 10 and 16 months after restrictions (PR 1.30 95%CI 1.11; 1.52, PR 1.22 95%CI 1.06; 1.39, respectively). Also, those participants who worked, were physically active, and reported pain-related disability and high pain levels were more likely to seek care at all time points assessed. CONCLUSION: Overall, care-seeking behavior for LBP significantly decreased in the first months of restrictions and increased in the following months; however, this behavior remained lower than pre-pandemic levels.

Symptomatic Discoid Meniscus in Children and Adolescents: A Review of 470 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Discoid meniscus is a congenital variant, typically involving the lateral meniscus, that comprises a spectrum of meniscal shapes and degrees of instability in an estimated 1% to 15% of the population. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical and operative course of a large cohort of children and adolescents patients with symptomatic lateral discoid meniscus. METHODS: Medical records of 470 knees with symptomatic lateral discoid meniscus in 401 patients ages 18 years or younger diagnosed at a single institution between 1991 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively for patient characteristics, treatment course (nonoperative and/or operative), and complications. Surgical reports were reviewed in the operative group. RESULTS: The series included 401 patients of mean age 11.6 years (range: 1 mo-18.9 y), of which 222 (55%) were female, and 69 (17%) had bilateral involvement. Of 470 knees, 83 (18%) were initially managed nonoperatively. Of these, 32 knees (39%) failed nonoperative management and were converted to surgical treatment at a median of 7.9 months (interquartile range: 4.0-15.1). In total, 419 knees were managed surgically with saucerization (partial meniscectomy) with or without meniscal repair/stabilization; 84 knees (20%) required at least one concurrent nonmeniscal procedure. Discoid meniscus tears were reported in 264/419 knees (63%) intraoperatively; horizontal cleavage tears were most common. Reoperation was required for 66/379 cases (17%) with clinical follow-up, at a median of 19.6 months (range: 9.2-34.9) after index saucerization; 60/379 cases (16%) had ongoing pain and/or mechanical symptoms at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: With a failure rate of 39% (32/83 knees), nonoperative management for discoid lateral meniscus frequently convert to surgical treatment. During surgery, meniscus tearing and instability are common and should be anticipated. Postoperatively, 33% (126/379) of knees with clinical follow-up underwent either reoperation, or had ongoing symptoms of the knee at final follow-up. Discoid mensical retear is the most common complication (94%, 62/66) prompting repeat surgery, and should be discussed with families before the index operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-descriptive case series.

Adjusting insulin doses in patients with type 1 diabetes who use insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring: Variations among countries and physicians.

AIMS: To evaluate physicians' adjustments of insulin pump settings based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for patients with type 1 diabetes and to compare these to automated insulin dose adjustments. METHODS: A total of 26 physicians from 16 centres in Europe, Israel and South America participated in the study. All were asked to adjust insulin dosing based on insulin pump, CGM and glucometer downloads of 15 patients (mean age 16.2 ± 4.3 years, six female, mean glycated haemoglobin 8.3 ± 0.9% [66.8 ± 7.3 mmol/mol]) gathered over a 3-week period. Recommendations were compared for the relative changes in the basal, carbohydrate to insulin ratio (CR) and correction factor (CF) plans among physicians and among centres and also between the physicians and an automated algorithm, the Advisor Pro (DreaMed Diabetes Ltd, Petah Tikva, Israel). Study endpoints were the percentage of comparison points for which there was full agreement on the trend of insulin dose adjustments (same trend), partial agreement (increase/decrease vs no change) and full disagreement (opposite trend). RESULTS: The percentages for full agreement between physicians on the trend of insulin adjustments of the basal, CR and CF plans were 41 ± 9%, 45 ± 11% and 45.5 ± 13%, and for complete disagreement they were 12 ± 7%, 9.5 ± 7% and 10 ± 8%, respectively. Significantly similar results were found between the physicians and the automated algorithm. The algorithm magnitude of insulin dose change was at least equal to or less than that proposed by the physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians provide different insulin dose recommendations based on the same datasets. The automated advice of the Advisor Pro did not differ significantly from the advice given by the physicians in the direction or magnitude of the insulin dosing.