1.Data Gap in Sacral Neuromodulation Documentation: Call to Improve Documentation Protocols
Christopher M. HORNUNG ; Ranveer VASDEV ; Kate A. HANSON ; Rachael GOTLIEB ; Cynthia S. FOK ; John FISCHER ; Nissrine A. NAKIB ; Dwight E. NELSON
International Neurourology Journal 2022;26(3):227-233
Purpose:
We quantified patient record documentation of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) threshold testing and programming parameters at our institution to identify opportunities to improve therapy outcomes and future SNM technologies.
Methods:
A retrospective review was conducted using 127 records from 40 SNM patients. Records were screened for SNM documentation including qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative covered indirect references to threshold testing and the quantitative included efficacy descriptions and device programming used by the patient. Findings were categorized by visit type: percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE), stage 1 (S1), permanent lead implantation, stage 2 (S2) permanent impulse generator implantation, device-related follow-up, or surgical removal.
Results:
Documentation of threshold testing was more complete during initial implant visits (PNE and S1), less complete for S2 visits, and infrequent for follow-up clinical visits. Surgical motor thresholds were most often referred to using only qualitative comments such as “good response” (88%, 100% for PNE, S1) and less commonly included quantitative values (68%, 84%), locations of response (84%, 83%) or specific contacts used for testing (0%). S2 motor thresholds were less well documented with qualitative, quantitative, and anatomical location outcomes at 70%, 48%, and 36% respectively. Surgical notes did not include specific stimulation parameters or contacts used for tests. Postoperative sensory tests were often only qualitative (80%, 67% for PNE, S1) with quantitative values documented much less frequently (39%, 9%) and typically lacked sensory locations or electrode-specific results. For follow-up visits, <10% included quantitative sensory test outcomes. Few records (<7%) included device program settings recommended for therapy delivery and none included therapy-use logs.
Conclusions
While evidence suggests contact and parameter-specific programming can improve SNM therapy outcomes, there is a major gap in the documentation of this data. More detailed testing and documentation could improve therapeutic options for parameter titration and provide design inputs for future technologies.
2.A multi-institutional analysis of sternoclavicular joint coverage following osteomyelitis
Sammy OTHMAN ; Omar ELFANAGELY ; Saïd C. AZOURY ; Geoffrey M. KOZAK ; Jessica CUNNING ; Arturo J. RIOS-DIAZ ; Prashanth PALVANNAN ; Patrick GREANEY ; Matthew P. JENKINS ; Doraid JARRAR ; Stephen J. KOVACH ; John P. FISCHER
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2020;47(5):460-466
Background:
Sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) osteomyelitis is a rare pathology requiring urgent intervention. Several operative approaches have been described with conflicting reports. Here, we present a multi-institutional study utilizing multiple surgical pathways for SCJ reconstruction.
Methods:
A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify patients who underwent surgical repair for sternoclavicular osteomyelitis between 2008 and 2019. Patients were stratified according to reconstruction approach: single-stage reconstruction with advancement flap and delayed-reconstruction with flap following initial debridement. Demographics, operative approach, type of reconstruction, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.
Results:
Thirty-two patients were identified. Mean patient age was 56.2±13.8 years and 68.8% were male. The average body mass index (BMI) was 30.0±8.8 kg/m2. The most common infection etiologies were intravenous drug use and bacteremia (both 25%). Fourteen patients (43.8%) underwent one-stage reconstruction and 18 (56.2%) underwent delayed twostaged reconstruction. Both single and delayed-stage groups had comparable rates of reinfection (7.1% vs. 11.1%, respectively), surgical site complications (21.4% vs. 27.8%), readmissions (7.1% vs. 16.6%), and reoperations (7.1% vs. 5.6%; all P>0.05). The single-stage reconstruction group had a significantly lower BMI (26.2±5.7 kg/m2 vs. 32.9±9.1 kg/m2; P<0.05) and trended towards shorter hospital length of stay (11.3 days vs. 17.9 days; P=0.01).
Conclusions
Both single and delayed-stage approaches are appropriate methods with comparable outcomes for reconstruction for SCJ osteomyelitis. When clinically indicated, a single-stage reconstruction approach may be preferable in order to avoid a second operation as associated with the delayed phase, and possibly shortening total hospital length of stay.
3.The Impact of Perforator Number on Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction.
Ritwik GROVER ; Jonas A NELSON ; John P FISCHER ; Stephen J KOVACH ; Joseph M SERLETTI ; Liza C WU
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2014;41(1):63-70
BACKGROUND: Perforator flaps minimize abdominal site morbidity during autologous breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the number of perforators harvested influences the overall deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap survival and flap-related complications. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all DIEP flaps performed at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from 2006 to 2011. The outcomes assessed included flap loss and major complications. We compared flaps by the number of total perforators (1-4) and then carried out a subgroup analysis comparing flaps with one perforator to flaps with multiple perforators. Lastly, we conducted a post-hoc analysis based on body mass index (BMI) categorization. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-three patients underwent 395 DIEP flaps. No significant differences were noted in the flap loss rate or the overall complications across perforator groups. However, the subgroup analysis revealed significantly higher rates of fat necrosis in the case of one-perforator flaps than in the case of multiple-perforator flaps (10.2% vs. 3.1%, P=0.009). The post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase in the flap loss rate with increasing BMI (<30=2.0%, 30-34.9=3.1%, 35-39.9=3.1%, >40=42.9%, P<0.001) in the DIEP flaps, but no increase in fat necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the number of perforators does not impact the rate of flap survival. However, the rate of fat necrosis may be significantly higher in DIEP flaps based on a single perforator. Multiple perforators should be utilized if possible to decrease the risk of fat necrosis.
Body Mass Index
;
Breast*
;
Fat Necrosis
;
Female
;
Humans
;
Mammaplasty*
;
Microsurgery
;
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
;
Pennsylvania
;
Perforator Flap*
;
Retrospective Studies

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail