Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Joint denervation has been proposed as a less invasive option for surgical management of hand arthritis that preserves joint anatomy while treating pain and decreasing postoperative recovery times. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of surgical joint denervation for osteoarthritis in the joints of the hand. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were searched from January 2000 to March 2019. Studies of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis of the hand who underwent joint denervation surgery were included. Two reviewers performed the screening process, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies). This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (#125811). Ten studies were included, 9 case series and 1 cohort study, with a total of 192 patients. In all studies, joint denervation improved pain and hand function at follow-up (M = 36.8 months, range = 3-90 months). Pooled analysis of 3 studies on the first carpometacarpal joint showed a statistically significant ( P < .001) reduction in pain scores from baseline (M = 6.61 ± 2.03) to postoperatively (M = 1.69 ± 1.27). The combined complication rate was 18.8% (n = 36 of 192), with neuropathic pain or unintended sensory loss (8.8%, n = 17 of 192) being the most common. This review suggests that denervation may be an effective and low-morbidity procedure for treating arthritis of the hand. Prospective, comparative studies are required to further understand the outcomes of denervation compared with traditional surgical interventions.

No abstract

Background Patients undergoing hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, such patients with pancreatic, periampullary, and liver cancer, are at high risk for malnutrition. Malnutrition increases surgical complications and reduces overall survival. Despite its severity, there are limited interventions addressing malnutrition after HPB surgery. The aim of this pilot trial was to examine feasibility, acceptability, usability, and preliminary efficacy of a remote nutrition monitoring intervention after HPB surgery. Methods Participants received tailored nutritional counseling before and after surgery at 2 and 4 weeks after hospital discharge. Participants also recorded nutritional intake daily for 30 days, and these data were reviewed remotely by registered dietitians before nutritional counseling visits. Descriptive statistics were used to describe study outcomes. Results All 26 patients approached to participate consented to the trial before HPB surgery. Seven were excluded after consent for failing to meet eligibility criteria (e.g., did not receive surgery). Nineteen participants (52.6% female, median age = 65 years) remained eligible for remote monitoring post-surgery. Nineteen used the mobile app food diary, 79% of participants recorded food intake for greater than 80% of study days, 95% met with the dietitian for all visits, and 89% were highly satisfied with the intervention. Among participants with complete data, the average percent caloric goal obtained was 82.4% (IQR: 21.7). Conclusions This intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients undergoing HPB surgery. Preliminary efficacy data showed most participants were able to meet calorie intake goals. Future studies should examine intervention efficacy in a larger, randomized controlled trial. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov. Registered 16 September 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04091165.

No abstract