Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: In patients with atrial fibrillation, 90% of embolic strokes originate from the left atrial appendage (LAA). Successful exclusion of the LAA is associated with a lower stroke rate in patients with atrial fibrillation. Surgical oversewing of the LAA is often incomplete when evaluated with transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE). External closure techniques of suturing and stapling have also demonstrated high failure rates with persistent flow and large stumps. We hypothesized that the precise visualization of a robotic LAA closure (RLAAC) would result in superior closure rates. METHODS: Before robotic mitral repair, patients underwent RLAAC; the base of the LAA was oversewn using a running 4-0 polytetrafluoroethylene suture in two layers. Postoperatively, the LAA was interrogated in multiple TEE views. Incomplete closure was defined as any flow across the LAA suture line or a residual stump of greater than 1 cm. RESULTS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients underwent RLAAC; no injuries occurred. On postrepair TEE, 73 of 79 patients had LAAs visualized well enough to thoroughly evaluate. Successful ligation was confirmed in 64 (87.7%) of 73 patients. Seven patients (9.6%) had small jet flow into the LAA; no residual stumps were noted. Two patients (2.7%) had undetermined flow. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated excellent success with RLAAC; we postulate that this may be due to improved intracardiac visualization. Robotic LAA closure was more successful (87.7%) than previously reported results from the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study for suture exclusion (45.5%) and staple closure (72.7%). With success rates equivalent to transcatheter device closures, RLAAC should be considered for robotic mitral valve surgical patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes related to analgesia, function, mortality, and adverse effects of oral opioid analgesics and spinal steroid injections on low back pain syndromes. DESIGN: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched in September 2009 using combinations of terms related to spinal pain and its treatment. A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with low back pain syndromes and that evaluated patient outcomes after intervention using either oral opioids or spinal steroid injections. RESULTS: Eight high-quality and ten moderate-quality randomized controlled trials were identified. One high-quality study on oral opioid therapy showed significant improvements in pain relief and patient function. Those on spinal steroid injections had a decreased Visual Analog Scale pain score by 7.18 (95% confidence interval, 2.21-12.1) points more than the control group at 1 mo or less and by 0.429 (95% confidence interval, -4.41 to 5.27) points at 1-3 mos. At more than 6 mos, there was no significant benefit: 0.930 (95% confidence interval, -5.03 to 6.89). Spinal steroids decreased the Oswestry Disability Index by 3.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.480-6.57) at 1 mo or less, by -0.281 (95% confidence interval, -3.18 to 2.62) at 1-3 mos, by -11.0 (95% confidence interval, -14.8 to -7.16) at 3-6 mos, and by -0.205 (95% confidence interval, -3.50 to 3.09) compared with the control group at 6 mos or more, suggesting that there was improvement in function. All-cause mortality was low in our analysis of patients attending specialty clinics. It was difficult to assess the adverse effects of opioid therapy because they influenced up to 28% of patients to withdraw from the original studies. In terms of spinal steroid injections, headache appeared to be the most common adverse effect. However, there was no significantly increased risk of headaches associated with spinal steroids compared with control injections: odds ratio, 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: Oral opioid therapy may be helpful for the treatment of low back pain, but it is unclear from the high-quality literature whether there are limitations from adverse effects. Spinal steroid injections are beneficial for low back pain and disability in the short-term. The high dropout rates caused by insufficient pain relief and adverse effects suggest that opioids may not be as effective as spinal steroid injections. There is more high-quality literature to support the use of spinal steroid injections compared with oral opioids in this condition

Significant numbers of patients with chronic LBP are caught in a steady state of receiving long-term opioids vs. serial spinal steroid injections. Given efforts reduce healthcare costs and minimize AE, it is imperative that the outcomes from these two treatment arms be compared using the same criteria. Objectives: examine outcomes related to analgesia, function, mortality, and AE. Methods: Relevant databases were searched. Articles meeting following criteria were selected for review: (1) open-label or blind prospective RCT (2) subjects diagnosed with non-neoplastic LBP or lumbar radiculopathy, aged >18, and treated with oral opioids or spinal steroid injections. Results: Eight high-quality and 10 moderatequality RCTs were identified. Patients receiving spinal steroid injections' pain decreased by VAS, by 7.18[95%CI 2.21-12.1] points greater than the control at <1 month and by 0.429[95%CI (-)4.41-5.27] points at 1-3 months. At >6 months no significant benefit 0.930[95%CI (-)5.03-6.89]. High-quality study on oral opioids showed improvements in patients' analgesia. Spinal steroids decreased ODI by 3.53[95%CI 0.480-6.57] at <1 month, by (-)0.281[95%CI (-)3.18-2.62] at 1-3 months, by (-)11.0[95%CI (-)14.8-(-)7.16] at 3-6 months, and by (-)0.205[95%CI (-)3.50-3.09] at >=6 months, suggesting short-term improvement in function. High-quality study on opioids showed improved function. More AE associated with opioid use but no mortality with either intervention. Conclusions: Oral opioids helpful for treatment of LBP but there are limitations due to AE. Spinal steroid injections beneficial for LBP and disability in the short-term. High dropout rates from insufficient pain relief suggest that opioids may not be as effective as spinal steroids for LBP. There is more high-quality literature to support use of spinal steroid injections compared to oral opioids

PURPOSE: To explore the option of using anticonvulsant drugs to modulate pain from corneal erosions. METHODS: N.M. is a 28-year-old woman with posttraumatic recurrent corneal erosions treated with bandage contact lenses, Muro-128, topical ketorolac, doxycycline, stromal micropuncture, and laser epithelial keratomileusis over the course of 4 years. Because of persistent episodes of corneal pain, she was prescribed topiramate. RESULTS: Before starting topiramate therapy, N.M. had experienced 3-4 awakenings at night because of pain and 5-6 episodes of spontaneous tearing and pain during the day. She started topiramate at 25 mg orally 4 times a day without significant change in her symptoms. After 1 week, the dose was escalated to 50 mg orally 4 times a day, and within 1 day, she experienced 0-1 awakenings at night. She had approximately 2-3 episodes of pain and tearing during the day. The dose was escalated to 100 mg orally 4 times a day. At that dose, the patient continued to have pain relief but complained of nausea. The patient's topiramate was weaned off to determine whether her symptom relief was caused by the medication or improvement in her condition. Once off the topiramate, N.M.'s nausea resolved but her corneal symptoms returned at the same frequency as before the initiation of topiramate. Therefore, she was restarted on topiramate 50 mg orally 4 times a day with rapid onset of improvement in her symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Anticonvulsants such as topiramate may be effective in the management of pain caused by recurrent corneal erosions