No abstract

No abstract

Purpose To evaluate intra-operative findings and outcomes of revision carpal tunnel release (CTR) and to identify predictors of pain outcomes. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed of all adult patients undergoing revision CTR between 2001 and 2012. Patients were classified according to whether they presented with persistent, recurrent, or new symptoms. Study groups were compared by baseline characteristics, intra-operative findings, and outcomes (strength, pain). Within each group, changes in postoperative pinch strength, grip strength, and pain from baseline were analyzed. Predictors of postoperative average pain were examined using both multivariable linear regression analyses and univariable logistic regression to calculate odds ratios of worsened/no change in pain. Results Revision CTR was performed in 97 extremities (87 patients). Symptoms were classified as persistent in 42, recurrent in 19, and new in 36 hands. The recurrent group demonstrated more diabetes and a longer interval from primary CTR and was less likely to present with pain. Incomplete release of the flexor retinaculum and scarring of the median nerve were common intraoperative findings overall. Nerve injury was more common in the new group. Postoperative pinch strength, grip strength, and pain significantly improved from baseline in all groups, apart from strength measures in the recurrent group. Persistent symptoms and more than 1 prior CTR had higher odds of not changing or worsening postoperative pain. Higher preoperative pain, use of pain medication, and worker’s compensation were significant predictors of higher postoperative average pain. Discussion Carpal tunnel release may not always be entirely successful. Most patients do improve following revision CTR, but a methodical approach to diagnosis and adherence to safe surgical principles are likely to improve outcomes. Symptom classification, number of prior carpal tunnel releases, baseline pain, pain medications, and worker’s compensation status are important predictors of pain outcomes in this population. Level of Evidence Therapeutic Level III

Objective The National Healthcare Safety Network classifies breast operations as clean procedures with an expected 1–2% surgical site infection (SSI) incidence. We assessed differences in SSI incidence following mastectomy with and without immediate reconstruction in a large, geographically diverse population. Design Retrospective cohort study. Patients Commercially-insured women aged 18–64 years with ICD-9-CM procedure or CPT-4 codes for mastectomy from 1/1/2004–12/31/2011. Methods Incident SSIs within 180 days after surgery were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. The incidence of SSI after mastectomy +/− immediate reconstruction was compared by the chi-square test. Results From 2004–2011, 18,696 mastectomy procedures among 18,085 women were identified, with immediate reconstruction in 10,836 (58%) procedures. The 180-day incidence of SSI following mastectomy with or without reconstruction was 8.1% (1,520/18,696). Forty-nine percent of SSIs were identified within 30 days post-mastectomy, 24.5% between 31–60 days, 10.5% between 61–90 days, and 15.7% between 91–180 days. The incidence of SSI was 5.0% (395/7,860) after mastectomy-only, 10.3% (848/8,217) after mastectomy plus implant, 10.7% (207/1,942) after mastectomy plus flap, and 10.3% (70/677) after mastectomy plus flap and implant (p<0.001). The SSI risk was higher after bilateral compared with unilateral mastectomy with (11.4% vs. 9.4%, p=0.001) and without (6.1% vs. 4.7%, p=0.021) immediate reconstruction. Conclusions SSI incidence was two-fold higher after mastectomy with immediate reconstruction than after mastectomy alone. Only 49% of SSIs were coded within 30 days after operation. Our results suggest stratification by procedure type will facilitate comparison of SSI rates after breast operations between facilities.

The incidence of SSI and NIWCs was slightly higher for implant IR compared with delayed or secondary implant reconstruction. Women who had an SSI or NIWC after implant IR had a higher risk for subsequent complications after SR and more breast operations. The risk for complications should be carefully balanced with the psychosocial and technical benefits of IR. Select high-risk patients may benefit from consideration of delayed rather than immediate implant reconstruction to decrease breast complications after mastectomy.