Resuming Elective Orthopaedic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidelines Developed by the International Consensus Group (ICM).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Parvizi J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7431146 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Resuming Elective Orthopaedic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidelines Developed by the International Consensus Group (ICM).
Parvizi J J Gehrke T T Krueger C A CA Chisari E E Citak M M Van Onsem S S Walter W L WL
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 20200701 14
Similar Datasets
Project description:The roadmap to elective surgery resumption after this COVID-19 pandemic should be progressive and cautious. The aim of this paper was to give recommendations and guidelines for resuming elective orthopedic surgery in the safest environment possible. Elective surgery should be performed in COVID-free facilities and hospital stay should be as short as possible. For matters of safety, patients considered first for surgery should be carefully selected according to COVID infection status/exposure, age, ASA physical status classification system / risk factors, socio-professional situation and surgical indication. A strategy for resuming elective surgery in four phases is proposed. Preoperative testing for COVID-19 infection is highly recommended. In any cases, COVID symptoms including fever and increased temperature should be constantly monitored until the day of surgery. Elective surgery should be postponed at the slightest suspicion of a COVID-19 infection. In case of surgery, adapted personal protective equipment in terms of gowns, gloves, masks and eye protection is highly recommended and described.
| S-EPMC7220621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS.MethodsWorld Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline.ResultsAfter a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence.ConclusionsThe international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.
| S-EPMC10839730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany U.S. health systems are grappling with how to safely resume elective surgery amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We used online crowdsourcing to explore public perceptions and concerns toward resuming elective surgery during the pandemic, and to determine factors associated with the preferred timing of surgery after health systems reopen.MethodsA 21-question survey was completed by 722 members of the public using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with the timing of preferred surgery after health systems reopen.ResultsMost (61%) participants were concerned with contracting COVID-19 during the surgical process, primarily during check-in and in waiting room areas, as well as through excessive interactions with staff. Overall, 57% would choose to have their surgery at a hospital over an outpatient surgery center. About 1 in 4 (27%) would feel comfortable undergoing elective surgery in the first month of health systems reopening. After multivariable adjustment, native English speaking (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.04-6.4; P = .042), male sex (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7; P < .001), and Veterans Affairs insurance (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.1-18.7; P = .036) were independent predictors of preferring earlier surgery.ConclusionWomen and non-native English speakers may be more hesitant to undergo elective surgery amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite concerns of contagion, more than half of the public favors a hospital setting over an outpatient surgery center for their elective surgery. Concerted efforts to minimize patient congestion and unnecessary face-to-face interactions may prove most effective in reducing public anxiety and concerns over the safety of resuming elective care.
| S-EPMC7369592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the safety of elective, outpatient orthopaedic sports procedures during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic at a high-volume orthopaedic practice.MethodsAll patients who were scheduled for elective, outpatient orthopaedic sports medicine procedures at 1 of 2 of outpatient surgical centers between July 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, were asked to complete a custom survey during a postoperative clinic visit or phone call at a minimum of 2 weeks or were subject to a routine screening questionnaire and temperature screening at the time of the first postoperative follow-up visit. The survey questionnaire assessed for any COVID-19-related symptoms. Surgical case logs were retrieved to review for any cancelled surgeries due to a positive preoperative COVID-19 test.ResultsIn total, 3.5% of patients (n = 39/1119) scheduled for surgery were diagnosed with COVID-19 during preoperative testing, resulting in surgical cancellation. Patients with a positive preoperative COVID-19 test result were found to be significantly younger (46 ± 20 years) when compared to all other patients with a negative test (51 ± 21 years; P = .002). No patient was diagnosed with COVID-19, reported symptoms concerning for COVID infection, underwent additional testing, or reported close contact with another individual with a positive test or possessed symptoms concerning for COVID-19 at a minimum of 2 weeks after surgery.ConclusionThis study found that 3.5% of patients tested positive for COVID-19 and were significantly younger when compared with patients testing negative. No patient investigated for potential infection after surgery reported the development of any symptoms related to COVID-19 or reported a positive test result after surgery. Using current protocols for preoperative screening, elective outpatient orthopaedic surgery performed in an Ambulatory Surgical Center is safe with no documented cases of COVID-19 transmission in this cohort.Level of evidenceLevel IV, prognostic case series.
| S-EPMC8114808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOut-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting.MethodsThis study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate.ResultsIn total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA.ConclusionAmong commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.
| S-EPMC9273018 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7552960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis are not like anything the U.S. health care system has ever experienced.MethodsAs we begin to emerge from the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to plan the sustainable resumption of elective procedures. We must first ensure the safety of our patients and surgical staff. It must be a priority to monitor the availability of supplies for the continued care of patients suffering from COVID-19. As we resume elective orthopedic surgery and total joint arthroplasty, we must begin to reduce expenses by renegotiating vendor contracts, use ambulatory surgery centers and hospital outpatient departments in a safe and effective manner, adhere to strict evidence-based and COVID-19-adjusted practices, and incorporate telemedicine and other technology platforms when feasible for health care systems and orthopedic groups to survive economically.ResultsThe return to normalcy will be slow and may be different than what we are accustomed to, but we must work together to plan a transition to a more sustainable health care reality which accommodates a COVID-19 world.ConclusionOur goal should be using these lessons to achieve a healthy and successful 2021 fiscal year.
| S-EPMC7166028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Idiopathic and acquired pedophilia are two different disorders with two different etiologies. However, the differential diagnosis is still very difficult, as the behavioral indicators used to discriminate the two forms of pedophilia are underexplored, and clinicians are still devoid of clear guidelines describing the clinical and neuroscientific investigations suggested to help them with this difficult task. Furthermore, the consequences of misdiagnosis are not known, and a consensus regarding the legal consequences for the two kinds of offenders is still lacking. The present study used the Delphi method to reach a global consensus on the following six topics: behavioral indicators/red flags helpful for differential diagnosis; neurological conditions potentially leading to acquired pedophilia; neuroscientific investigations important for a correct understanding of the case; consequences of misdiagnosis; legal consequences; and issues and future perspectives. An international and multidisciplinary board of scientists and clinicians took part in the consensus statements as Delphi members. The Delphi panel comprised 52 raters with interdisciplinary competencies, including neurologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, forensic psychologists, expert in ethics, etc. The final recommendations consisted of 63 statements covering the six different topics. The current study is the first expert consensus on a delicate topic such as pedophilia. Important exploitable consensual recommendations that can ultimately be of immediate use by clinicians to help with differential diagnosis and plan and guide therapeutic interventions are described, as well as future perspectives for researchers.
| S-EPMC9849353 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10875721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial.MethodsIn August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement.ResultsTwenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation.ConclusionsCervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8633772 | biostudies-literature