OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional open surgery for spinal metastasis patients.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is lack of knowledge on whether MIS is comparable to conventional open surgery in treating spinal metastasis.
METHODS: Patients with spinal metastasis requiring surgery from January 2008 to December 2010 in two spine centers were recruited. The demographic, preoperative, operative, perioperative and postoperative data were collected and analyzed. Thirty MIS patients were matched with 30 open surgery patients using propensity score matching technique with a match tolerance of 0.02 based on the covariate age, tumor type, Tokuhashi score, and Tomita score.
RESULTS: Both groups had significant improvements in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Karnofsky scores, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and neurological status postoperatively. However, the difference comparing the MIS and open surgery group was not statistically significant. MIS group had significantly longer instrumented segments (5.5 ± 3.1) compared with open group (3.8 ± 1.7). Open group had significantly longer decompressed segment (1.8 ± 0.8) than MIS group (1.0 ± 1.0). Open group had significantly more blood loss (2062.1 ± 1148.0 mL) compared with MIS group (1156.0 ± 572.3 mL). More patients in the open group (76.7%) needed blood transfusions (with higher average units of blood transfused) compared with MIS group (40.0%). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in MIS group (116.1 ± 63.3 s) compared with open group (69.9 ± 42.6 s). Open group required longer hospitalization (21.1 ± 10.8 days) compared with MIS group (11.0 ± 5.0 days).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that MIS resulted in comparable outcome to open surgery for patients with spinal metastasis but has the advantage of less blood loss, blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stay.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of pediatric AOM on child and parental QoL in Malaysia and its economic impact (indirect costs).
METHODS: We utilized a set of QoL questionnaires (PAR-AOM-QOL, OM-6, and EQ-5D) combined with questions addressing work/productivity loss and financial costs associated with caring for a child during his or her illness in an observational, multicenter, prospective study.
RESULTS: One hundred and ten AOM patients aged ≤5 years were included in the analysis. The majority of respondents were the patient's mother. Parental QoL was negatively affected for both emotional and daily disturbance scales, but the level of disturbance was low. Using OM-6, the greatest negative impact was on the child's QoL, followed by caregiver concerns, physical suffering, and emotional distress. Using EQ-5D, a moderately positive relationship between parents' emotional disturbance and daily disturbance, and a weak, negative correlation between parental emotional disturbance and parental health status was found. Parents with paid employment took an average of 21 h from work to care for their child, at an average cost of 321.8 Malaysian ringgit (US$97) in addition to their contribution to direct medical costs. Productivity losses whilst at work, uncompensated wage losses, and leisure time losses are also reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that AOM is associated with some negative impact on parental QoL and significant economic impact at both patient and societal levels. The findings provide useful data on healthcare resource utilization and disease burden of AOM in Malaysia.
METHODS: All 30 of our patients underwent a standardized limited open CTR by a designated surgeon. Post operatively, they were randomized into a splinted (n=16) and a nonsplinted (n=14) group. The splint was kept for a week. Patients were reviewed at regular intervals of one week, two months and six months. At each follow up, these patients were clinically assessed for the following outcome measures: VAS (visual analogue score), 2PD (two-point discrimination), pinch grip, grip, Abductor Pollicis Brevis (APB)) power and completion of the Boston questionnaire.
RESULTS: All patients presented with significant improvement in the postoperative evaluation in the analyzed parameters within each group. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcome measurements at sequential and at final follow-up.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that wrist splinting in the immediate post-operative period has no advantage when compared with the unsplinted wrist after a limited open carpal tunnel release.