Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Early Complications After Synthetic Cartilage Device Implantation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous Level I studies show promising results for the use of a hydrogel synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) for the treatment of hallux rigidus. A recent independent retrospective review has put those results into question, however. The purpose of this article is to report patient-reported outcomes and early complications using this implant so as to add to the paucity of data in the literature regarding this implant.

Methods

This was a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing hydrogel synthetic cartilage implant for the treatment of hallux rigidus from July 2017 to November 2018. Data collected included patient demographics, radiographic grading, and outcomes: Veterans Rand 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), visual analog scale (VAS), patient satisfaction, and complications. Fifty-four patients (59 feet) with an average age of 57.6 (range, 39-78) years were analyzed. The average latest follow-up was 18.9 (range, 3-31.3) months. Body mass index was 26.7 (range, 18.7-35.2). None were diabetic and 5 were smokers.

Results

The mean outcome improvements were 6.5 points (VR-12 Physical), 17.2 points (FAAM ADL), 27.4 points (FAAM Sport), and 18.4 points (VAS) (P < .01 for each). Scores were significantly improved from preoperatively to most recent follow-up for FAAM ADL (71.0 vs 88.2 points), FAAM Sports (44.6 vs 72.0 points), and VAS (49.4 vs 31.0) (P < .01). Overall, 72.5% patients would definitely or probably have the operation again. Ten patients (18.5%) went on to have revision surgery. Of these, 7 patients were revised to an arthrodesis, and 1 metal hemiarthroplasty and 2 implants were removed because of infection.

Conclusion

Synthetic cartilage implantation for the treatment of hallux rigidus demonstrated improved pain and outcome scores at short-term follow-up. Reoperation and conversion to fusion rates were comparable to prior studies.

Level of evidence

Level IV, case series.

SUBMITTER: Engasser WM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8697263 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patients considering postmastectomy radiation and reconstruction require information regarding expected outcomes to make preference-concordant decisions. A prospective multicenter cohort study of women diagnosed with breast cancer at 11 centers between 2012 and 2015 compared complications and patient-reported outcomes of 622 irradiated and 1625 unirradiated patients who received reconstruction. Patient characteristics and outcomes between irradiated and unirradiated patients were analyzed using ttests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Multivariable mixed-effects regression modelsassessed the impact of reconstruction type and radiotherapy on outcomes after adjusting for relevant covariates. All statistical tests were two-sided. Autologous reconstruction was more commonly received by irradiated patients (37.9% vs 25.0%, P < .001). Immediate reconstruction was less common in irradiated patients (83.0% vs 95.7%, P < .001). At least one breast complication had occurred by two years in 38.9% of irradiated patients with implant reconstruction, 25.6% of irradiated patients with autologous reconstruction, 21.8% of unirradiated patients with implant reconstruction, and 28.3% of unirradiated patients with autologous reconstruction. Multivariable analysis showed bilateral treatment and higher body mass index to be predictive of developing a complication, with a statistically significant interaction between radiotherapy receipt and reconstruction type. Among irradiated patients, autologous reconstruction was associated with a lower risk of complications than implant-based reconstruction at two years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.27 to 0.82, P = .007); no between-procedure difference was found in unirradiated patients. The interaction was also statistically significant for satisfaction with breasts at two years (P = .002), with larger adjusted difference in satisfaction between autologous vs implant approaches (63.5, 95% CI = 55.9 to 71.1, vs 47.7, 95% CI = 40.2 to 55.2, respectively) in irradiated patients than between autologous vs implant approaches (67.6, 95% CI = 60.3 to 74.9, vs 60.5, 95% CI = 53.6 to 67.4) in unirradiated patients. Autologous reconstruction appears to yield superior patient-reported satisfaction and lower risk of complications than implant-based approaches among patients receiving postmastectomy radiotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundAwareness of treatment group assignment in a clinical trial may influence patient behavior and bias outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in blinded vs unblinded patients who were treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) for prevention of lumbar disc reherniation.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing lumbar discectomy with (n=272) vs without (n=278) implantation of a bone-anchored ACD. Among patients who received ACD implantation, 35 (13%) were blinded and 237 (87%) were unblinded to treatment allocation. In patients treated with ACD, propensity score-matching (1:1) was performed to account for imbalances in patient characteristics between blinded and unblinded groups. Key clinical outcomes were back pain severity (0-100 scale), leg pain severity (0-100 scale), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0-100 scale), symptomatic reherniation, reoperation at the treated lumbar level, and device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (AEs). Outcomes were reported through 2 years of follow-up, which coincided with the time at which blinded patients were unblinded.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences in 2-year outcomes between propensity score-matched blinded (n=35) and unblinded (n=35) patients treated with the ACD. In blinded vs unblinded ACD patients compared to baseline, back pain severity decreased by 40 vs 37 points (P=0.61), leg pain severity decreased by 75 points in each group (P>0.99), and ODI decreased by 47 vs 43 points (P=0.19). The risks of symptomatic reherniation (5.7% vs 9.1%; P=0.59), reoperation (8.6% vs 12.2%, P=0.62), and device- or procedure-related serious AEs (5.7% vs 8.9%, P=0.63) were comparably low in blinded and unblinded patients.ConclusionIn patients treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored ACD, there were no clinically important or statistically significant differences in back pain, leg pain, ODI, symptomatic reherniation, reoperation, or serious AEs over 2 years of follow-up when comparing patients who were blinded vs unblinded to their treatment assignment. The main limitations of this study were the post hoc nature of the analysis and the potential for bias due to surgeon awareness of treatment assignment.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is frequently required following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or oral anticoagulation therapy (OAK) is often necessary in these patients since they are at higher risk of thromboembolic events due to TAVR implantation, high incidence of coronary artery diseases (CAD) with the necessity of coronary intervention, and high rate of atrial fibrillation with the need of stroke prevention. We sought to evaluate the safety, efficiency, and clinical outcomes of early PPI following TAVR using the PlasmaBlade™ (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) pulsed electron avalanche knife (PEAK) for bleeding control in patients under DAPT or OAK. Materials and Methods: This retrospective single-center study included patients who underwent PPI after transfemoral TAVR (TF) at our center between December 2015 and May 2020. All PPI were performed using the PlasmaBlade™ Device. Results: The overall PPI rate was 14.1% (83 of 587 patients; 82.5 ± 4.6 years; 45.8% male). The PPI procedures were used to treat high-grade atrioventricular block (81.9%), severe sinus node dysfunction (13.3%), and alternating bundle branch block (4.8%). At the time of the procedure, 35 (42.2%) patients received DAPT, and 48 (57.8%) patients received OAK (50% with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and 50% with novel oral anticoagulants (NOAK)). One device-pocket hematoma treated conservatively occurred in a patient (1.2%) receiving NOAK. Two re-operations were necessary in patients due to immediate lead dislocation (2.4%). Conclusions: The results of this study illustrate that the use of PlasmaBlade™ for PPI in patients after a TAVR who require antithrombotic treatment is feasible and might result into lower rates of severe bleeding complications compared to rates reported in the literature. Use of the PlasmaBlade device may be considered in this specific group of patients because of their high risk of bleeding.