The employment of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to communicate the likely benefits of surgery

Patients and Spine Surgeons' Perspectives regarding Decision-Making and Outcomes in Lumbar Surgery: An Exploratory, Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Decision-making in lumbar surgery for degenerative conditions is influenced by various factors, including patient expectations and empowerment. The role of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in guiding these decisions is underexplored. This study aims to understand the perspectives of patients and spine surgeons in decision-making for lumbar surgery and explore their perspectives on the relevance and influence of pre- and post-surgery PROs.

METHODS

An exploratory qualitative study was conducted between February 2022 and November 2023. A total of 15 patients with degenerative lumbar conditions and 9 spine surgeons from 5 tertiary public hospitals in Singapore were recruited. Data were analyzed using a framework analysis approach, ensuring validity through member checking, reflexive journals, and data source triangulation.

RESULTS

Three overarching categories emerged: "expectations and outcomes," "decision empowerment," and "surgical experiences." There is a shift toward shared decision-making, highlighting the importance of patient-centric approaches. Surgical decisions are primarily influenced by PROs, particularly health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain relief. Patients prioritize pain relief and improvements in daily functioning, while surgeons also emphasize avoiding postoperative complications. Decision support tools, including PRO data, are essential but need better accessibility and integration within clinical settings. Positive surgical experiences are driven by clear communication, trust with surgeons, swift recovery, and no regrets post-surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study emphasizes the importance of patient-centered approaches in lumbar surgery decision-making, particularly regarding pre- and post-surgery PROs. Implementing these approaches may enhance patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes, urging the surgical community to prioritize informed, empathetic decision-making to improve healthcare quality.

Exploring Decisional Conflict Experienced by Individuals Considering Metoidioplasty and Phalloplasty Gender-affirming Surgery

Background

Metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery (MaPGAS) is increasingly performed and requires patients to make complex decisions that may lead to decisional uncertainty. This study aimed to evaluate decisional conflict in individuals considering MaPGAS.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey to adult participants assigned female sex at birth and considering MaPGAS, recruited via social media platforms and community health centers. We collected data on demographics, medical and surgical history, MaPGAS type considered, and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). DCS scores range from 0 to 100 (>37.5 indicates greater decisional conflict). Demographic characteristics and DCS scores were compared between subgroups, using descriptive and chi-square statistics. Participants commented on MaPGAS uncertainty, and their comments were evaluated and thematically analyzed.

Results

Responses from 264 participants were analyzed: mean age 29 years; 64% (n = 168) trans men, 80% (n = 210) White, 78% (n = 206) nonrural, 45% (n = 120) privately insured, 56% (n = 148) had 4 or more years of college, 23% (n = 84) considering metoidioplasty, 24% (n = 87) considering phalloplasty, and 26% (n = 93) considering metoidioplasty and phalloplasty. DCS total scores were significantly higher (39.8; P < 0.001) among those considering both MaPGAS options, as were mean ratings on the Uncertainty subscale [64.1 (SD 25.5; P < 0.001)]. Concerns surrounding complications were the top factor contributing to uncertainty and decisional conflict.

Conclusions

In a cross-sectional national sample of individuals seeking MaPGAS, decisional uncertainty was the highest for those considering both MaPGAS options compared with metoidioplasty or phalloplasty alone. This suggests this cohort would benefit from focused decision support.

The transverse upper gracilis flap for autologous breast reconstruction: patient satisfaction outcomes from a single centre experience

Background

The transverse upper gracilis (TUG) flap procedure is an alternative procedure for autologous breast reconstruction, that is indicated in patients with a low body mass index (BMI) and small to moderate sized breasts. We investigated patient satisfaction of all TUG flap breast reconstructions at Royal Free Hospital.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients who had undergone a TUG flap procedure was performed using Electronic Patient Records between October 2010 and October 2021 in Royal Free Hospital. We collected patient demographic data and surveyed our cohort by telephone, investigating patient satisfaction with a 31-item questionnaire.

Results

From 2010 to 2021, 57 TUG procedures for autologous breast reconstruction were carried out on 36 patients. One patient died 6 years postoperatively. Patient age ranged from 29-74 with an average of 49.5 years. Also, 3/57 flaps failed, and 1 patient died 6 years postoperatively. Twenty one out of 35 patients responded to the telephone call survey. Out of the survey respondents 11/21 underwent unilateral breast reconstruction and 10/21 underwent bilateral breast reconstruction. The BODY-Q scale in appraisal of thighs reported an overall patient satisfaction mean score of 75.6±27.4 points. The BREAST-Q scale in breast satisfaction reported an overall patient satisfaction mean score of 61.5±24.1 points. Overall, 19/21 of patients were satisfied with the outcome of the TUG procedure.

Conclusions

Royal Free Hospital reported excellent patient satisfaction scores. The TUG procedure is a suitable method for patient's undergoing autologous breast reconstruction. However, patient expectations regarding breast satisfaction should be managed.

Operationalizing PROMs at the Musculoskeletal Practice and Policy Levels

There continues to be growing interest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), especially as value-based healthcare initiatives gain more traction. Although it is well-established that PROMs can be useful in clinical research, how to operationalize PROMs in clinical care and policy initiatives remains a "work in progress." Following the design of a comprehensive PROM administration and routine collection system, orthopaedic surgeons and their patients can reap the benefits of PROMs in practice through improved shared clinical decision-making discussions at the individual patient level and closer symptom monitoring on a large scale, with improved resource allocation at the population health level. Although certain government and payer incentives exist to collect PROMs at present, it is reasonable to assume that future policy initiatives will begin to use the actual PROM scores to assess clinical outcomes. Orthopaedic surgeons with interest in this area should prioritize their involvement in policy discussion to ensure PROMs are being used appropriately in novel payment models and policy endeavors so that they are both evaluated and compensated fairly. Specifically, orthopaedic surgeons can help ensure appropriate risk adjustment of patients when this is being done. Undoubtedly, PROMs will only become a larger part of musculoskeletal care moving forward.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice and Clinical Decision Making

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are highly effective measures of quality of care and outcomes that matter to patients regarding their physical, mental, and social health. While PROMs have played a notable role in research and registry reporting, they are also useful as clinical tools. Real-time PROM collection can be integrated into routine clinical care with immediate access to scores within the electronic health record. This can be integral when discussing treatment options and using decision aids. PROM scores can also be useful for postoperative monitoring. Various approaches to quantifying clinical efficacy have been developed, including the minimal clinically important difference, the substantial clinical benefit, and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). As the patient experience and patient-reported outcome measurement of health-related outcomes become increasingly emphasized in patient-centered, high value care, so too will the importance of methods to gauge clinical benefit using these instruments for improved clinical decision-making.

Selection of patient-reported outcomes measures for implementation in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) assesses safety after metabolic and bariatric surgery and the impact on weight and obesity-related diseases. However, changes in quality of life are likely what matters most to patients, and these are not currently assessed. The best way to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is to use validated patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), which capture patients' perspectives of their quality of life both before and after surgery.

OBJECTIVES

Identify the outcomes most important to bariatric surgery patients and identify the most appropriate validated PROMs to implement in a national program for the MBSAQIP.

SETTING

Five hospitals from a single healthcare system in New England.

METHODS

A series of 18 focus groups and/or interviews conducted with patients, patients' family members, and bariatric health providers determined the outcomes most important to bariatric patients and which validated PROMs would accurately measure those outcomes. Immersion crystallization was used to analyze focus group data and identify appropriate PROMs.

RESULTS

Focus group participants ranked health as the most important outcome for metabolic and bariatric surgery. Self-confidence, mobility, and everyday activities were the next highest ranked HRQoL domains. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Item Global Health Survey was selected as the general health measure. The Obesity-Related Problems scale and the Obesity and Weight-Loss Quality of Life Instrument were the disease-specific measures selected for inclusion in the MBSAQIP PROMs program.

CONCLUSION

The addition of PROMs to the MBSAQIP provides a unique opportunity to monitor HRQoL at the national level, which can foster improved shared decision-making before surgery.

Patient decision support interventions for candidates considering elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The increase in elective surgeries and varied postoperative patient outcomes has boosted the use of patient decision support interventions (PDSIs). However, evidence on the effectiveness of PDSIs are not updated. This systematic review aims to summarize the effects of PDSIs for surgical candidates considering elective surgeries and to identify their moderators with an emphasis on the type of targeted surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating PDSIs among elective surgical candidates. We documented the effects on invasive treatment choice, decision-making-related outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource use. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations were adopted to rate the risk of bias of individual trials and certainty of evidence, respectively. STATA 16 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight trials comprising 14 981 adults from 11 countries were included. Overall, PDSIs had no effect on invasive treatment choice (risk ratio=0.97; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.04), consultation time (mean difference=0.04 min; 95% CI: -0.17, 0.24), or patient-reported outcomes, but had a beneficial effect on decisional conflict (Hedges' g =-0.29; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.16), disease and treatment knowledge (Hedges' g =0.32; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.49), decision-making preparedness (Hedges' g =0.22; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.34), and decision quality (risk ratio=1.98; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.39). Treatment choice varied with surgery type and self-guided PDSIs had a greater effect on disease and treatment knowledge enhancement than clinician-delivered PDSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated that PDSIs targeting individuals considering elective surgeries had benefited their decision-making by reducing decisional conflict and increasing disease and treatment knowledge, decision-making preparedness, and decision quality. These findings may be used to guide the development and evaluation of new PDSIs for elective surgical care.

Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Skull Base Diseases-Analysis of Feasibility and Pitfalls Two Years after Implementation

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment is becoming increasingly important in neurosurgery following the trend toward patient-centered care, especially in the context of skull base diseases. The current study evaluates the systematic assessment of HRQoL using digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a tertiary care center specialized in skull base diseases. The methodology and feasibility to conduct digital PROMs using both generic and disease-specific questionnaires were investigated. Infrastructural and patient-specific factors affecting participation and response rates were analyzed. Since August 2020, 158 digital PROMs were implemented in skull base patients presenting for specialized outpatient consultations. Reduced personnel capacity led to significantly fewer PROMs being conducted during the second versus (vs.) the first year after introduction (mean: 0.77 vs. 2.47 per consultation day, p = 0.0002). The mean age of patients not completing vs. those completing long-term assessments was significantly higher (59.90 vs. 54.11 years, p = 0.0136). Follow-up response rates tended to be increased with recent surgery rather than with the wait-and-scan strategy. Our strategy of conducting digital PROMs appears suitable for assessing HRQoL in skull base diseases. The availability of medical personnel for implementation and supervision was essential. Response rates during follow-up tended to be higher both with younger age and after recent surgery.

Pre-Visit Digital Messaging Improves Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Participation Prior to the Orthopaedic Ambulatory Visit: Results from a Double-Blinded, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are metrics that assess physical health, mental health, pain, and satisfaction. However, PROM collection in orthopaedic clinics presents numerous logistical and financial challenges. These challenges are reduced when PROMs are completed before clinic encounters, relieving the workflow constraints of in-office PROM collection. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of 3 different methods with respect to pre-visit electronic PROM completion.

METHODS

Consecutive adult orthopaedic patients with no previous PROM participation were enrolled. Patients who registered with the electronic medical record (EMR) patient portal (MyChart) and with active e-mail addresses were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms: control (no pre-visit messages), MyChart (EMR patient portal pre-visit messages), and e-mail (e-mail pre-visit messages). The primary outcome measure was pre-visit PROM completion rates in orthopaedic patients, and the secondary outcome measures were time to pre-visit PROM form completion and PROM form completion rates according to patient demographic characteristics. By default, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms were available for completion through the portal by 7 days before scheduled visits. Pre-visit messages were sent 7 days prior to the scheduled visit except in the control group, with reminders sent 3 days prior if still not completed. The patients in each arm who completed all assigned forms were labeled as having total PROM completion, and those who completed at least 1 completed form were considered as having partial PROM completion. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess differences in PROM completion rates between study arms. Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to compare the date of the form completion.

RESULTS

A total of 291 patients were included. The pre-visit total completion rates for assigned PROMs were higher in the MyChart arm (49% of 97 patients; p = 0.005) and the e-mail arm (52% of 100 patients; p = 0.002) in comparison with the control arm (30% of 94 patients). Male patients were more likely than female patients to have partial pre-visit PROM completion (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; p = 0.03), and Caucasian patients were more likely to have partial pre-visit PROM completion than African American patients (OR, 2.28; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic patients receiving either e-mail or patient portal messages demonstrated higher pre-visit PROM completion rates. Pre-visit messaging appears to be a useful strategy for increasing PROM completion rates and limiting the clinical workflow strain imposed by in-clinic PROM administration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Exploring the factors that influence stakeholders' expectations and subsequent perception of lower limb orthopaedic surgical outcomes for ambulant children with cerebral palsy - a qualitative study

PURPOSE

To explore the perspectives of children with CP, their parents or carers, and health professionals on factors affecting expectations and perceptions of surgical outcomes for lower limb orthopaedic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 healthcare professionals, 10 children and young people with CP, and 8 parents. Interview data were analysed by content analysis supported by the Framework Approach using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF-CY).

RESULTS

A comprehensive list of 10 factors including facilitators, barriers, motivational and demotivational factors were identified and categorized into two overreaching themes (Environmental and Personal factors): interdisciplinary collaboration, communication and information resources, holistic care, and shared goal setting are reported as environment facilitators of outcomes expectations. In contrast, reported barriers include lack of time and resources and divergent expectations. Personal motivators include family encouragement, patient's self-determination, and previous experiences, whereas personal demotivators include fear of a new environment.

CONCLUSION

The recognition of potential factors influencing expectations and perceptions of surgical outcomes could assist clinical reasoning when planning surgical interventions for ambulant children with CP. If these factors are integrated into the healthcare practice, it will most likely enhance the positive stakeholders' experiences postoperatively.IMPLICATION FOR REHABILITATIONUnderstanding relevant stakeholders' experiences offer a positive contribution to holistic and person-centred approaches in healthcare.People with cerebral palsy and their caregivers require adequate information on surgery and post-surgical rehabilitation regime in order to reach informed decisions.Previous experiences can influence surgical expectations and subsequent perceptions of the outcome.

Is the Promise of PROMs Being Realized? Implementation Experience in a Large Orthopedic Practice

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), increasingly used for research and quality measurement, are lauded for their potential to improve patient-centered care, both through aggregate reporting and when integrated into clinical practice. However, there are few published studies of the resultant use of PROMs in clinical practice. This case study describes the implementation and use of PROMS in a Midwestern multispecialty medical group orthopedic practice among patients undergoing total knee and hip surgery. Specifically, rates of PROMs use by care teams are tracked over time once made available in the electronic health record. During this time, the orthopedics department achieved a patient PROMS survey response rate of 68% at baseline, 58% 3 months post-surgery, and 55% 12 months post-surgery. However, these data were only accessed by the care teams for fewer than 1% of associated clinical encounters. This suggests that making PROMs available for care team review in the electronic health record, even when coupled with relatively high response rates from patients and departmental leadership support is not enough to encourage integration of PROMs into clinical care for patients. Additional effort is required to identify barriers to PROMs use in clinical care and to test methods to enhance use.

Surgeon Engagement with Patient-Reported Measures in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Practices

PURPOSE

Patient-reported measures are an important emerging metric in outcome monitoring; however, they remain ill-defined and underutilized in bariatric clinical practice. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of patient-reported measures employed in bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, including barriers to their implementation and to what extent clinicians are receptive to their use.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to all bariatric surgeons actively contributing to the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry (n = 176). Participants reported their use of patient-reported measures and identified the most important and useful outcomes of patient-reported data for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Responses from 64 participants reported on 120 public and private bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Most participants reported no collection of any patient-reported measure (39 of 64; 60.9%), citing insufficient staff time or resources as the primary barrier to the collection of both patient-reported experience measures (34 of 102 practices; 33.3%) and patient-reported outcome measures (30 of 84 practices; 35.7%). Participants indicated data collection by the Registry would be useful (47 of 57; 82.5%), highlighting the most valuable application to be a monitoring tool, facilitating increased understanding of patient health needs, increased reporting of symptoms, and enhanced patient-physician communication.

CONCLUSION

Despite the current lack of patient-reported measures, there is consensus that such data would be valuable in bariatric practices. Widespread collection of patient-reported measures by registries could improve the collective quality of the data, while avoiding implementation barriers faced by individual surgeons and hospitals.

Shared Decision-Making and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Valvular Heart Disease

Patient-centered health care emphasizes shared decision-making (SDM), incorporating both clinical evidence and patient preferences and values. SDM is important in heart valve disease, both because there might be more than one treatment option and due to the importance of adherence after intervention. We aimed to describe patient information and involvement in decision-making about care and recording of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in valve interventions. The opinion piece and recommendations are based upon literature review and our own experience from specialist valve clinics. Before a valve intervention, adequate patient information, discussion of the various treatment options and exploring patient preferences, in line with the concept of SDM, may improve post-intervention quality of life. After intervention, patients with prosthetic heart valves require adequate counseling and close follow-up to make them more confident and competent to manage their own health, as well as to maintain the efficacy of treatment provided. PROMs inform SDM before and improve care after valve intervention, focusing on outcomes beyond mortality and morbidity. SDM may improve post-intervention quality of life. Formal PROMs questionnaires inform SDM, quantify patient centered changes and should be used more often in clinical practice and research. A thorough assessment of baseline frailty status in patients scheduled for valve intervention is essential and may affect postoperative outcome.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders?

METHODS

A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process.

RESULTS

Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not.

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Rhinoplasty: A Multidisciplinary Performance Measure Set

SUMMARY

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery commissioned the multidisciplinary Rhinoplasty Performance Measure Development Work Group to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing both functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty. One outcome measure and three process measures were identified. The outcome looked at patient satisfaction with rhinoplasty procedures. The process measures look at motivations and expectations of the procedure, airway assessment, and nonnarcotic shared decision-making strategies for pain management. All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality and Performance Measures Work Group and Executive Committee, and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Rhinoplasty Society, and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. The Work Group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, Continuing Medical Education, Maintenance of Certification, Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality reporting programs.

Patient-reported outcome measures after mitral valve repair: a comparison between minimally invasive and sternotomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare patient-reported outcome measures of minimally invasive (MI) to sternotomy (ST) mitral valve repair.

METHODS

We included all patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery via either a right mini-thoracotomy (MI) or ST over a 36-month period. Patients were asked to complete a modified Composite Physical Function questionnaire. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures were compared between 2 propensity-matched groups (n = 47/group), assessing 3 domains: 'Recovery Time', 'Postoperative Pain' (at day 2 and 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks) and 'Treatment Satisfaction'. Composite scores for each domain were subsequently constructed and multivariable analysis was used to determine whether surgical approach was associated with domain scores.

RESULTS

The response rate was 79%. There was no mortality in either group. In the matched groups, operative times were longer in the MI group (P < 0.001), but postoperative outcomes were similar. Composite scores for Recovery Time [ST 51.7 (31.8-62.1) vs MI 61.7 (43.1-73.9), P = 0.03] and Pain [ST 65.7 (40.1-83.1) vs MI 79.1 (65.5-89.5), P = 0.02] significantly favoured the MI group. Scores in the Treatment Satisfaction domain were high for both surgical approaches [ST 100 (82.5-100) vs MI 100 (95.0-100), P = 0.15]. The strongest independent predictor of both faster recovery parameter estimate 12.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7-18.3, P < 0.001] and less pain parameter estimate 7.6 (95% CI 0.7-14.5, P = 0.03) was MI surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

MI surgery was associated with faster recovery and less pain; treatment satisfaction and safety profiles were similar.

The potential use for patient reported outcome measures in people with pancreatic cancer, with a specific focus on older patients

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies and is characterised by high-unmet physical and psychological supportive care needs. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) represent a patient centred approach to address the high unmet supportive care need and improve the quality of care. PROMs have the potential to inform patients about the quality of life and symptom trajectory for different treatment approaches so that they can fully participate in shared decisions about treatment. Embedding the collection of PROMs into routine practice alongside clinical alerts and directed symptom interventions is acceptable and feasible for people with pancreatic cancer and has the potential to reduce symptom burden. There is also limited information on survival, quality of life and the holistic impact of treatment for older pancreatic cancer patients, therefore, PROMs provide an opportunity to understand the impact of treatment on older patients and better inform shared treatment decision-making.

Results of mechanical versus tissue AVR: caution in young patients with tissue AVR

The first aortic valve prosthesis, implanted more than 50 years ago, was a mechanical prosthesis (ball-and-cage design). Over the ensuing decades, tissue prostheses and new mechanical designs were introduced to mitigate the need for anticoagulation with its associated side effects. Tissue and mechanical heart valve prostheses were compared in two head-to-head randomised control trials. Both of these confirmed that mechanical prostheses were durable but patients suffered anticoagulant-related bleeds. Patients who received a tissue prosthesis were more likely to suffer prosthetic dysfunction and require reoperation. This trend was stronger in younger patients. Since the publication of those two trials, several large retrospective studies using data from meta-analyses of published papers or registries have failed to show a survival advantage of either prostheses when implanted in the aortic position in younger patients. This equipoise has been reflected in the heart valve disease guidelines published by European and US societies. In recent years, the primacy of patient choice, the rapid increase in life expectancy of populations, the increased incidence of atrial fibrillation with requirement for anticoagulation, the advent of transcatheter techniques to treat degenerating tissue valves as well as advances in anticoagulant therapy and in new tissue and to a lesser extent mechanical prosthetic design continue to influence choice of aortic valve prosthesis in younger patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.