Search

Study Design. Retrospective study. Objective. To determine the 8-year risk of revision lumbar fusion, pseudoarthrosis, mechanical failure, fragility fracture, and vertebral compression fracture in patients with a prior fragility fracture compared with those without. Summary of Background Data. Osteoporosis is a known modifiable risk factor for revision following lumbar fusion due to inadequate fixation. Patients with prior fragility fractures have been shown to have increased bone health-related complications following various orthopedic surgeries; however, there is a paucity of literature that identifies these complications in patients undergoing lumbar fusion. Patients and Methods. Patients aged 50 years and older who underwent elective lumbar fusion were identified in a large national database and stratified based on whether they sustained a fragility fracture within three years prior to fusion. These patients were propensity-score matched to a control based on age, gender, and Charlson the comorbidity index using a 1:1 ratio. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to observe the cumulative incidences and risk of complications within eight years of index surgery. Results. After matching, 8805 patients were included in both cohorts. Patients who sustained a prior fragility fracture had a higher risk of revision [hazard ratio (HR): 1.46; 95% CI: 1.26-1.69; P<0.001), pseudoarthrosis (HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.17-1.48; P<0.001), mechanical failure (HR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.78-2.45; P<0.001), secondary fragility fracture (HR: 6.36; 95% CI: 5.86-6.90; P<0.001), and vertebral compression fracture (HR: 7.47; 95% CI: 7.68-8.21; P<0.001) when compared with the control cohort. Conclusion. Patients who sustain a fragility fracture prior to lumbar fusion have an increased risk of revision, pseudoarthrosis, and mechanical failure within eight years. Surgeons should be aware of this high-risk patient population and consider bone health screening and treatment to reduce these preventable complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The randomized clinical trial is generally considered the most rigorous study design for evaluating overall intervention effects. Because of patient heterogeneity, subgroup analysis is often used to identify differential intervention effects. In research of behavioral interventions, such subgroups often depend on a latent construct measured by multiple correlated observed variables. Objectives: The purpose of this article was to illustrate latent class analysis/latent profile analysis as a helpful tool to characterize latent subgroups, conduct exploratory subgroup analysis, and identify potential differential intervention effects using clinical trial data. Methods: After reviewing different approaches for subgroup analysis, latent class analysis/latent profile analysis was chosen to identify heterogeneous patient groups based on multiple correlated variables. This approach is superior in this specific scenario because of its ability to control Type I error, assess intersection of multiple moderators, and improve interpretability. We used a case study example to illustrate the process of identifying latent classes as potential moderators based on both clinical and perceived risk scores and then tested the differential effects of health coaching in improving health behavior for patients with elevated risk of developing coronary heart disease. Results: We identified three classes based on one clinical risk score and four perceived risk measures for individuals with high risk of developing coronary heart disease. Compared to other classes we assessed, individuals in the class with low clinical risk and low perceived risk benefit most from health coaching to improve their physical activity levels. Discussion: Latent class analysis/latent profile analysis offers a person-centered approach to identifying distinct patient profiles that can be used as moderators for subgroup analysis. This offers tremendous opportunity to identify differential intervention effects in behavioral research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B Introduction: b Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) may guide intravenous fluids (IVF) resuscitation in septic shock to prevent inadvertent hypovolemia and death. The primary study objective is to determine if total IVF volume differs for Emergency Department (ED) septic shock patients receiving POCUS vs. no POCUS. 1034: DOES POCUS AFFECT FLUID RESUSCITATION IN SEPTIC SHOCK?. [Extracted from the article]