METHODS: A questionnaire survey was sent by e-mail to members of AOSpine to evaluate their familiarity and use of PROMs instruments and to assess the barriers to their use in spine care practice in LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME.
RESULTS: A total of 1634 AOSpine members from LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME answered the electronic questionnaire. The percentage of spine surgeons who were familiar with the generic health-related quality of life questionnaire was 71.7%. In addition, 31.9% of respondents did not use any PROMs routinely. The main barriers to implementing PROMs were lack of time to administer the questionnaires (57%) followed by lack of staff to assist in data collection (55%), and the long time to fill out the questionnaires (46%). The routine use of questionnaires was more frequent in NA and EU and less common in LA and ME (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that 31.9% of spine surgeons do not use the PROMs questionnaire routinely. This appears to occur because of lack of knowledge regarding their importance, absence of reimbursement for this extra work, minimal financial support for clinical research, the cost of implementation, and lack of concern among physicians.
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the risk of infections after primary cranioplasty in adult patients who underwent craniectomies for non-infection-related indications are no different when performed early or delayed. We tested this hypothesis in a prospective, multicenter, cohort study.
METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 5 neurosurgical centers in the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Singapore, and Bangladesh. Only patients older than 16 years from the time of the non-infection-related craniectomy were included. The recruitment period was over 17 months, and postoperative follow-up was at least 6 months. Patient baseline characteristics, rate of infections, and incidence of hydrocephalus were collected.
RESULTS: Seventy patients were included in this study. There were 25 patients in the early cranioplasty cohort (cranioplasty performed before 12 weeks) and 45 patients in the late cranioplasty cohort (cranioplasty performed after 12 weeks). The follow-up period ranged between 16 and 34 months (mean, 23 months). Baseline characteristics were largely similar but differed only in prophylactic antibiotics received (P = 0.28), and primary surgeon performing cranioplasty (P = 0.15). There were no infections in the early cranioplasty cohort, whereas 3 infections were recorded in the late cohort. This did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.55).
CONCLUSIONS: Early cranioplasty in non-infection-related craniectomy is relatively safe. There does not appear to be an added advantage to delaying cranioplasties more than 12 weeks after the initial craniectomy in terms of infection reduction. There was no significant difference in infection rates or risk of hydrocephalus between the early and late cohorts.
METHOD: A historical cohort of 986 premenopausal, and 1123 postmenopausal, parous breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2001 to 2012 in University Malaya Medical Centre were included in the analyses. Time since LCB was categorized into quintiles. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine whether time since LCB was associated with survival following breast cancer, adjusting for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics.
RESULTS: Premenopausal breast cancer patients with the most recent childbirth (LCB quintile 1) were younger, more likely to present with unfavorable prognostic profiles and had the lowest 5-year overall survival (OS) (66.9; 95% CI 60.2-73.6%), compared to women with longer duration since LCB (quintile 2 thru 5). In univariable analysis, time since LCB was inversely associated with risk of mortality and the hazard ratio for LCB quintile 2, 3, 4, and 5 versus quintile 1 were 0.53 (95% CI 0.36-0.77), 0.49 (95% CI 0.33-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.85), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.44-0.93), respectively; P trend = 0.016. However, this association was attenuated substantially following adjustment for age at diagnosis and other prognostic factors. Similarly, postmenopausal breast cancer patients with the most recent childbirth were also more likely to present with unfavorable disease profiles. Compared to postmenopausal breast cancer patients in LCB quintile 1, patients in quintile 5 had a higher risk of mortality. This association was not significant following multivariable adjustment.
CONCLUSION: Time since LCB is not independently associated with survival in premenopausal or postmenopausal breast cancers. The apparent increase in risks of mortality in premenopausal breast cancer patients with a recent childbirth, and postmenopausal patients with longer duration since LCB, appear to be largely explained by their age at diagnosis.
METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study.
RESULTS: There were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists.
CONCLUSION: CAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.
OBJECTIVE: Given the unpopularity of the current hard hat, the general perception of workers concerning its use and its measurements are the determining factors in the development of a new hard hat.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in which 132 male oil palm harvesters between 19 and 60 years of age were selected from among the employees of the same oil palm harvesting company. A set of questionnaires was developed to collect their socio-demographic information as well as their perceptions of comfort and the prevalence of head injury. In addition, a set of measuring instruments, including Martin's anthropometry set, was used for head measurement and data collection in respect of the current hard hat. In this research, six respondents were randomly selected to attend an interview session for qualitative assessment.RESULTSBased on the questionnaires, the unpopularity in the use of the hard hat was largely influenced by factors related to poor design, in general, and, specifically, poor ventilation (64%), load (67% ), and physical discomfort (42% ). The measurements of the anthropometric parameters and the dimensions of the hard hat also showed a significant mismatch.
CONCLUSION: The unpopularity of the current hard hat among oil palm harvesters stemmed from the discomfort from wearing, which showed that the development of a new hard hat could lead to better usage and the greater likelihood of wearing a hard hat throughout the working day.