6 resultados para amputation, prosthesis, rehabilitation
em Duke University
Resumo:
Diabetes mellitus is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide. Additionally, there is an increasing number of patients receiving implantable devices such as glucose sensors and orthopedic implants. Thus, it is likely that the number of diabetic patients receiving these devices will also increase. Even though implantable medical devices are considered biocompatible by the Food and Drug Administration, the adverse tissue healing that occurs adjacent to these foreign objects is a leading cause of their failure. This foreign body response leads to fibrosis, encapsulation of the device, and a reduction or cessation of device performance. A second adverse event is microbial infection of implanted devices, which can lead to persistent local and systemic infections and also exacerbates the fibrotic response. Nearly half of all nosocomial infections are associated with the presence of an indwelling medical device. Events associated with both the foreign body response and implant infection can necessitate device removal and may lead to amputation, which is associated with significant morbidity and cost. Diabetes mellitus is generally indicated as a risk factor for the infection of a variety of implants such as prosthetic joints, pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, penile implants, and urinary catheters. Implant infection rates in diabetic patients vary depending upon the implant and the microorganism, however, for example, diabetes was found to be a significant variable associated with a nearly 7.2% infection rate for implantable cardioverter defibrillators by the microorganism Candida albicans. While research has elucidated many of the altered mechanisms of diabetic cutaneous wound healing, the internal healing adjacent to indwelling medical devices in a diabetic model has rarely been studied. Understanding this healing process is crucial to facilitating improved device design. The purpose of this article is to summarize the physiologic factors that influence wound healing and infection in diabetic patients, to review research concerning diabetes and biomedical implants and device infection, and to critically analyze which diabetic animal model might be advantageous for assessing internal healing adjacent to implanted devices.
Resumo:
Approximately 45,000 individuals are hospitalized annually for burn treatment. Rehabilitation after hospitalization can offer a significant improvement in functional outcomes. Very little is known nationally about rehabilitation for burns, and practices may vary substantially depending on the region based on observed Medicare post-hospitalization spending amounts. This study was designed to measure variation in rehabilitation utilization by state of hospitalization for patients hospitalized with burn injury. This retrospective cohort study used nationally collected data over a 10-year period (2001 to 2010), from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SIDs). Patients hospitalized for burn injury (n = 57,968) were identified by ICD-9-CM codes and were examined to see specifically if they were discharged immediately to inpatient rehabilitation after hospitalization (primary endpoint). Both unadjusted and adjusted likelihoods were calculated for each state taking into account the effects of age, insurance status, hospitalization at a burn center, and extent of burn injury by TBSA. The relative risk of discharge to inpatient rehabilitation varied by as much as 6-fold among different states. Higher TBSA, having health insurance, higher age, and burn center hospitalization all increased the likelihood of discharge to inpatient rehabilitation following acute care hospitalization. There was significant variation between states in inpatient rehabilitation utilization after adjusting for variables known to affect each outcome. Future efforts should be focused on identifying the cause of this state-to-state variation, its relationship to patient outcome, and standardizing treatment across the United States.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether compliance and rehabilitative efforts were predictors of early clinical outcome of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was utilized to collect information from 147 resurfacing patients, who were operated on by a single surgeon, regarding their level of commitment to rehabilitation following surgery. Patients were followed for a mean of 52 months (range, 24 to 90 months). Clinical outcomes and functional capabilities were assessed utilizing the Harris hip objective rating system, the SF-12 Health Survey, and an eleven-point satisfaction score. A linear regression analysis was used to determine whether there was any correlation between the rehabilitation commitment scores and any of the outcome measures, and a multivariate regression model was used to control for potentially confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, an increased level of commitment to rehabilitation was positively correlated with each of the following outcome measures: SF-12 Mental Component Score, SF-12 Physical Component Score, Harris Hip score, and satisfaction scores. These correlations remained statistically significant in the multivariate regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were more committed to their therapy after hip resurfacing returned to higher levels of functionality and were more satisfied following their surgery.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that there is a learning curve for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. The purpose of this study was to assess whether implant positioning changed with surgeon experience and whether positioning and component sizing were associated with implant longevity. METHODS: We evaluated the first 361 consecutive hip resurfacings performed by a single surgeon, which had a mean follow-up of 59 months (range, 28 to 87 months). Pre and post-operative radiographs were assessed to determine the inclination of the acetabular component, as well as the sagittal and coronal femoral stem-neck angles. Changes in the precision of component placement were determined by assessing changes in the standard deviation of each measurement using variance ratio and linear regression analysis. Additionally, the cup and stem-shaft angles as well as component sizes were compared between the 31 hips that failed over the follow-up period and the surviving components to assess for any differences that might have been associated with an increased risk for failure. RESULTS: Surgeon experience was correlated with improved precision of the antero-posterior and lateral positioning of the femoral component. However, femoral and acetabular radiographic implant positioning angles were not different between the surviving hips and failures. The failures had smaller mean femoral component diameters as compared to the non-failure group (44 versus 47 millimeters). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there may be differences in implant positioning in early versus late learning curve procedures, but that in the absence of recognized risk factors such as intra-operative notching of the femoral neck and cup inclination in excess of 50 degrees, component positioning does not appear to be associated with failure. Nevertheless, surgeons should exercise caution in operating patients with small femoral necks, especially when they are early in the learning curve.
Resumo:
Office-based percutaneous revision of a testicular prosthesis has never been reported. A patient received a testicular prosthesis but was dissatisfied with the firmness of the implant. In an office setting, the prosthesis was inflated with additional fluid via a percutaneous approach. Evaluated outcomes included patient satisfaction, prosthesis size, recovery time, and cost savings. The patient was satisfied, with no infection, leak, or complication after more than 1 year of follow-up, at significantly less cost than revision surgery. Percutaneous adjustment of testicular prosthesis fill-volume can be safe, inexpensive, and result in good patient satisfaction.
Resumo:
The process of determining the level of care and specific postacute care facility for stroke patients has not been adequately studied. The objective of this study was to better understand the factors that influence postacute care decisions by surveying stroke discharge planners. Requests were sent to discharge planners at 471 hospitals in the Northeast United States to complete an online survey regarding the factors impacting the selection of postacute care. Seventy-seven (16%) discharge planners completed the online survey. Respondents were mainly nurses and social workers and 73% reported ≥20 years healthcare experience. Patients and families were found to be significantly more influential than physicians (P < 0.001) and other clinicians (P = 0.04) in influencing postdischarge care. Other clinicians were significantly more influential than physicians (P < 0.001). Insurance and quality of postacute care were the factors likely to most affect the selection of postacute care facility. Insurance was also identified as the greatest barrier in the selection of level of postacute care (70%; P < 0.001) and specific postacute care facility (46%; P = 0.02). More than half reported that pressure to discharge patients quickly impacts a patients' final destination. Nonclinical factors are perceived by discharge planners to have a major influence on postacute stroke care decision making.