Patient decision support interventions for candidates considering elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The increase in elective surgeries and varied postoperative patient outcomes has boosted the use of patient decision support interventions (PDSIs). However, evidence on the effectiveness of PDSIs are not updated. This systematic review aims to summarize the effects of PDSIs for surgical candidates considering elective surgeries and to identify their moderators with an emphasis on the type of targeted surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating PDSIs among elective surgical candidates. We documented the effects on invasive treatment choice, decision-making-related outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource use. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations were adopted to rate the risk of bias of individual trials and certainty of evidence, respectively. STATA 16 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight trials comprising 14 981 adults from 11 countries were included. Overall, PDSIs had no effect on invasive treatment choice (risk ratio=0.97; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.04), consultation time (mean difference=0.04 min; 95% CI: -0.17, 0.24), or patient-reported outcomes, but had a beneficial effect on decisional conflict (Hedges' g =-0.29; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.16), disease and treatment knowledge (Hedges' g =0.32; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.49), decision-making preparedness (Hedges' g =0.22; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.34), and decision quality (risk ratio=1.98; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.39). Treatment choice varied with surgery type and self-guided PDSIs had a greater effect on disease and treatment knowledge enhancement than clinician-delivered PDSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated that PDSIs targeting individuals considering elective surgeries had benefited their decision-making by reducing decisional conflict and increasing disease and treatment knowledge, decision-making preparedness, and decision quality. These findings may be used to guide the development and evaluation of new PDSIs for elective surgical care.

Audit and Comparison Between Radiographic Markers of Gaze Direction Using EOS Imaging - An Essential Step to Streamline Existing Methods

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study on prospectively implemented EOS protocol.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to audit and compare existing radiological definitions of gaze direction-chin brow vertical angle (CBVA), McGregor slope (McGS), slope of line of sight (SLS), orbital-internal occipital protuberance (OIOP) slope angle, and Tangent to the hard palate (THP) in a neutral, healthy, and asymptomatic cohort.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The ability to accurately define direction of gaze is the first step when striving for horizontal gaze restoration in any affected individual with rigid sagittal deformity. Yet, the radiological definition of gaze direction remains poorly standardized.

METHODS

Hundred healthy subjects who could achieve horizontal gaze underwent whole-body standing EOS radiographs taken under a strictly standardized protocol. Radiographic measurements of global spinal sagittal parameters and surrogate measures of horizontal gaze were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

The mean age was 45 ± 15.9 years, with a balanced male-to-female-ratio. Their C7 SVA was -7.7 mm ± 24.8 mm, PI was 51.0o ± 11.4o, PI-LL was -0.9o ± 13.0o and T1-slope was 21.2o ± 9.2o. Measured horizontal gaze parameters were as follows: CBVA (1.07o ± 5.48o), McGS (-3.23o ± 5.63o), SLS (0.45o ± 5.34o), OIOP (5.03o ± 4.66o), THP (-0.17o ± 6.27o). CBVA correlated strongly with McGS (r = 0.679, P < 0.001), SLS (r = 0.592, P < 0.001), OIOP (r = 0.697, P < 0.001), and THP (r = -0.504, P < 0.001). OIOP had the lowest variance amongst all parameters and showed less variability compared to CBVA (SD 4.66 Var 21.69 vs. SD 5.48 Var 30.08, P = .012). Multivariate analysis showed that C2-7 angle was the only parameter found to be associated with OIOP values (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

OIOP is the least variable, and most robust radiological method in determining gaze direction. It uses easily recognizable anatomical landmarks and an angular criterion, which makes it advantageous both with x-rays or slot scanners.Level of Evidence: 3.

Metastatic Spine Tumor Surgery: A Comparative Study of Minimally Invasive Approach Using Percutaneous Pedicle Screws Fixation Versus Open Approach

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) has been gaining recognition in patients with metastatic spine disease (MSD). The advantages are reduction in blood loss, hospital stay, and postoperative morbidity. Most of the studies were case series with very few comparing the outcomes of MISS to open approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the clinical and perioperative outcomes of MISS versus open approach in patients with symptomatic MSD, who underwent posterior spinal stabilization and/or decompression.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our study included 45 MSD patients; 27 managed by MISS and 18 by open approach. All patients had MSD presenting with symptoms of neurological deficit, spinal instability, or both. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected for comparison of the 2 approaches. All patients were followed up until the end of study period (maximum up to 4 years from time of surgery) or till their demise. The clinical outcome measures were pain control, neurological and functional status, whereas perioperative outcomes were blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, and time taken to initiate radiotherapy/chemotherapy after index surgery.

RESULTS

Majority of patients in both groups showed improvement in pain, neurological status, independent ambulation, and ECOG score in the postoperative period with no significant differences between the 2 groups. There was a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss (621 mL less, P<0.001) in the MISS group. The average time to initiate radiotherapy after surgery was 13 days (range, 12-16 d) in MISS and 24 days (range, 16-40 d) in the open group. This difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). Operative time and duration of hospital stay were also favorable in the MISS group, although the differences were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

MISS is comparable with open approach demonstrating similar improvements in clinical outcomes, that is pain control, neurological and functional status. MISS approaches have also shown promising results due to lesser intraoperative blood loss and allowing earlier radiotherapy/chemotherapy.