Search

Given the benefits of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation and future reporting policies, the PROMs Workgroup conducted a study to evaluate the sentiment and practice patterns related to PROM collection and utilization. A survey including questions regarding sentiment and practice patterns related to PROM importance, collection, and utilization was administered to all members. Data were reported descriptively, and open-ended responses were analyzed using content and frequency analysis. Six hundred twelve surgeons (4%) participated. Most of them (52%) feel that PROMs are important. Forty-six percent collect and 35% use PROMs in practice. The greatest barriers to adoption include concerns about staff burden (72%), challenges in patients completing PROMs (69%), and cost (47%). While most of the surgeons feel that PROMs are important, many do not collect nor use PROMs in practice. The identified barriers may be informative in the development of resources to help comply with mandates and use PROMs to improve patient care., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Computer-assisted anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the United States has been used to help improve clinical outcomes and investigate tunnel placement and kinematic activity. Computer-assisted techniques were developed to improve accuracy of tunnel placement, because of concerns about the accuracy of manual tunnel placement causing revisions. Several authors have demonstrated improved tunnel location with computer assistance, although others have demonstrated little or no difference. More recently, American investigators have used computer assistance to evaluate the position and biomechanical behavior and kinematics of theoretical tunnel placement and also to assess in vitro and in vivo knee stability following ligament reconstruction. Computer assistance of anterior ligament reconstruction has demonstrated its value as a research and clinical tool in the United States.

Objectives: To compare the prevalence and metabolic profiles of glucose tolerance categories according to World Health Organization(WHO) and 1997 American Diabetes Association(ADA) fasting criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose metabolism in the Korean population., Methods: 2251 subjects without previous history of diabetes, who participated in the Yonchon diabetes epidemiology survey in 1993, were classified according to both criteria. The prevalence of glucose tolerance categories and the agreement across all categories of glucose tolerance were calculated. Metabolic characteristics of different glucose tolerance categories were compared., Results: The prevalence of diabetes and impaired fasting glucose(IFG) according to ADA fasting criteria was similar to those of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance(IGT) according to WHO criteria, respectively. However, 35.5% of the subjects who were diagnosed as diabetes by WHO criteria were reclassified as either IFG or normal fasting glucose (NFG), and 38.5% of diabetic patients according to ADA fasting criteria were IGT or normal glucose tolerance (NGT) by WHO criteria. Only 31.3% of IGT subjects remained as IFG and 62.1% were reclassified as NFG. Similarly, 69.4% of IFG subjects were NGT by WHO criteria. The agreement between the two criteria was poor (K = 0.31). Discordant diabetes groups had higher WHR, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol and triglyceride levels than concordant non-diabetes group. Non-diabetes(WHO)/diabetes(ADA) group had higher WHR than diabetes (WHO)/non-diabetes(ADA) group. There were no differences in other metabolic characteristics between the two discordant diabetes groups. IGT/NFG and NGT/IFG group showed higher BMI, WHR, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol and triglyceride levels than NGT/NFG group. Metabolic characteristics of IGT/NFG group were not different from those of NGT/IFG group except IGT/NFG subjects were older than NGT/IFG subjects., Conclusion: The agreement between WHO and ADA fasting criteria was poor. ADA fasting criteria can detect new diabetic patients and subjects with impaired glucose metabolism who are not classified as diabetes or IGT by WHO criteria. However, a substantial number of subjects, who may have increased cardiovascular risk and/or increased risk for the development of diabetes and its complication, will be missed when using ADA fasting criteria.