BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The drug problem in the Philippines is influenced by various factors, but research on the specific risk factors and onset of drug use—an early predictor of severe drug abuse—is limited. This crosssectional study aims to identify factors associated with the onset of illicit drug use, focusing on variables such as sex, perceived socioeconomic status, adverse life events (including physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, and bullying), adverse home environments (like family substance abuse and parental separation), and premorbidities (such as anxiety and depression). Understanding these factors is crucial since early drug use often predicts more severe abuse later.

This cross-sectional study involved 354 participants aged 7 to 34 years, all undergoing rehabilitation for at least three months. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires at their rehabilitation centers. Regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between the onset of drug use and the identified risk factors.

Regression analysis revealed that, apart from premorbidities, all the examined factors were significantly correlated with the onset of drug use. Specifically, being male, having higher affluence, experiencing more adverse life events, and living in a more adverse home environment were associated with an earlier onset of drug use. Among these factors, adverse life events and home environment were the strongest predictors of the onset of illicit drug use, while premorbidities did not show a significant relationship with drug use onset.

The study highlights that sex, socioeconomic status, adverse life events, and home environment are significant in the early onset of drug use, while premorbidities are not. Early intervention should focus on these key risk factors. A risk-focused approach, guided by biopsychosocial perspectives, is recommended. Targeted interventions should address adverse life events and home environments to prevent early drug use and subsequent abuse effectively.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists ; Consensus ; Cardiovascular System ; Cardiology ; Asia

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected all Canadian families, with some impacted differently than others. Our study aims to: (1) determine the prevalence and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among Canadian families, (2) identify predictors of infection susceptibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2, and (3) identify health and psychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study builds upon the CHILD Cohort Study, an ongoing multi-ethnic general population prospective cohort consisting of 3,454 Canadian families with children born in Vancouver, Edmonton, Manitoba, and Toronto between 2009 and 2012. During the pandemic, CHILD households were invited to participate in the CHILD COVID-19 Add-On Study involving: (1) brief biweekly surveys about COVID-19 symptoms and testing; (2) quarterly questionnaires assessing COVID-19 exposure and testing, vaccination status, physical and mental health, and pandemic-driven life changes; and (3) in-home biological sampling kits to collect blood and stool. In total, 1,462 households (5,378 participants) consented to the CHILD COVID-19 Add-On Study: 2,803 children (mean±standard deviation [SD], 9.0±2.7 years; range, 0-17 years) and 2,576 adults (mean±SD, 43.0±6.5 years; range, 18-85 years). We will leverage the wealth of pre-pandemic CHILD data to identify risk and resilience factors for susceptibility and severity to the direct and indirect pandemic effects. Our short-term findings will inform key stakeholders and knowledge users to shape current and future pandemic responses. Additionally, this study provides a unique resource to study the long-term impacts of the pandemic as the CHILD Cohort Study continues.

Methods: Patients undergoing primary, elective 1–3 level ACDF for radiculopathy at a single academic center between 2015 and 2021 were identified retrospectively. Cervical FS was evaluated using axial T2-weighted MRI images via a validated grading scale. The maximum degree of stenosis was used for multilevel disease. Motor symptoms were classified using encounters at their final preoperative and first postoperative visits, with examinations ≤3/5 indicating weakness. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Bivariate analysis was used to compare outcomes based on stenosis severity, followed by multivariable analysis. Results: This study included 354 patients, 157 with moderate stenosis and 197 with severe stenosis. Overall, 58 patients (16.4%) presented with upper extremity weakness ≤3/5. A similar number of patients in both groups presented with baseline motor weakness (13.5% vs. 16.55, p =0.431). Postoperatively, 97.1% and 87.0% of patients with severe and moderate FS, respectively, experienced full motor recovery (p =0.134). At 1-year, patients with severe neuroforaminal stenosis presented with significantly worse 12-item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score (PCS-12) (33.3 vs. 37.3, p =0.049) but demonstrated a greater magnitude of improvement (Δ PCS-12: 5.43 vs. 0.87, p =0.048). Worse stenosis was independently associated with greater ΔPCS-12 at 1-year (β =5.59, p =0.022). Conclusions Patients with severe FS presented with worse preoperative physical health. While ACDF improved outcomes and conferred similar motor recovery in all patients, those with severe FS reported much better improvement in physical function.

Background: and Purpose Changes to hospital systems were implemented from March 2020 in Australia in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, including decreased resources allocated to stroke units. We investigate changes in the quality of acute care for patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack during the pandemic according to patients’ treatment setting (stroke unit or alternate ward). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with stroke or transient ischemic attack between January 2019 and June 2020 in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR). The AuSCR monitors patients’ treatment setting, provision of allied health and nursing interventions, prescription of secondary prevention medications, and discharge destination. Weekly trends in the quality of care before and during the pandemic period were assessed using interrupted time series analyses. Results: In total, 18,662 patients in 2019 and 8,850 patients in 2020 were included. Overall, 75% were treated in stroke units. Before the pandemic, treatment in a stroke unit was superior to alternate wards for the provision of all evidence-based therapies assessed. During the pandemic period, the proportion of patients receiving a swallow screen or assessment, being discharged to rehabilitation, and being prescribed secondary prevention medications decreased by 0.58% to 1.08% per week in patients treated in other ward settings relative to patients treated in stroke units. This change represented a 9% to 17% increase in the care gap between these treatment settings during the period of the pandemic that was evaluated (16 weeks). Conclusions During the first 6 months of the pandemic, widening care disparities between stroke units and alternate wards have occurred.