Carolyn Levis

Health-related quality of life in patients undergoing palmar fasciectomy for Dupuytren's disease.

Background: The present study was undertaken to assess the health-related quality of life in patients with Dupuytren’s disease who undergo palmar fasciectomy. Methods: A prospective cohort of patients with Dupuytren’s disease undergoing palmar and/or digital fasciectomy was recruited from the practice of three plastic surgeons in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. After written informed consent was obtained, participants were asked to complete three health-related quality-of-life questionnaires (i.e., Short Form-36, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, and Health Utility Index Mark 3) at five time points: at 1 week and 1 day preoperatively, and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Ranges of motion and grip strength measurement were also recorded. Results: For the 26 patients in the study, the multiattribute scores of the Health Utility Index Mark 3 improved from 0.80 before surgery to 0.83 at 12 months postoperatively (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the Short Form-36 scores, but the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scores improved from 74 at 1 week preoperatively to 90 at the 12-month postoperative visit (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients who undergo palmar fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s disease experience a substantial improvement in their health-related quality of life 12 months after surgery. In the authors’ study population, a benefit of 0.85 quality-adjusted life-year within 12 months was observed. This can be translated as follows: the average patient who undergoes palmar fasciectomy gains the equivalent of approximately 14.4 days (0.48 months) in perfect health by undergoing palmar fasciectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Randomized controlled trial comparing health-related quality of life in patients undergoing vertical scar versus inverted T-shaped reduction mammaplasty.

BACKGROUND There is controversy regarding the superiority of the vertical scar reduction technique versus the inverted T-shaped reduction technique for breast reduction surgery. METHODS Two hundred fifty-five patients were randomized to either the vertical scar reduction or inverted T-shaped reduction technique immediately before surgery over a 5-year period. Patients completed the Health Utilities Index Mark 3, Short Form-36, Breast-Related Symptoms Questionnaire, and Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire at 1 week preoperatively and 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Data were treated according to intention-to-treat principles. The primary outcome was the difference in the change in Health Utilities Index Mark 3 score from baseline to 12 months postoperatively between the two techniques. RESULTS Patients undergoing either technique gained a statistically significant and clinically important improvement from baseline to 1 year postoperatively in the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (vertical scar reduction, 0.81, 0.16 to 0.87, 0.19; inverted T-shaped reduction, 0.79, 0.20 to 0.89, 0.15) and the Breast-Related Symptoms Questionnaire (vertical scar reduction, 50.26, 12.98 to 95.59, 9.36; inverted T-shaped reduction, 50.06, 12.50 to 94.09, 9.86). No difference in mean change in scores from baseline to 12 months postoperatively was seen in any of the quality of life questionnaires between the techniques. CONCLUSIONS There was a clinically important improvement between baseline and 1 year postoperatively in both groups in the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and the Breast-Related Symptoms Questionnaire. The authors conclude that the techniques are similar when quality of life is the outcome of interest. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, I.

Compression neuropathies of the lower extremity

Compression neuropathies of the lower extremity can be just as disabling as compression neuropathies in the upper extremity. The most common compression neuropathies encountered in the lower extremity affect the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, the peroneal nerve, the saphenous nerve, the sural nerve, and the tibial nerve (including their branches). These are discussed in terms of anatomy, etiologies, manifestations, and surgical treatment.

Psychometric properties of health-related quality of life instruments in patients undergoing palmar fasciectomy for dupuytren’s disease: a prospective study

BackgroundThe traditional outcome measured following treatment of Dupuytren’s Disease (DD) has been digital range of motion; specifically the gain in digital extension. The outcomes research movement in the last three decades however has been advocating the measurement of outcomes from the patient’s perspective using Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires (HRQOL). Although several generic and region-specific HRQOL questionnaires exist, there is no guidance as to which one is the most appropriate for this population. The objective of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of three self-reported HRQOL outcome measures in patients with DD.MethodsPatients with DD were enrolled from the practices of three plastic surgeons. Test-retest reliability, concurrent validity and responsiveness of three HRQOL questionnaires were compared in a prospective study design. The HRQOL measures included Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ).ResultsAll three measures demonstrated good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.77–0.85). Concurrent validity was found between the HUI3 pain and dexterity attributes and SF-36 physical summary score. The sensitivity of the MHQ to detect changes in the status of the patient was found to be high (effect size = 1.14) whereas that of the SF-36 was trivial.ConclusionsThe HUI3 and the MHQ seem to be reliable and valid tools to assess the HRQOL in patients with Dupuytren’s Disease.

Users’ Guide to the Surgical Literature: Understanding confidence intervals

Increasingly, surgical research articles are citing confidence intervals (CIs) when reporting treatment effects. It is important to understand the theory behind CIs so that present and future surgical literature can be correctly interpreted and clinically useful information gained to help guide treatment decisions. The move toward including CIs is predominantly owing to them providing more information for the clinician regarding research results. In general, with p values, research results can be deemed statistically significant or not, whereas treatment effect and its corresponding CIs can give information regarding the magnitude of the difference between 2 treatments and the interval of values within which the true value is likely to be found.1 This provides information as to whether results are clinically important.2 To illustrate how CIs work, how to interpret them and how to critically appraise the validity of evidence using CIs of a treatment effect, a surgical problem and the critical appraisal of research findings are presented in this article.