RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: For surgery of brain metastases, good immediate postoperative functional outcome is of utmost importance. Improved functional status can enable further oncologic therapies and adverse events might delay them. Pros and cons of either sitting or prone positioning for resective surgery of the posterior fossa are debated, but contemporary data on direct postoperative outcome are rare. The aim of our study was to compare the functional outcome and adverse events of surgery for brain metastases in the sitting versus the nonsitting position in the direct postoperative setting. METHODS: We retrospectively compared surgery of metastases located in the posterior fossa over a 3-year period in two level-A neurosurgical centers. Center 1 performed surgery exclusively in the sitting, while center 2 performed surgery only in the nonsitting position. RESULTS: Worse functional outcome (Karnofsky performance scale) and functional deterioration were seen in the "sitting" group. We found significantly more "sitting" patients to deteriorate to a KPS score of ≤60%. In this study, treating patients with brain metastases in the sitting position resulted in a number needed to harm (NNH) of 2.3 and was associated with worse outcome and more adverse events. CONCLUSION: Therefore, we recommend the nonsitting position for surgery of brain metastases of the posterior fossa.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) generally present with chronic widespread pain, accompanied by a range of additional and non-specific symptoms, such as fatigue, disturbed sleep, and cognitive dysfunction, which tend to increase with overall severity. Previous studies have shown moderate cognitive impairment in patients with FMS, but there are few valid data explicitly assessing the relevance of these findings to everyday functions, such as driving ability. Therefore, we studied patients with FMS to assess the impact of FMS on tests that predict driving ability. METHODS: Female patients with FMS were prospectively compared to a historical control group of healthy volunteers. The test battery comprised assessments of visual orientation, concentration, attention, vigilance, motor coordination, performance under stress, and reaction time. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients were matched to 129 controls. The results indicated that the patients' psychomotor and cognitive performances were significantly non-inferior when compared to healthy controls (with 0.05% alcohol), with the exception of motor coordination. Patients and healthy controls showed an age-related decline in test performance. Correlations were smaller in patients and reversed for vigilance which was linked to a greater FMS symptom load in younger patients. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study demonstrate that, in general, the driving ability of patients with FMS was not inferior to that of healthy volunteers based on a standardized computer-based test battery. However, variables, such as younger age, depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain, and poor motor coordination, likely contribute to the subjective perception of cognitive dysfunction in FMS.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Despite the fact that buprenorphine is effective, well tolerated and due to its pharmacological profile a very safe drug, the impact of long-term buprenorphine substitution therapy on complex psychomotor and cognitive function predicting driving ability is not yet clear. Therefore, a prospective comparison between patients receiving sublingual buprenorphine and a control group of untreated, healthy volunteers was performed. METHODS: Treated and untreated subjects were matched for age and sex, with three control subjects selected for every buprenorphine patient. Patients using unreported drugs were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; the remaining patients were analysed as the per-protocol (PP) group. The test battery comprised the assessment of: performance during stress, visual orientation, concentration, attention, vigilance and reaction time. The primary endpoint was defined as the sum of the relevant scores of the tests after z-transformation of the individual scores. RESULTS: 30 patients with sublingual buprenorphine treatment (7.7±3.9 mg per day) were matched to 90 controls. 19 patients were excluded from the PP-analysis because of additional unreported drug intake. Significant non-inferiority could be demonstrated for the PP-group (p<0.05) as well as for the ITT-group (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving a stable dose of sublingual buprenorphine showed no significant impairment of complex psychomotor or cognitive performance as compared to healthy controls. However intake of illicit drugs as well as the lack of social reliability are major problems in this specific patients group. Despite of the absence of a relevant impact of the drug on driving ability, those patients do not seem to be qualified for getting their driving license.