OBJECTIVE

This study determined the incidence of perioperative complications associated with routine preoperative glucocorticoid use in patients undergoing pituitary surgery with normal preoperative hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis).

METHODOLOGY

From 2011-2021 retrospective chart review, 243 patients undergoing pituitary surgery with normal preoperative HPA axis were analyzed into 2 groups: 1) with preoperative steroids and 2) without preoperative steroids.  Development of postoperative complications was subsequently evaluated.

RESULTS

Incidence of primary composite postoperative complications of in-hospital mortality, postoperative infection and postoperative diabetes insipidus (DI) was significantly increased among those who had preoperative steroids compared to those without (58.33% versus 33.33%, p-value 0.004)  with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.90 (CI 1.29 to 6.53, p-value 0.010). Among the components of the composite outcome, post-operative DI was statistically higher among those who were given preoperative steroids (52.45% versus 28.21%, p-value 0.006) with an adjusted OR of 3.31 (CI 1.43 to 7.67, p-value 0.005). The incidence of postoperative adrenal insufficiency was similar between the 2 groups (20.15% with steroids versus 8.70% without steroids, p-value 0.258).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with normal preoperative HPA axis, the routine use of preoperative steroids is associated with an increased risk of composite postoperative complications (in-hospital mortality, postoperative infection and postoperative DI). Steroid-sparing protocol is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative AI. The findings will encourage more rational use of steroids and minimize preventable complications.

Human ; Pituitary-adrenal System ; Pituitary Gland ; Postoperative Complications ; Glucocorticoids ; Steroids

Objective: The sources of diabetes distress, defined as hidden negative emotions from the demands of daily self-management, are unknown to Filipinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the outpatient department. Therefore, we aimed to 1) explore the sources of distress in the perspective of Filipinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus and 2) create a conceptual framework of diabetes distress for Filipinos with T2DM.

Methods: Focus group discussions were done and audiotaped among Filipinos with type 2 diabetes (n=17). The transcript underwent content analysis to generate themes and subthemes. Relationships were determined between codes, categories, and themes elicited in the study to create a conceptual framework unique to Filipinos.

Results: The content analysis revealed five themes of diabetes distress: caregiver factor, socio-economic factor, psycho-emotional factor, medication-related factor, and health care service delivery factor. The socio-economic factor was a distinct theme missing in the prevailing validated questionnaires. Therefore, an adapted conceptual framework was created, as approved by the expert panel.

Conclusion: In conclusion, Filipinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the outpatient department have multiple sources of diabetes distress, namely, caregiver factor, socio-economic factor, psycho-emotional factor, medication-related factor, and health care service delivery factor. The socio-economic factor is a unique theme identified among Filipinos. Recognizing the sources of diabetes distress is vital to accurately screen Filipinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus and optimize management outcomes. The study findings will help develop and validate the questionnaire to screen diabetes distress unique to Filipinos.

Outpatients ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2