Search

Background: Headache is often associated with physical trauma and psychological stress. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of headache on personnel deployed in war zones and to identify factors associated with return to duty (RTD).Methods: Outcome data were prospectively collected on 985 personnel medically evacuated out of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom for a primary diagnosis of headache between 2004 and 2009. Electronic medical records were reviewed to examine clinical and treatment patterns and the effect that myriad factors had on RTD.Results: 33.6% of evacuees returned to duty. The most common headaches were post-concussion (34.1%) and migraine (30.0%). Headaches typically associated with trauma such as post-concussion (18.7%), occipital neuralgia (23.1%), and cervicogenic headache (29.7%) had the lowest RTD rates, whereas tension headache (49.6%) was associated with the best outcome. Other variables associated with negative outcome included presence of aura (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30–0.88; p = 0.02), traumatic brain injury (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29–0.87; p = 0.01), opioid (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26–0.63; p < 0.001), and beta-blocker (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12–0.61; p = 0.002) use, and co-existing psychopathology (p < 0.001 in univariable analysis).Conclusion: Headaches represent a significant cause of unit attrition in personnel deployed in military operations, with physical trauma and co-existing psychopathology associated with poorer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy., Design: A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes., Settings: Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals., Participants: 145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain., Interventions: Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin., Main Outcome Measures: Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit., Results: There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments., Conclusions: Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923., (© Cohen et al 2015.)

The preoperative evaluation is vital in providing information to reduce the risks associated with the anesthesia and surgery and improve the quality of care. In the VA Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, we introduced a computer-based cardiac algorithm as part of the preoperative evaluation software. Following the pre-op examination and use of the algorithm, the provider completed a survey regarding their perceived usefulness of the algorithm software. The survey results showed that effective preoperative evaluation can be performed using a preoperative evaluation clinic, users are receptive to the computer-based format and, in most cases, prefer to have the algorithm software available for use in preoperative assessment.