Search

Delayed diagnosis is a common challenge in the management of multiple myeloma (MM). This prospective interdisciplinary study evaluated symptoms and time to diagnosis (TTD) in 81/295 screened patients at our tertiary center, who were examined by an orthopedist prior to the MM diagnosis. The most frequent complaint was back pain (81%), mainly localized thoracic and/or lumbar. Pain was independent of movement in 85%, occurred at night in 69%, and at multiple localizations in 30% of patients. Notably, 63% patients with an orthopedic disease noticed substantial symptom change before the MM diagnosis was made. The median TTD was 7 months and did not differ significantly between patients with or without a preexisting skeletal disease. To avoid delayed diagnosis, physicians should consider MM as a differential diagnosis, whenever warning signs such as skeletal pain independent from movement, at night, at various localizations, and change in pain characteristics accompanied by fatigue, are reported.

Background The introduction of non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has changed the landscape of preventing thromboembolism events in many countries. However, the prescription trends of oral anticoagulant (OAC) in China are still unclear, which were evaluated in this study through data extracted and summarized from 5 major cities as representatives. Methods This study was designed as a time-series study which was based on pharmacy prescription data. Analysis was performed on yearly aggregated visits and expenditure. The results were also stratified by indications and specialties. Results A total of 189,006 prescriptions of 67 hospitals in 6 years were included in the study. The average growth rates of overall visit and expenditure of OAC were 15.8 and 57.5%, respectively. The share of warfarin decreased and NOACs had taken 92% of cost, covering 28% of patients in 2017. The more frequently used NOACs were rivaroxaban and dabigatran. The use of OAC was differed by indication and specialty. Conclusion The use of NOACs was found increasing rapidly in both visits and cost, sharing a majority of cost with a minority of patients. Attentions should be paid on the rational use of NOACs.

Background: The perception of major versus minor complications may vary according to surgeons, institutions, and different specialties. Here, we analyzed the geographic distribution of the different types/severities of the most frequent complications in spinal surgery, and assessed how the perception of spine surgeons about postoperative complications differed. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study using a questionnaire, we developed to encompass different clinical scenarios of surgeons’ perceptions of spine surgery complications. The survey involved the members of AOSpine Latin America (LA) (January 28, 2017–March 15, 2017). The main variables studied included: specialty, age, years of experience, country, individual surgeon’s perception of different clinical scenarios, and the surgeon’s classification of complications for each scenario (e.g., major, minor, or none). Our results from LA were then analyzed and compared to North American (NA) responses. Results: Orthopedic surgeons represented about 58.2% (n = 412) of the 708 questionnaires answered. Of interest, 45.6% (n = 323) of those responding had >10 years of experience. The countries analyzed included Brazil (31.5%), Mexico (17.5%), Argentina (14.4%), Colombia (8.0%), and Venezuela (7.6%). Four of the 11 scenarios showed consensus in the results (e.g., average being over 82.5%). A tendency toward consensus was present in 45.4% of the clinical cases, while two out of 11 clinical cases did not present a consensus among surgeons. Of interest, the perception of complications was similar between cohorts (LA 85% vs. NA 80%). Conclusion: Significant consensus in the perception of complications was observed in most of the analyzed scenarios for both LA and NA. However, within the LA data, responses to different clinical scenarios varied.

AIM To evaluate social media usage of orthopaedic patients to search for solutions to their health problems. METHODS The study data were collected using face-to-face questionnaire with randomly selected 1890 patients aged over 18 years who had been admitted to the orthopaedic clinics in different cities and provinces across Turkey. The questionnaire consists of a total of 16 questions pertaining to internet and social media usage and demographics of patients, patients' choice of institution for treatment, patient complaints on admission, online hospital and physician ratings, communication between the patient and the physician and its effects. RESULTS It was found that 34.2% (n = 647) of the participants consulted with an orthopaedist using the internet and 48.7% (n = 315) of them preferred websites that allow users to ask questions to a physician. Of all questionaskers, 48.5% (n = 314) reported having found the answers helpful. Based on the educational level of the participants, there was a highly significant difference between the rates of asking questions to an orthopaedist using the internet (P = 0.001). The rate of questionasking was significantly lower in patients with an elementary education than that in those with secondary, high school and undergraduate education (P = 0.001) The rate of reporting that the answers given was helpful was significantly higher in participants with an undergraduate degree compared to those who were illiterate, those with primary, elementary or high school education (P = 0.001). It was also found that the usage of the internet for health problems was higher among managers-qualified participants than unemployed-housewives, officers, workers-intermediate staff (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION We concluded that patients have been increasingly using the internet and social media to select a specific physician or to seek solution to their health problems in an effective way. Even though the internet and social media offer beneficial effects for physicians or patients, there is still much obscurity regarding their harms and further studies are warranted for necessary arrangements to be made. © The Author(s) 2017.

Background There have been several reports concerning the survival time after symptom onset in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). However, little is known about how the choice of physician (i.e., general practitioner, neurologist, etc.) may affect the time it takes for a diagnosis of ALS to be made. Methods We conducted a retrospective study, covering a 20-year period, comparing the type of physician first consulted by an ALS patient at the time of initial symptoms and the amount of time that elapsed to the final diagnosis of ALS. A total of 202 patients were diagnosed and stratified according to the onset of ALS symptoms (bulbar onset [BO] and limb onset [LO]). We noted the type of physician first seen by the patient. The diagnostic interval was calculated as the time between onset of symptoms and the final diagnosis of ALS. Results A total of 202 ALS patients were examined. Clinical BO and LO was observed in 78 (36.6%) and in 124 (61.4%) of these patients, respectively. The type of physician examining these patients at the first symptoms of disease was as follows (BO and LO): neurologist (38.5% and 25.8%), general practitioner (14.1% and 35.5%), orthopedist (12.8% and 35.5%), otolaryngologist (15.4% and 0%), and neurosurgeon (14.1% and 3.2%). Mean diagnostic interval (standard deviation) for patients with either set of symptoms was 13.1 (6.5) months; the diagnostic interval of patients with BO and LO was 9.2 (4.5) and 15.2 (7.7) months, respectively. ALS diagnosis in LO patients was delayed by more than 10 months when the patient first consulted an orthopedist rather than a neurologist. Conclusion More than 50% of the ALS patients included in this study did not visit a neurologist at the first symptoms of disease onset. The diagnosis of ALS was prolonged in LO patients visiting an orthopedist. We speculate that this increase in the diagnostic interval in LO patients visiting an orthopedist was due to a lack of bulbar symptoms in the early stages of this disease.

Context: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disorder characterized by pain, stiffness, and loss of mobility of the joint. As the most prevalent form of arthritis and a leading cause of impairment, it is imperative to understand the treating doctor's perception of pain relief among these patients. Objectives: To assess orthopedists' perspectives on pain management in OA. Materials and Methods: In this qualitative study, a guide-based interview was conducted on 15 orthopedists of a tertiary care hospital and audio-recorded simultaneously. A grounded theory approach was adopted for data transcription with an inductive approach for thematic manual analysis. Results: Five themes emerged - (1) quality of life: OA produces significant disease burden causing severe impairment; (2) pain management: although patients usually demand immediate pain relief, a multipronged approach to treatment emphasizing on physiotherapy and surgery rather than analgesics is needed. Most participants preferred individual discretion while others felt the need for systematizing pain management; (3) precautions/side effects of treatment: paracetamol is often prescribed due to its better benefit − adversity profile as compared to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and weak opioids; (4) barriers: participants expressed several barriers to optimal pain management; (5) counseling: Participants concurred that counseling would improve patients' quality of life. Conclusions: Participants agreed that OA being associated with debilitating pain and impairment requires optimal pain management for improving patients' quality of life. As crucial as counseling is, it is often compromised due to the large outpatient load. The doctors concurred that a multi-disciplinary team approach is needed to integrate and optimize pain management in OA.