DuPage Medical Group

BackgroundOwing to the well-established volume-outcome relationship, hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery is commonly regionalized to academic, teaching hospitals. However, regionalization is associated with decreased access for some populations in need, as well as geographic and financial barriers for patients. If high surgeon and institutional volumes can be achieved, the community, non-teaching HPB surgical practice could help alleviate some issues associated with regionalization. The HPB experience of a community surgeon immediately after surgical oncology training was reviewed, hypothesizing that high volumes with acceptable short-term outcomes could be achieved, although a learning curve may be observed.Materials and methodsElectronic medical records from 2013 to 2023 were reviewed. Data included patient demographics, perioperative details, pathology, complications, and deaths over 90 postoperative days. Perioperative quality metrics were assessed for trends over time in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and liver resection subgroups.ResultsA total of 295 patients underwent 176 (59.7%) pancreatic and 119 (40.3%) hepatobiliary operations. The most common operations were PD (n=87; 49.4%) and partial hepatic lobectomy (n=56; 41.1%). In the pancreas group, morbidity was 25% (n=44), and mortality was 4.5% (n=8). In the hepatobiliary group, morbidity and mortality were 19.3% (n=23) and 5.0% (n=6), respectively. Within the PD and liver resection subgroups, operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay (LOS) trended downward over time, with LOS decreasing significantly.ConclusionHigh HPB volumes with acceptable short-term outcomes can be achieved by a solo practitioner in the community, non-teaching setting. For PDs and liver resections, perioperative metrics trended downward over time, illustrating the learning curve encountered after training.

Introduction: This multicenter prospective cohort study aimed to assess the safety and clinical and radiologic performance of the CLS® BreviusTM Stem with Kinectiv® Technology. Material and Methods: A total of 222 consecutive subjects, recruited in five different centers, qualifying for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), were enrolled in the study. All the subjects received the CLS® BreviusTM Stem with Kinectiv® Technology. All the enrolled study subjects underwent pre-operative clinical and radiographic evaluation. Additionally, all subjects underwent post-operative clinical, functional and radiographic evaluations at 6 months and 1, 2, 3, and 5 years. These evaluations included implant survival, pain and functional performance (Harris Hip Score [HHS], University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Activity Score, Oxford Hip Score), subject quality-of-life (EQ-5D), radiographic parameters, complications, and concentration of metal ions (aluminum and titanium) in blood. Results: No revisions were performed during the follow-up period. Of the 222 patients, only 76 completed the 5-year follow-up. Only 7 and 5 patients had aluminum and titanium 5-year evaluations, respectively. All the clinical parameters showed an overall improvement in the overtime measured with ANOVA for repeated measures; furthermore, the clinical scores showed a statistically significant improvement at 5 years with respect to pre-operative value (p < 0.001). Aluminum and titanium showed no variation for repeated measures at different time points (p > 0.05). A total of six complications were reported, of which only two were hip-related. Conclusions: The function of the CLS® BreviusTM Stem with Kinectiv® Technology indicated that subject well-being significantly increased following THA regardless of age, gender, BMI, previous surgery, primary diagnosis, and lifestyle.

.. 1 , .. 1,2 , .. 1 , .. 1 , .. 1 , .. 1 , .. 1 , .. 1 1 - . . , . 2 - -. . ,

Impending pathologic fractures of the femur due to metastatic bone disease are treated with prophylactic internal fixation to prevent fracture, maintain independence, and improve quality of life. There is limited data to support an optimal perioperative pain regimen. A proof of concept comparative cohort analysis was performed: 21 patients who received a preoperative fascia iliacus nerve block (FIB) were analyzed retrospectively while 9 patients treated with local infiltrative analgesia (LIA) were analyzed prospectively. Primary outcomes included: visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, narcotic requirements and hospital length of stay. Patient cohorts were compared via two-sample t-tests and Fischer's exact tests. Differences in VAS pain scores, length of stay and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) were assessed with Wilcoxon rank sum. The LIA group had more patients treated with preoperative narcotics (p=0.042). There were no significant differences between the FIB and LIA groups in MME utilized intraoperatively (30.0 vs 37.5, p=0.79), on POD 0 (38.0 vs 30.0, p=0.93), POD 1 (46.0 vs 55.5, p=0.95) or POD 2 (40.0 vs 60.0 p=0.73). There were no significant differences in analog pain scale at any time point or in hospital length of stay (78 vs 102 hours, p=0.86). Despite an increased number of patients being on preoperative narcotics in the LIA group, use of LIA compared with FIB is not associated with an increase in VAS pain scores, morphine milligram equivalents (MME), or length of hospital stay in patients undergoing prophylactic internal fixation of impending pathologic femur fractures.Level of Evidence: III.

Abstract Background: COVID-19 presents with a wide variety of symptoms which also vary in severity. Clinical gestalt is required to help distinguish between COVID-19 and other viral illness. As the pandemic heads into the second year, patient compliance with isolation and quarantine precautions is starting to diminish. The COVID-19 Pretest Probability Calculator is proposed to help offer pre-test probability of COVID-19 to assist in medical decision making. Methods: Patient’s presenting with COVID-19 like illness were grouped to high, intermediate, or low pretest probability risk based on total scores from reported criteria, which was correlated with the resulting SARS-CoV-2 PCR nasal swab. The calculator was applied in both a prospective and retrospective fashion. Results: A total of 412 patients were recorded, with a total of 132 positive results. Of low-risk patients, only one patient resulted as positive, while 85% or 111 of total positive results being categorized as high-risk. Overall demonstrated sensitivity was 99% with 50% specificity. Individual criteria were analyzed with anosmia and dysgeusia being the most significant. These symptoms demonstrated 92% specificity, and no low-risk patients reported these symptoms. Conclusion: The COVID calculator demonstrates strong rule-out capability for patients who are low risk. Furthermore, 85% of positive patients were high risk which suggests the need for longer isolation or retesting especially when an alternative diagnosis cannot be established. If a patient reports anosmia or dysgeusia a higher index of suspicion for COVID-19 should be considered.