Subaxial cervical spine trauma: evaluation and surgical decision-making.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Joaquim AF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3908983 | biostudies-other | 2014 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundUterine rupture is an obstetric calamity with surgery as its management mainstay. Uterine repair without tubal ligation leaves a uterus that is more prone to repeat rupture while uterine repair with bilateral tubal ligation (BTL) or (sub)total hysterectomy predispose survivors to psychosocial problems like marital disharmony. This study aims to evaluate obstetricians' perspectives on surgical decision making in managing uterine rupture.MethodsA questionnaire-based cross-sectional study of obstetricians at the 46th annual scientific conference of Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of Nigeria in 2012. Data was analysed by descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsSeventy-nine out of 110 obstetricians (71.8%) responded to the survey, of which 42 (53.2%) were consultants, 60 (75.9%) practised in government hospitals and 67 (84.8%) in urban hospitals, and all respondents managed women with uterine rupture. Previous cesarean scars and injudicious use of oxytocic are the commonest predisposing causes, and uterine rupture carries very high incidences of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Uterine repair only was commonly performed by 38 (48.1%) and uterine repair with BTL or (sub) total hysterectomy by 41 (51.9%) respondents. Surgical management is guided mainly by patients' conditions and obstetricians' surgical skills.ConclusionObstetricians' distribution in Nigeria leaves rural settings starved of specialist for obstetric emergencies. Caesarean scars are now a rising cause of ruptures. The surgical management of uterine rupture and obstetricians' surgical preferences vary and are case scenario-dependent. Equitable redistribution of obstetricians and deployment of medical doctors to secondary hospitals in rural settings will make obstetric care more readily available and may reduce the prevalence and improve the outcome of uterine rupture. Obstetrician's surgical decision-making should be guided by the prevailing case scenario and the ultimate aim should be to avert fatality and reduce morbidity.
| S-EPMC5465586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSurgeons make complex, high-stakes decisions under time constraints and uncertainty, with significant effect on patient outcomes. This review describes the weaknesses of traditional clinical decision-support systems and proposes that artificial intelligence should be used to augment surgical decision-making.ObservationsSurgical decision-making is dominated by hypothetical-deductive reasoning, individual judgment, and heuristics. These factors can lead to bias, error, and preventable harm. Traditional predictive analytics and clinical decision-support systems are intended to augment surgical decision-making, but their clinical utility is compromised by time-consuming manual data management and suboptimal accuracy. These challenges can be overcome by automated artificial intelligence models fed by livestreaming electronic health record data with mobile device outputs. This approach would require data standardization, advances in model interpretability, careful implementation and monitoring, attention to ethical challenges involving algorithm bias and accountability for errors, and preservation of bedside assessment and human intuition in the decision-making process.Conclusions and relevanceIntegration of artificial intelligence with surgical decision-making has the potential to transform care by augmenting the decision to operate, informed consent process, identification and mitigation of modifiable risk factors, decisions regarding postoperative management, and shared decisions regarding resource use.
| S-EPMC7286802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgical patients incur preventable harm from cognitive and judgment errors made under time constraints and uncertainty regarding patients' diagnoses and predicted response to treatment. Decision analysis and techniques of reinforcement learning theoretically can mitigate these challenges but are poorly understood and rarely used clinically. This review seeks to promote an understanding of decision analysis and reinforcement learning by describing their use in the context of surgical decision-making.MethodsCochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched from their inception to June 2019. Included were 41 articles about cognitive and diagnostic errors, decision-making, decision analysis, and machine-learning. The articles were assimilated into relevant categories according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.ResultsRequirements for time-consuming manual data entry and crude representations of individual patients and clinical context compromise many traditional decision-support tools. Decision analysis methods for calculating probability thresholds can inform population-based recommendations that jointly consider risks, benefits, costs, and patient values but lack precision for individual patient-centered decisions. Reinforcement learning, a machine-learning method that mimics human learning, can use a large set of patient-specific input data to identify actions yielding the greatest probability of achieving a goal. This methodology follows a sequence of events with uncertain conditions, offering potential advantages for personalized, patient-centered decision-making. Clinical application would require secure integration of multiple data sources and attention to ethical considerations regarding liability for errors and individual patient preferences.ConclusionTraditional decision-support tools are ill-equipped to accommodate time constraints and uncertainty regarding diagnoses and the predicted response to treatment, both of which often impair surgical decision-making. Decision analysis and reinforcement learning have the potential to play complementary roles in delivering high-value surgical care through sound judgment and optimal decision-making.
| S-EPMC7390703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOrdering of computed tomography (CT) scans needs to consideration of diagnostic utility as well as resource utilisation and radiation exposure. Several factors influence ordering decisions, including evidence-based clinical decision support tools to rule out serious disease. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore factors influencing Emergency Department (ED) doctors' decisions to order CT of the head or cervical spine.MethodsIn-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED doctors from two affiliated public hospitals. An interview tool with 10 questions, including three hypothetical scenarios, was developed and validated to guide discussions. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and compared with field notes. Transcribed data were imported into NVivo Release 1.3 to facilitate coding and thematic analysis.ResultsIn total 21 doctors participated in semi-structured interviews between February and December 2020; mean interview duration was 35 min. Data saturation was reached. Participants ranged from first-year interns to experienced consultants. Five overarching emerging themes were: 1) health system and local context, 2) work structure and support, 3) professional practices and responsibility, 4) reliable patient information, and 5) holistic patient-centred care. Mapping of themes and sub-themes against a behaviour change model provided a basis for future interventions.ConclusionsCT ordering is complex and multifaceted. Multiple factors are considered by ED doctors during decisions to order CT scans for head or c-spine injuries. Increased education on the use of clinical decision support tools and an overall strategy to improve awareness of low-value care is needed. Strategies to reduce low-yield CT ordering will need to be sustainable, sophisticated and supportive to achieve lasting change.
| S-EPMC9206095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designGlobal cross-sectional survey.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience.Summary of background dataPrevious subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers.MethodsA survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience.ResultsA total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P = 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P = 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P = 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P = 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P = 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P = 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score.ConclusionThe AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries.Level of Evidence: 4.
| S-EPMC8057527 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8820069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Guidelines and Class 1 evidence are strong factors that help guide surgeons' decision-making, but dilemmas exist in selecting the best surgical option, usually without the benefit of guidelines or Class 1 evidence. A few studies have discussed the variability of surgical treatment options that are currently available, but no study has examined surgeons' views on the influential factors that encourage them to choose one surgical treatment over another. This study examines the influential factors and the thought process that encourage surgeons to make these decisions in such circumstances. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 32 senior consultant surgeons, surgical fellows, and senior surgical residents at the University of Toronto teaching hospitals. An e-mail was sent out for volunteers, and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to thematic analysis using open and axial coding. Broadly speaking there are five groups of factors affecting surgeons' decision-making: medical condition, information, institutional, patient, and surgeon factors. When information factors such as guidelines and Class 1 evidence are lacking, the other four groups of factors-medical condition, institutional, patient, and surgeon factors (the last-mentioned likely being the most powerful)-play a significant role in guiding surgical decision-making. This study is the first qualitative study on surgeons' perspectives on the influential factors that help them choose one surgical treatment option over another for their patients.
| S-EPMC5796734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLeadership, communication, and collaboration are important in well-managed trauma resuscitations. We surveyed resuscitation team members (attendings, fellows, residents, and nurses) in a large urban trauma center regarding their impressions of collaboration among team members and their satisfaction with patient care decisions.MethodsThe Collaboration and Satisfaction About Care Decisions in Trauma (CSACD.T) survey was administered to members of ad hoc trauma teams immediately after resuscitations. Survey respondents self-reported their demographic characteristics; the CSACD.T scores were then compared by gender, occupation, self-identified leader role, and level of training.ResultsThe study population consisted of 281 respondents from 52 teams; 111 (39.5%) were female, 207 (73.7%) were self-reported White, 78 (27.8%) were nurses, and 140 (49.8%) were physicians. Of the 140 physician respondents, 38 (27.1%) were female, representing 13.5% of the total surveyed population. Nine of the 52 teams had a female leader. Men, physicians (vs nurses), fellows (vs attendings), and self-identified leaders trended toward higher satisfaction across all questions of the CSACD.T. In addition to the comparison groups mentioned, women and general team members (vs non-leaders) gave lower scores.ConclusionFemale residents, nurses, general team members, and attendings gave lower CSACD.T scores in this study. Identification of nuances and underlying causes of lower scores from female members of trauma teams is an important next step. Gender-specific training may be necessary to change negative team dynamics in ad hoc trauma teams.
| S-EPMC7972389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Intervertebral instability is a relatively common finding among patients with chronic neck pain after whiplash trauma. Videofluoroscopy (VF) of the cervical spine is a potentially sensitive diagnostic tool for evaluating instability, as it offers the ability to examine relative intervertebral movement over time, and across the entire continuum of voluntary movement of the patient. At the present time, there are no studies of the diagnostic accuracy of VF for discriminating between injured and uninjured populations. METHODS:Symptomatic (injured) study subjects were recruited from consecutive patients with chronic (>6 weeks) post-whiplash pain presenting to medical and chiropractic offices equipped with VF facilities. Asymptomatic (uninjured) volunteers were recruited from family and friends of patients. An ethical review and oversight were provided by the Spinal Injury Foundation, Broomfield, CO. Three statistical models were utilized to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of positive VF findings to correctly discriminate between injured and uninjured subjects. RESULTS:A total of 196 subjects (119 injured, 77 uninjured) were included in the study. All three statistical models demonstrated high levels of sensitivity and specificity (i.e., receiver operating characteristic (ROC) values of 0.71 to 0.95), however, the model with the greatest practical clinical utility was based on the number of abnormal VF findings. For 2+ abnormal VF findings, the ROC was 0.88 (93% sensitivity, 79% specificity) and the PPV and NPV were both 88%. The highest PPV (1.0) was observed with 4+ abnormal findings. CONCLUSIONS:Videofluoroscopic examination of the cervical spine provides a high degree of diagnostic accuracy for the identification of vertebral instability in patients with chronic pain stemming from whiplash trauma.
| S-EPMC7084423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGood decision making has been increasingly cited as a core component of good medical care, and shared decision making is one means of achieving high decision quality. If it is to be a standard, good measures and protocols are needed for assessing the quality of decisions. Consistency with patient goals and concerns is one defining characteristic of a good decision. A new method for evaluating decision quality for major surgical decisions was examined, and a methodology for collecting the needed data was developed.MethodsFor a national probability sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who had a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), a lumpectomy or a mastectomy for breast cancer, or surgery for prostate cancer during the last half of 2008, a mail-survey of selected patients was carried out about one year after the procedures. Patients' goals and concerns, knowledge, key aspects of interactions with clinicians, and feelings about the decisions were assessed. A decision dissonance score was created that measured the extent to which patient ratings of goals ran counter to the treatment received. The construct and predictive validity of the decision dissonance score was then assessed.ResultsWhen data were averaged across all four procedures, patients with more knowledge and those who reported more involvement reported significantly lower Decision Dissonance Scores. Patients with lower Decision Dissonance Scores also reported more confidence in their decisions and feeling more positively about how the treatment turned out, and they were more likely to say that they would make the same decision again.ConclusionsSurveying discharged surgery patients is a feasible way to evaluate decision making, and Decision Dissonance appears to be a promising approach to validly measuring decision quality.
| S-EPMC3615253 | biostudies-literature