Screening for psychiatric problems in the orofacial trauma setting

Screening tools for predicting posttraumatic stress disorder in acutely injured adult trauma patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adult trauma patients are at risk of developing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Early intervention reduces the development of PTSD, but few trauma patients seek and obtain care. Valid and reliable screening tools are needed to identify patients at risk of developing PTSD. The objective of this review is to identify existing screening tools and evaluate their accuracy for predicting PTSD outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, PsychInfo, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies evaluating the predictive accuracy of PTSD screening tools among traumatically injured adult civilians. Eligible studies assessed patients during acute hospitalization and at least 1 month following injury to measure PTSD outcome. Eligible outcomes included measures of predictive accuracy, such as sensitivity and specificity. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of each study, and the strength of evidence was assessed following the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included evaluating the predictive accuracy of 38 screening tools. Most tools were assessed in a single study. Questionnaire-style tools had more favorable predictive ability than diagnostic interview assessments. The Injured Trauma Survivor Screen, Posttraumatic Adjustment Screen, the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5, and the Richmond et al. tool demonstrated the most favorable predictive accuracy, with high sensitivity (75-100%) and specificity (67-94%). Common sources of bias were selection bias due to high attrition rate and using nondiagnostic tools to assess PTSD symptoms at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Although sensitivity and specificity of PTSD predictive tools varied widely, several emerged with favorable predictive accuracy. Further research is needed to define the ability of screening and intervention to prevent PTSD in injured trauma survivors. The results of this review can inform screening tool options for screening programs and future intervention studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level III.

New Uses of AbobotulinumtoxinA in Aesthetics

BotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) is now widely established for the main approved indication of reducing glabellar lines, and is also widely used off-label to improve the appearance of wrinkles and lines in other parts of the face. The number of aesthetic procedures continues to increase as the patient population becomes more diverse, in particular with increasing numbers of people of color and men. Further developments in treatment may continue to expand the audience for BoNT-A by making procedures more comfortable and by delivering a more natural, less static appearance. These may be achieved through use of combinations of BoNT-A with other aesthetic procedures, tailoring the dose of toxin to the patient's muscle mass or by using novel injection and application techniques. Beyond amelioration of facial lines, encouraging results have been seen with the use of BoNT-A to improve the appearance of hypertrophic and keloid scars and even to prevent them. Studies have been conducted with scars in various parts of the body and further research is ongoing. Dermatological and other medical uses for BoNT-A are also active areas of research. Injections of BoNT-A have been shown to reduce signs and symptoms of acne, rosacea, and psoriasis, to reduce neuromuscular pain, and to bring about significant improvements in a number of rare diseases that are caused or exacerbated by hyperhidrosis. This paper reviews these new uses for BoNT-A, looking at the rationale for their use and discussing the results of published case studies and clinical trials. These areas have shown great promise to date, but more and larger clinical studies will be required before these treatments become a clinical reality. To this end details are also provided of clinical trials currently listed in the main clinical trials database to highlight research areas of particular interest.

Validation of a brief, two-question depression screen in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, depression following traumatic injury is recognized as a complication of injury. Unlike mandated screening for risky alcohol use in trauma centers, screening for psychological risks is not required by the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma. Limited resources and time constraints are commonly given reasons against routine screening. The purpose of this study was to determine if a two-item screen was as valid as an eight-question screen for depression.

METHODS

A total of 421 patients were given the Patient Health Questionnaire 8 (PHQ-8) during initial hospitalization to assess depression in a prospective study at a Level I trauma center. A cutoff score of 10 or higher (possible range, 0-24) on the PHQ-8 is used as diagnostic for depression. The PHQ-2 (possible range, 0-6) is derived from the first two questions of the PHQ-8 and contains items assessing sad mood and loss of interest/pleasure during the previous 2 weeks. A cutoff score of 3 or higher was considered to be a positive screen result. Discriminatory ability of the PHQ-2 was calculated.

RESULTS

The sample was predominantly male (65%) and white (67%). The majority (85%) sustained a blunt trauma, and the primary cause of injury was motor vehicle collision (37%), with a mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 11.6. A total of 142 patients (34%) were positive for depression on the PHQ-8. When comparing the PHQ-2 with the PHQ-8, a sensitivity of 76.1 and a specificity of 92.8 were found, as well as a positive predictive value of 84.4.

CONCLUSION

The result of our study confirms that depression is a frequent condition (34%) among individuals who sustain physical injury. The PHQ-2 seems to have acceptable sensitivity and specificity to identify depression in this population. The use of a two-item screening questionnaire is a minimal addition to the evaluation of patients after injury, allowing for earlier intervention and better outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study, level IV; prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Botulinum toxin to improve results in cleft lip repair: a double-blinded, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial

Background

Most patients with facial scarring would value even a slight improvement in scar quality. Botulinum toxin A is widely used to alleviate facial dynamic rhytides but is also believed to improve scar quality by reducing wound tension during healing. The main objective was to assess the effect of Botulinum toxin on scars resultant from standardized upper lip wounds.

Methods

In this double-blinded, randomized, vehicle-controlled, prospective clinical trial, 60 consecutive consenting adults undergoing cleft lip scar revision (CLSR) surgery between July 2010 and March 2012 were randomized to receive botulinum toxin A (n = 30) or vehicle (normal saline; n = 30) injections into the subjacent orbicularis oris muscle immediately after wound closure. Scars were independently assessed at 6-months follow-up in blinded fashion using: Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and photographic plus ultrasound measurements of scar widths.

Results

58 patients completed the trial. All scar assessment modalities revealed statistically significantly better scars in the experimental than the vehicle-control group.

Conclusion

Quality of surgical upper lip scars, which are oriented perpendicular to the direction of pull of the underlying orbicularis oris muscle, is significantly improved by its temporary paralysis during wound healing.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01429402