SAN DIEGO – For middle-aged men with diabetes, odds of erectile dysfunction are 50-50 at 50: By the age of 50, a full half will have the condition.

This isn’t normal for men of that age, according to Hunter B. Wessells, MD.“It’s not just that they’re aging. It’s a 20-year acceleration of the aging process,” he said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That’s not all. In some cases, men with diabetes may experience decreased libido that’s potentially caused by low testosterone, said Dr. Wessells, professor and Wilma Wise Nelson, Ole A. Nelson, and Mabel Wise Nelson Endowed Chair in Urology at the University of Washington, Seattle

SAN DIEGO – For middle-aged men with diabetes, odds of erectile dysfunction are 50-50 at 50: By the age of 50, a full half will have the condition.

This isn’t normal for men of that age, according to Hunter B. Wessells, MD.“It’s not just that they’re aging. It’s a 20-year acceleration of the aging process,” he said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That’s not all. In some cases, men with diabetes may experience decreased libido that’s potentially caused by low testosterone, said Dr. Wessells, professor and Wilma Wise Nelson, Ole A. Nelson, and Mabel Wise Nelson Endowed Chair in Urology at the University of Washington, Seattle

SAN DIEGO – For middle-aged men with diabetes, odds of erectile dysfunction are 50-50 at 50: By the age of 50, a full half will have the condition.

This isn’t normal for men of that age, according to Hunter B. Wessells, MD.“It’s not just that they’re aging. It’s a 20-year acceleration of the aging process,” he said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That’s not all. In some cases, men with diabetes may experience decreased libido that’s potentially caused by low testosterone, said Dr. Wessells, professor and Wilma Wise Nelson, Ole A. Nelson, and Mabel Wise Nelson Endowed Chair in Urology at the University of Washington, Seattle

For the July-August issue of the Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, the Editor-in-Chief, Dr David Henry, discusses a recap by Howard Burris, MD, of the top presentations at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, and a selection of articles on some of the key findings reported at the meeting. A number of articles, in keeping with the journal mission of delivering content that can inform or change daily practice in the community setting, provide ‘how-to’ clinical and supportive advice. They include an outline by Thomas J Smith of Johns Hopkins University of how to initiate goals-of-care conversations with patients and their family members; a review of managing polycythemia vera in the community oncology setting; a New Therapies feature on how immunotherapies are shaping the treatment of hematologic malignancies; and research articles on using Onodera’s Prognostic Nutritional Index to predict wound complications in patients with soft tissue sarcoma, and bone remodeling associated with CTLA-4 inhibition. A third research article assesses a multidisciplinary survivorship program in a group of predominantly Hispanic women with breast cancer. Also in the line-up for discussion are Case Reports, one on managing high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma in a patient with colon metastasis and another on intramedullary spinal cord and leptomeningeal metastases presenting as cauda equina syndrome in a patient with melanoma.

Listen to the podcast below.

For the July-August issue of the Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, the Editor-in-Chief, Dr David Henry, discusses a recap by Howard Burris, MD, of the top presentations at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, and a selection of articles on some of the key findings reported at the meeting. A number of articles, in keeping with the journal mission of delivering content that can inform or change daily practice in the community setting, provide ‘how-to’ clinical and supportive advice. They include an outline by Thomas J Smith of Johns Hopkins University of how to initiate goals-of-care conversations with patients and their family members; a review of managing polycythemia vera in the community oncology setting; a New Therapies feature on how immunotherapies are shaping the treatment of hematologic malignancies; and research articles on using Onodera’s Prognostic Nutritional Index to predict wound complications in patients with soft tissue sarcoma, and bone remodeling associated with CTLA-4 inhibition. A third research article assesses a multidisciplinary survivorship program in a group of predominantly Hispanic women with breast cancer. Also in the line-up for discussion are Case Reports, one on managing high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma in a patient with colon metastasis and another on intramedullary spinal cord and leptomeningeal metastases presenting as cauda equina syndrome in a patient with melanoma.

Listen to the podcast below.

For the July-August issue of the Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, the Editor-in-Chief, Dr David Henry, discusses a recap by Howard Burris, MD, of the top presentations at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, and a selection of articles on some of the key findings reported at the meeting. A number of articles, in keeping with the journal mission of delivering content that can inform or change daily practice in the community setting, provide ‘how-to’ clinical and supportive advice. They include an outline by Thomas J Smith of Johns Hopkins University of how to initiate goals-of-care conversations with patients and their family members; a review of managing polycythemia vera in the community oncology setting; a New Therapies feature on how immunotherapies are shaping the treatment of hematologic malignancies; and research articles on using Onodera’s Prognostic Nutritional Index to predict wound complications in patients with soft tissue sarcoma, and bone remodeling associated with CTLA-4 inhibition. A third research article assesses a multidisciplinary survivorship program in a group of predominantly Hispanic women with breast cancer. Also in the line-up for discussion are Case Reports, one on managing high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma in a patient with colon metastasis and another on intramedullary spinal cord and leptomeningeal metastases presenting as cauda equina syndrome in a patient with melanoma.

Listen to the podcast below.

According to the most recent data (2011–2013), 62% of women of childbearing age (15–44 years) use some method of contraception. Of these “contracepting” women, about 25% reported relying on permanent contraception, making it one of the most common methods of contraception used by women in the United States (FIGURE 1).^1,2 Women either can choose to have a permanent contraception procedure performed immediately postpartum, which occurs after approximately 9% of all hospital deliveries in the United States,³ or at a time separate from pregnancy.

The most common methods of permanent contraception include partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery or within 24 hours after vaginal delivery and laparoscopic occlusive procedures at a time unrelated to the postpartum period.³ Hysteroscopic occlusion of the tubal ostia is a newer option, introduced in 2002; its worldwide use is concentrated in the United States, which accounts for 80% of sales based on revenue.⁴

Historically, for procedures remote from pregnancy, the laparoscopic approach evolved with less sophisticated laparoscopic equipment and limited visualization, which resulted in efficiency and safety being the primary goals of the procedure.⁵ Accordingly, rapid occlusive procedures were commonplace. However, advancement of laparoscopic technology related to insufflation systems, surgical equipment, and video capabilities did not change this practice.

Recent literature has suggested that complete fallopian tube removal provides additional benefits. With increasing knowledge about the origin of ovarian cancer, as well as increasing data to support the hypothesis that complete tubal excision results in increased ovarian cancer protection when compared with occlusive or partial salpingectomies, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)⁶ and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)⁷ recommend discussing bilateral total salpingectomy with patients desiring permanent contraception. Although occlusive procedures decrease a woman’s lifetime risk of ovarian cancer by 24% to 34%,^8,9 total salpingectomy likely reduces this risk by 49% to 65%.^10,11

With this new evidence, McAlpine and colleagues initiated an educational campaign, targeting all ObGyns in British Columbia, which outlined the role of the fallopian tube in ovarian cancer and urged the consideration of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception in place of occlusive or partial salpingectomy procedures. They found that this one-time targeted education increased the use of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception from 0.5% at 2 years before the intervention to 33.3% by 2 years afterwards.¹² On average, laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy took 10 minutes longer to complete than occlusive procedures. Most importantly, they found no significant differences in complication rates, including hospital readmissions or blood transfusions.

Although our community can be applauded for the rapid uptake of concomitant bilateral salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy,^12,13 offering total salpingectomy for permanent contraception is far from common practice. Similarly, while multiple studies have been published to support the practice of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy, little has been published about the use of bilateral salpingectomy for permanent contraception until this past year.

In this article, we review some of the first publications to focus specifically on the feasibility and safety profile of performing either immediate postpartum total salpingectomy or interval total salpingectomy in women desiring permanent contraception.

Read about a total salpingectomy at delivery

Total salpingectomy: A viable option for permanent contraception after vaginal or at cesarean delivery

Shinar S, Blecher Y, Alpern S, et al. Total bilateral salpingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(5):1185-1189.

Danis RB, Della Badia CR, Richard SD. Postpartum permanent sterilization: could bilateral salpingectomy replace bilateral tubal ligation? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):928-932.

Shinar and colleagues presented a retrospective case series that included women undergoing permanent contraception procedures during cesarean delivery at a single tertiary medical center. The authors evaluated outcomes before and after a global hospital policy changed the preferred permanent contraception procedure from partial to total salpingectomy.

Details of the Shinar technique and outcomes

Of the 149 women included, 99 underwent partial salpingectomy via the modified Pomeroy technique and 50 underwent total salpingectomy using an electrothermal bipolar tissue-sealing instrument (Ligasure). The authors found no difference in operative times and similar rates of complications. Composite adverse outcomes, defined as surgery duration greater than 45 minutes, hemoglobin decline greater than 1.2 g/dL, need for blood transfusion, prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, or re-laparotomy, were comparable and were reported as 30.3% and 36.0% in the partial and total salpingectomy groups, respectively, (P = .57).One major complication occurred in the total salpingectomy cohort; postoperatively the patient had hemodynamic instability and was found to have hemoperitoneum requiring exploratory laparotomy. Significant bleeding from the bilateral mesosalpinges was discovered, presumably directly related to the total salpingectomy.

Related article:
Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion: How new product labeling can be a resource for patient counseling

Details of Danis et al

Intuitively, performing salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery does not seem as significant a change in practice as would performing salpingectomy through a small periumbilical incision after vaginal delivery. However, Danis and colleagues did just that; they published a retrospective case series of total salpingectomy performed within 24 hours after a vaginal delivery at an urban, academic institution. They included all women admitted for full-term vaginal deliveries who desired permanent contraception, with no exclusion criteria related to body mass index (BMI). The authors reported on 80 women, including 64 (80%) who underwent partial salpingectomy via the modified Pomeroy or Parkland technique and 16 (20%) who underwent total salpingectomy. Most women had a BMI of less than 30 kg/m²; less than 15% of the women in each group had a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

The technique for total salpingectomy involved a 2- to 3-cm vertical incision at the level of the umbilicus, elevation of the entire fallopian tube with 2 Babcock clamps, followed by the development of 2 to 3 windows with monopolar electrocautery in the mesosalpinx and subsequent suture ligation with polyglactin 910 (Vicryl, Ethicon).

Major findings included slightly longer operative time in the total salpingectomy compared with the partial salpingectomy group (a finding consistent with other studies^12,14,15) and no difference in complication rates. The average (SD) surgical time in the partial salpingectomy group was 59 (16) minutes, compared with 71 (6) minutes in the total salpingectomy group (P = .003). The authors reported 4 (6.3%) complications in the partial salpingectomy group--ileus, excessive bleeding from mesosalpinx, and incisional site hematoma--and no complications in the total salpingectomy group (P = .58).

Read about interval permanent contraception

Feasibility of interval laparoscopic permanent contraception via bilateral salpingectomy 

Westberg J, Scott F, Creinin MD. Safety outcomes of female sterilization by salpingectomy and tubal occlusion. Contraception. 2017;95(5):505-508.

In this retrospective study, authors used billing data to identify women undergoing interval laparoscopic permanent contraception at a single academic medical center. They educated physicians and patients about the potential benefits to ovarian cancer risk with total salpingectomy (similar to the educational initiative done in British Columbia) and discussed the requirement for the extra incision and more time for the surgery. From 2013 to 2015 use of salpingectomy for permanent contraception changed from 45% of the procedures to 85%, a fairly dramatic trend.¹⁸ With these data, the authors compared outcomes between the women receiving tubal occlusive procedures and women receiving bilateral salpingectomy.

Related article:
Risk-reducing salpingectomy at benign hysterectomy: Have surgeons embraced this practice?

Details of surgical time and complications

Tubal occlusion procedures were performed through 2 abdominal ports, and device placement was at the discretion of the provider. Bilateral salpingectomies were performed through 3 abdominal port sites with an electrothermal bipolar tissue-sealing instrument. A total of 149 procedures were identified, 68 tubal occlusions (19% Falope rings, 32% bipolar cautery, and 47% Filshie clips) and 81 bilateral salpingectomies.

The surgical time average (SD) was 6 minutes longer for the salpingectomies (44 [13] minutes vs 38 [15] minutes; P = .018). As would be expected, more experienced residents had shorter surgical times when compared with less experienced residents for both procedures (FIGURE 2).¹⁵ Similar rates of both immediate and short-term surgical complications were noted. One immediate complication was reported in each group, both of which were secondary to anesthesia issues.

Interestingly, short-term complications were lower in the salpingectomy group (4.9%) versus the tubal occlusion group (14.7%), although this difference was barely not statistically significant (P = .051). These complications included 1 incisional site infection requiring oral antibiotics and 3 cases of increased pain in the salpingectomy group and 4 incisional site infections with 6 patients reporting increased pain in the tubal occlusion group.

Read about tube removal and ovarian reserve

Does total removal of the tubes affect ovarian reserve?

Ganer Herman H, Gluck O, Keidar R, et al. Ovarian reserve following cesarean section with salpingectomy vs tubal ligation: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.028.

As acceptability of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception increases, one concern is that complete removal may alter blood supply to the ovary, resulting in decreased ovarian reserve and, subsequently, earlier menopause. Several studies have addressed the potential effect of salpingectomy on ovarian function when performed at the time of hysterectomy, most of which have noted no difference in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and sonographic parameters following surgery.¹⁹ However, very little has been published to assess this same question when the salpingectomy is performed for the purpose of permanent contraception.

Ganer Herman and colleagues aimed to assess short-term ovarian reserve by measuring AMH levels preoperatively and 6 to 8 weeks postoperatively in patients undergoing partial or total salpingectomy at the time of elective cesarean delivery.

Related article:
Salpingectomy after vaginal hysterectomy: Technique, tips, and pearls

Details of the study

The study included women aged 18 to 45 who presented for elective cesarean delivery and who requested permanent contraception. Exclusion criteria included previous tubal surgery, emergent cesarean delivery, personal history of breast carcinoma, familial history of ovarian carcinoma, and BRCA carriage.

Women were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to bilateral total salpingectomy or bilateral partial salpingectomy. A complete blood count and AMH level were drawn the night prior to surgery. Intraoperatively, after delivery and hysterotomy closure, partial salpingectomy, via the Parkland technique, or total salpingectomy, using a suture ligation technique, was performed.

Of the 46 women enrolled, follow-up was completed by 16 of 22 women (72%) in the total salpingectomy group and 18 of 24 women (75%) in the partial salpingectomy group. Patients in the total salpingectomy group were slightly older (mean age, 37 vs 34 years; P = .02), but otherwise all demographic and obstetric characteristics were comparable.

No differences were noted in preoperative and postoperative AMH levels between groups, with an average (SD) increase of 0.58 (0.98) ng/mL versus 0.39 (0.41) ng/mL in the total salpingectomy and partial salpingectomy groups, respectively (P = .45), consistent with known postpartum AMH level trends.

Other findings included an average 13-minute increase in operative time in the total salpingectomy cases, similar safety profile of the 2 methods as there were no postoperative complications during the study period, and no differences in postoperative hemoglobin levels.

Conclusion

The studies reviewed in this article are some of the first to evaluate the feasibility and safety of opportunistic, or total, salpingectomy for permanent contraception since the ACOG and SGO recommendations were published. Just as our community has adopted the common practice of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy, we should continue to advocate for a similar practice when discussing permanent contraception. Additionally, the Westberg study provides good evidence that educational initiatives can influence provider practices, which upholds the data published by McAlpine and colleagues in British Columbia. This information is promising and valuable.

Our universal goal as ObGyns is to provide the best reproductive health care possible based on the most recent evidence available. Continuing to advocate for opportunistic salpingectomy for permanent contraception purposes meets this goal and potentially provides significant noncontraceptive benefits.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

According to the most recent data (2011–2013), 62% of women of childbearing age (15–44 years) use some method of contraception. Of these “contracepting” women, about 25% reported relying on permanent contraception, making it one of the most common methods of contraception used by women in the United States (FIGURE 1).^1,2 Women either can choose to have a permanent contraception procedure performed immediately postpartum, which occurs after approximately 9% of all hospital deliveries in the United States,³ or at a time separate from pregnancy.

The most common methods of permanent contraception include partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery or within 24 hours after vaginal delivery and laparoscopic occlusive procedures at a time unrelated to the postpartum period.³ Hysteroscopic occlusion of the tubal ostia is a newer option, introduced in 2002; its worldwide use is concentrated in the United States, which accounts for 80% of sales based on revenue.⁴

Historically, for procedures remote from pregnancy, the laparoscopic approach evolved with less sophisticated laparoscopic equipment and limited visualization, which resulted in efficiency and safety being the primary goals of the procedure.⁵ Accordingly, rapid occlusive procedures were commonplace. However, advancement of laparoscopic technology related to insufflation systems, surgical equipment, and video capabilities did not change this practice.

Recent literature has suggested that complete fallopian tube removal provides additional benefits. With increasing knowledge about the origin of ovarian cancer, as well as increasing data to support the hypothesis that complete tubal excision results in increased ovarian cancer protection when compared with occlusive or partial salpingectomies, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)⁶ and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)⁷ recommend discussing bilateral total salpingectomy with patients desiring permanent contraception. Although occlusive procedures decrease a woman’s lifetime risk of ovarian cancer by 24% to 34%,^8,9 total salpingectomy likely reduces this risk by 49% to 65%.^10,11

With this new evidence, McAlpine and colleagues initiated an educational campaign, targeting all ObGyns in British Columbia, which outlined the role of the fallopian tube in ovarian cancer and urged the consideration of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception in place of occlusive or partial salpingectomy procedures. They found that this one-time targeted education increased the use of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception from 0.5% at 2 years before the intervention to 33.3% by 2 years afterwards.¹² On average, laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy took 10 minutes longer to complete than occlusive procedures. Most importantly, they found no significant differences in complication rates, including hospital readmissions or blood transfusions.

Although our community can be applauded for the rapid uptake of concomitant bilateral salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy,^12,13 offering total salpingectomy for permanent contraception is far from common practice. Similarly, while multiple studies have been published to support the practice of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy, little has been published about the use of bilateral salpingectomy for permanent contraception until this past year.

In this article, we review some of the first publications to focus specifically on the feasibility and safety profile of performing either immediate postpartum total salpingectomy or interval total salpingectomy in women desiring permanent contraception.

Read about a total salpingectomy at delivery

Total salpingectomy: A viable option for permanent contraception after vaginal or at cesarean delivery

Shinar S, Blecher Y, Alpern S, et al. Total bilateral salpingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(5):1185-1189.

Danis RB, Della Badia CR, Richard SD. Postpartum permanent sterilization: could bilateral salpingectomy replace bilateral tubal ligation? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):928-932.

Shinar and colleagues presented a retrospective case series that included women undergoing permanent contraception procedures during cesarean delivery at a single tertiary medical center. The authors evaluated outcomes before and after a global hospital policy changed the preferred permanent contraception procedure from partial to total salpingectomy.

Details of the Shinar technique and outcomes

Of the 149 women included, 99 underwent partial salpingectomy via the modified Pomeroy technique and 50 underwent total salpingectomy using an electrothermal bipolar tissue-sealing instrument (Ligasure). The authors found no difference in operative times and similar rates of complications. Composite adverse outcomes, defined as surgery duration greater than 45 minutes, hemoglobin decline greater than 1.2 g/dL, need for blood transfusion, prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, or re-laparotomy, were comparable and were reported as 30.3% and 36.0% in the partial and total salpingectomy groups, respectively, (P = .57).One major complication occurred in the total salpingectomy cohort; postoperatively the patient had hemodynamic instability and was found to have hemoperitoneum requiring exploratory laparotomy. Significant bleeding from the bilateral mesosalpinges was discovered, presumably directly related to the total salpingectomy.

Related article:
Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion: How new product labeling can be a resource for patient counseling

Details of Danis et al

Intuitively, performing salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery does not seem as significant a change in practice as would performing salpingectomy through a small periumbilical incision after vaginal delivery. However, Danis and colleagues did just that; they published a retrospective case series of total salpingectomy performed within 24 hours after a vaginal delivery at an urban, academic institution. They included all women admitted for full-term vaginal deliveries who desired permanent contraception, with no exclusion criteria related to body mass index (BMI). The authors reported on 80 women, including 64 (80%) who underwent partial salpingectomy via the modified Pomeroy or Parkland technique and 16 (20%) who underwent total salpingectomy. Most women had a BMI of less than 30 kg/m²; less than 15% of the women in each group had a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

The technique for total salpingectomy involved a 2- to 3-cm vertical incision at the level of the umbilicus, elevation of the entire fallopian tube with 2 Babcock clamps, followed by the development of 2 to 3 windows with monopolar electrocautery in the mesosalpinx and subsequent suture ligation with polyglactin 910 (Vicryl, Ethicon).

Major findings included slightly longer operative time in the total salpingectomy compared with the partial salpingectomy group (a finding consistent with other studies^12,14,15) and no difference in complication rates. The average (SD) surgical time in the partial salpingectomy group was 59 (16) minutes, compared with 71 (6) minutes in the total salpingectomy group (P = .003). The authors reported 4 (6.3%) complications in the partial salpingectomy group--ileus, excessive bleeding from mesosalpinx, and incisional site hematoma--and no complications in the total salpingectomy group (P = .58).

Read about interval permanent contraception

Feasibility of interval laparoscopic permanent contraception via bilateral salpingectomy 

Westberg J, Scott F, Creinin MD. Safety outcomes of female sterilization by salpingectomy and tubal occlusion. Contraception. 2017;95(5):505-508.

In this retrospective study, authors used billing data to identify women undergoing interval laparoscopic permanent contraception at a single academic medical center. They educated physicians and patients about the potential benefits to ovarian cancer risk with total salpingectomy (similar to the educational initiative done in British Columbia) and discussed the requirement for the extra incision and more time for the surgery. From 2013 to 2015 use of salpingectomy for permanent contraception changed from 45% of the procedures to 85%, a fairly dramatic trend.¹⁸ With these data, the authors compared outcomes between the women receiving tubal occlusive procedures and women receiving bilateral salpingectomy.

Related article:
Risk-reducing salpingectomy at benign hysterectomy: Have surgeons embraced this practice?

Details of surgical time and complications

Tubal occlusion procedures were performed through 2 abdominal ports, and device placement was at the discretion of the provider. Bilateral salpingectomies were performed through 3 abdominal port sites with an electrothermal bipolar tissue-sealing instrument. A total of 149 procedures were identified, 68 tubal occlusions (19% Falope rings, 32% bipolar cautery, and 47% Filshie clips) and 81 bilateral salpingectomies.

The surgical time average (SD) was 6 minutes longer for the salpingectomies (44 [13] minutes vs 38 [15] minutes; P = .018). As would be expected, more experienced residents had shorter surgical times when compared with less experienced residents for both procedures (FIGURE 2).¹⁵ Similar rates of both immediate and short-term surgical complications were noted. One immediate complication was reported in each group, both of which were secondary to anesthesia issues.

Interestingly, short-term complications were lower in the salpingectomy group (4.9%) versus the tubal occlusion group (14.7%), although this difference was barely not statistically significant (P = .051). These complications included 1 incisional site infection requiring oral antibiotics and 3 cases of increased pain in the salpingectomy group and 4 incisional site infections with 6 patients reporting increased pain in the tubal occlusion group.

Read about tube removal and ovarian reserve

Does total removal of the tubes affect ovarian reserve?

Ganer Herman H, Gluck O, Keidar R, et al. Ovarian reserve following cesarean section with salpingectomy vs tubal ligation: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.028.

As acceptability of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception increases, one concern is that complete removal may alter blood supply to the ovary, resulting in decreased ovarian reserve and, subsequently, earlier menopause. Several studies have addressed the potential effect of salpingectomy on ovarian function when performed at the time of hysterectomy, most of which have noted no difference in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and sonographic parameters following surgery.¹⁹ However, very little has been published to assess this same question when the salpingectomy is performed for the purpose of permanent contraception.

Ganer Herman and colleagues aimed to assess short-term ovarian reserve by measuring AMH levels preoperatively and 6 to 8 weeks postoperatively in patients undergoing partial or total salpingectomy at the time of elective cesarean delivery.

Related article:
Salpingectomy after vaginal hysterectomy: Technique, tips, and pearls

Details of the study

The study included women aged 18 to 45 who presented for elective cesarean delivery and who requested permanent contraception. Exclusion criteria included previous tubal surgery, emergent cesarean delivery, personal history of breast carcinoma, familial history of ovarian carcinoma, and BRCA carriage.

Women were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to bilateral total salpingectomy or bilateral partial salpingectomy. A complete blood count and AMH level were drawn the night prior to surgery. Intraoperatively, after delivery and hysterotomy closure, partial salpingectomy, via the Parkland technique, or total salpingectomy, using a suture ligation technique, was performed.

Of the 46 women enrolled, follow-up was completed by 16 of 22 women (72%) in the total salpingectomy group and 18 of 24 women (75%) in the partial salpingectomy group. Patients in the total salpingectomy group were slightly older (mean age, 37 vs 34 years; P = .02), but otherwise all demographic and obstetric characteristics were comparable.

No differences were noted in preoperative and postoperative AMH levels between groups, with an average (SD) increase of 0.58 (0.98) ng/mL versus 0.39 (0.41) ng/mL in the total salpingectomy and partial salpingectomy groups, respectively (P = .45), consistent with known postpartum AMH level trends.

Other findings included an average 13-minute increase in operative time in the total salpingectomy cases, similar safety profile of the 2 methods as there were no postoperative complications during the study period, and no differences in postoperative hemoglobin levels.

Conclusion

The studies reviewed in this article are some of the first to evaluate the feasibility and safety of opportunistic, or total, salpingectomy for permanent contraception since the ACOG and SGO recommendations were published. Just as our community has adopted the common practice of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy, we should continue to advocate for a similar practice when discussing permanent contraception. Additionally, the Westberg study provides good evidence that educational initiatives can influence provider practices, which upholds the data published by McAlpine and colleagues in British Columbia. This information is promising and valuable.

Our universal goal as ObGyns is to provide the best reproductive health care possible based on the most recent evidence available. Continuing to advocate for opportunistic salpingectomy for permanent contraception purposes meets this goal and potentially provides significant noncontraceptive benefits.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

According to the most recent data (2011–2013), 62% of women of childbearing age (15–44 years) use some method of contraception. Of these “contracepting” women, about 25% reported relying on permanent contraception, making it one of the most common methods of contraception used by women in the United States (FIGURE 1).^1,2 Women either can choose to have a permanent contraception procedure performed immediately postpartum, which occurs after approximately 9% of all hospital deliveries in the United States,³ or at a time separate from pregnancy.

The most common methods of permanent contraception include partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery or within 24 hours after vaginal delivery and laparoscopic occlusive procedures at a time unrelated to the postpartum period.³ Hysteroscopic occlusion of the tubal ostia is a newer option, introduced in 2002; its worldwide use is concentrated in the United States, which accounts for 80% of sales based on revenue.⁴

Historically, for procedures remote from pregnancy, the laparoscopic approach evolved with less sophisticated laparoscopic equipment and limited visualization, which resulted in efficiency and safety being the primary goals of the procedure.⁵ Accordingly, rapid occlusive procedures were commonplace. However, advancement of laparoscopic technology related to insufflation systems, surgical equipment, and video capabilities did not change this practice.

Recent literature has suggested that complete fallopian tube removal provides additional benefits. With increasing knowledge about the origin of ovarian cancer, as well as increasing data to support the hypothesis that complete tubal excision results in increased ovarian cancer protection when compared with occlusive or partial salpingectomies, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)⁶ and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)⁷ recommend discussing bilateral total salpingectomy with patients desiring permanent contraception. Although occlusive procedures decrease a woman’s lifetime risk of ovarian cancer by 24% to 34%,^8,9 total salpingectomy likely reduces this risk by 49% to 65%.^10,11

With this new evidence, McAlpine and colleagues initiated an educational campaign, targeting all ObGyns in British Columbia, which outlined the role of the fallopian tube in ovarian cancer and urged the consideration of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception in place of occlusive or partial salpingectomy procedures. They found that this one-time targeted education increased the use of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception from 0.5% at 2 years before the intervention to 33.3% by 2 years afterwards.¹² On average, laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy took 10 minutes longer to complete than occlusive procedures. Most importantly, they found no significant differences in complication rates, including hospital readmissions or blood transfusions.

Although our community can be applauded for the rapid uptake of concomitant bilateral salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy,^12,13 offering total salpingectomy for permanent contraception is far from common practice. Similarly, while multiple studies have been published to support the practice of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy, little has been published about the use of bilateral salpingectomy for permanent contraception until this past year.

In this article, we review some of the first publications to focus specifically on the feasibility and safety profile of performing either immediate postpartum total salpingectomy or interval total salpingectomy in women desiring permanent contraception.

Read about a total salpingectomy at delivery

Total salpingectomy: A viable option for permanent contraception after vaginal or at cesarean delivery

Shinar S, Blecher Y, Alpern S, et al. Total bilateral salpingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(5):1185-1189.

Danis RB, Della Badia CR, Richard SD. Postpartum permanent sterilization: could bilateral salpingectomy replace bilateral tubal ligation? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):928-932.

Shinar and colleagues presented a retrospective case series that included women undergoing permanent contraception procedures during cesarean delivery at a single tertiary medical center. The authors evaluated outcomes before and after a global hospital policy changed the preferred permanent contraception procedure from partial to total salpingectomy.

Details of the Shinar technique and outcomes

Of the 149 women included, 99 underwent partial salpingectomy via the modified Pomeroy technique and 50 underwent total salpingectomy using an electrothermal bipolar tissue-sealing instrument (Ligasure). The authors found no difference in operative times and similar rates of complications. Composite adverse outcomes, defined as surgery duration greater than 45 minutes, hemoglobin decline greater than 1.2 g/dL, need for blood transfusion, prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, or re-laparotomy, were comparable and were reported as 30.3% and 36.0% in the partial and total salpingectomy groups, respectively, (P = .57).One major complication occurred in the total salpingectomy cohort; postoperatively the patient had hemodynamic instability and was found to have hemoperitoneum requiring exploratory laparotomy. Significant bleeding from the bilateral mesosalpinges was discovered, presumably directly related to the total salpingectomy.

Related article:
Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion: How new product labeling can be a resource for patient counseling

Details of Danis et al

Intuitively, performing salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery does not seem as significant a change in practice as would performing salpingectomy through a small periumbilical incision after vaginal delivery. However, Danis and colleagues did just that; they published a retrospective case series of total salpingectomy performed within 24 hours after a vaginal delivery at an urban, academic institution. They included all women admitted for full-term vaginal deliveries who desired permanent contraception, with no exclusion criteria related to body mass index (BMI). The authors reported on 80 women, including 64 (80%) who underwent partial salpingectomy via the modified Pomeroy or Parkland technique and 16 (20%) who underwent total salpingectomy. Most women had a BMI of less than 30 kg/m²; less than 15% of the women in each group had a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

The technique for total salpingectomy involved a 2- to 3-cm vertical incision at the level of the umbilicus, elevation of the entire fallopian tube with 2 Babcock clamps, followed by the development of 2 to 3 windows with monopolar electrocautery in the mesosalpinx and subsequent suture ligation with polyglactin 910 (Vicryl, Ethicon).

Major findings included slightly longer operative time in the total salpingectomy compared with the partial salpingectomy group (a finding consistent with other studies^12,14,15) and no difference in complication rates. The average (SD) surgical time in the partial salpingectomy group was 59 (16) minutes, compared with 71 (6) minutes in the total salpingectomy group (P = .003). The authors reported 4 (6.3%) complications in the partial salpingectomy group--ileus, excessive bleeding from mesosalpinx, and incisional site hematoma--and no complications in the total salpingectomy group (P = .58).

Read about interval permanent contraception

Feasibility of interval laparoscopic permanent contraception via bilateral salpingectomy 

Westberg J, Scott F, Creinin MD. Safety outcomes of female sterilization by salpingectomy and tubal occlusion. Contraception. 2017;95(5):505-508.

In this retrospective study, authors used billing data to identify women undergoing interval laparoscopic permanent contraception at a single academic medical center. They educated physicians and patients about the potential benefits to ovarian cancer risk with total salpingectomy (similar to the educational initiative done in British Columbia) and discussed the requirement for the extra incision and more time for the surgery. From 2013 to 2015 use of salpingectomy for permanent contraception changed from 45% of the procedures to 85%, a fairly dramatic trend.¹⁸ With these data, the authors compared outcomes between the women receiving tubal occlusive procedures and women receiving bilateral salpingectomy.

Related article:
Risk-reducing salpingectomy at benign hysterectomy: Have surgeons embraced this practice?

Details of surgical time and complications

Tubal occlusion procedures were performed through 2 abdominal ports, and device placement was at the discretion of the provider. Bilateral salpingectomies were performed through 3 abdominal port sites with an electrothermal bipolar tissue-sealing instrument. A total of 149 procedures were identified, 68 tubal occlusions (19% Falope rings, 32% bipolar cautery, and 47% Filshie clips) and 81 bilateral salpingectomies.

The surgical time average (SD) was 6 minutes longer for the salpingectomies (44 [13] minutes vs 38 [15] minutes; P = .018). As would be expected, more experienced residents had shorter surgical times when compared with less experienced residents for both procedures (FIGURE 2).¹⁵ Similar rates of both immediate and short-term surgical complications were noted. One immediate complication was reported in each group, both of which were secondary to anesthesia issues.

Interestingly, short-term complications were lower in the salpingectomy group (4.9%) versus the tubal occlusion group (14.7%), although this difference was barely not statistically significant (P = .051). These complications included 1 incisional site infection requiring oral antibiotics and 3 cases of increased pain in the salpingectomy group and 4 incisional site infections with 6 patients reporting increased pain in the tubal occlusion group.

Read about tube removal and ovarian reserve

Does total removal of the tubes affect ovarian reserve?

Ganer Herman H, Gluck O, Keidar R, et al. Ovarian reserve following cesarean section with salpingectomy vs tubal ligation: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.028.

As acceptability of total salpingectomy for permanent contraception increases, one concern is that complete removal may alter blood supply to the ovary, resulting in decreased ovarian reserve and, subsequently, earlier menopause. Several studies have addressed the potential effect of salpingectomy on ovarian function when performed at the time of hysterectomy, most of which have noted no difference in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and sonographic parameters following surgery.¹⁹ However, very little has been published to assess this same question when the salpingectomy is performed for the purpose of permanent contraception.

Ganer Herman and colleagues aimed to assess short-term ovarian reserve by measuring AMH levels preoperatively and 6 to 8 weeks postoperatively in patients undergoing partial or total salpingectomy at the time of elective cesarean delivery.

Related article:
Salpingectomy after vaginal hysterectomy: Technique, tips, and pearls

Details of the study

The study included women aged 18 to 45 who presented for elective cesarean delivery and who requested permanent contraception. Exclusion criteria included previous tubal surgery, emergent cesarean delivery, personal history of breast carcinoma, familial history of ovarian carcinoma, and BRCA carriage.

Women were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to bilateral total salpingectomy or bilateral partial salpingectomy. A complete blood count and AMH level were drawn the night prior to surgery. Intraoperatively, after delivery and hysterotomy closure, partial salpingectomy, via the Parkland technique, or total salpingectomy, using a suture ligation technique, was performed.

Of the 46 women enrolled, follow-up was completed by 16 of 22 women (72%) in the total salpingectomy group and 18 of 24 women (75%) in the partial salpingectomy group. Patients in the total salpingectomy group were slightly older (mean age, 37 vs 34 years; P = .02), but otherwise all demographic and obstetric characteristics were comparable.

No differences were noted in preoperative and postoperative AMH levels between groups, with an average (SD) increase of 0.58 (0.98) ng/mL versus 0.39 (0.41) ng/mL in the total salpingectomy and partial salpingectomy groups, respectively (P = .45), consistent with known postpartum AMH level trends.

Other findings included an average 13-minute increase in operative time in the total salpingectomy cases, similar safety profile of the 2 methods as there were no postoperative complications during the study period, and no differences in postoperative hemoglobin levels.

Conclusion

The studies reviewed in this article are some of the first to evaluate the feasibility and safety of opportunistic, or total, salpingectomy for permanent contraception since the ACOG and SGO recommendations were published. Just as our community has adopted the common practice of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy, we should continue to advocate for a similar practice when discussing permanent contraception. Additionally, the Westberg study provides good evidence that educational initiatives can influence provider practices, which upholds the data published by McAlpine and colleagues in British Columbia. This information is promising and valuable.

Our universal goal as ObGyns is to provide the best reproductive health care possible based on the most recent evidence available. Continuing to advocate for opportunistic salpingectomy for permanent contraception purposes meets this goal and potentially provides significant noncontraceptive benefits.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

NEW ORLEANS—Tolerance of risk related to current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on the part of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) varies widely, according to results from a large national survey presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Consortium of MS Centers.

“We have therapies available with a wide range of risks,” said Sneha Natarajan, PhD, a research coordinator at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic. “Some of the risks are relatively minor, like injection-site reactions or flu-like symptoms, and some are as bad as progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML], which can be fatal. We do not know what kind of risks people tolerate.”

To address these questions, Dr. Natarajan and colleagues conducted a survey of participants in the North American Research Committee on MS Registry and visitors to the National MS Society website who reported having MS. The benefit of a hypothetical oral DMT was set at 50% reduction in clinical relapses and 30% reduction in disability progression. The researchers chose six risk scenarios to evaluate tolerance to the following six risks: infection, skin rash, kidney injury, thyroid injury, liver injury, and PML. Starting from a risk tolerance of 1:1,000, the risk was adjusted to identify the highest risk tolerated, ranging from “would take regardless of the risk of death” to “no acceptable risk.”

Dr. Natarajan and colleagues reported results from 3,371 survey respondents. The mean age was 55, 93% of participants were white, 61% of participants had relapsing-remitting MS, and 53% of participants were currently taking a DMT. Overall, respondents reported the highest risk tolerance for infection or thyroid risks (1:1,000 for both) and lowest risk tolerance for PML and kidney injury (1:1,000,000 for both). Males reported a higher risk tolerance to all six risks. Females reported a risk tolerance to skin rash that was similar to that of kidney injury and PML.

“There is a pattern to the risks that our patients accept,” Dr. Natarajan said. “I do not think a doctor would not recommend a therapy benefit because of a skin rash [risk], but he may need to address the concerns of the patient up front and have a talk with the patient.”

Researchers also found that current DMT users expressed increased risk tolerance for all outcomes, compared with those not using any DMT. Respondents who were older, those who were more disabled, and those taking infusion therapies also reported higher risk tolerance.

The National MS Society funded this study. Dr. Natarajan reported having no financial disclosures.

—Doug Brunk

NEW ORLEANS—Tolerance of risk related to current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on the part of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) varies widely, according to results from a large national survey presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Consortium of MS Centers.

“We have therapies available with a wide range of risks,” said Sneha Natarajan, PhD, a research coordinator at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic. “Some of the risks are relatively minor, like injection-site reactions or flu-like symptoms, and some are as bad as progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML], which can be fatal. We do not know what kind of risks people tolerate.”

To address these questions, Dr. Natarajan and colleagues conducted a survey of participants in the North American Research Committee on MS Registry and visitors to the National MS Society website who reported having MS. The benefit of a hypothetical oral DMT was set at 50% reduction in clinical relapses and 30% reduction in disability progression. The researchers chose six risk scenarios to evaluate tolerance to the following six risks: infection, skin rash, kidney injury, thyroid injury, liver injury, and PML. Starting from a risk tolerance of 1:1,000, the risk was adjusted to identify the highest risk tolerated, ranging from “would take regardless of the risk of death” to “no acceptable risk.”

Dr. Natarajan and colleagues reported results from 3,371 survey respondents. The mean age was 55, 93% of participants were white, 61% of participants had relapsing-remitting MS, and 53% of participants were currently taking a DMT. Overall, respondents reported the highest risk tolerance for infection or thyroid risks (1:1,000 for both) and lowest risk tolerance for PML and kidney injury (1:1,000,000 for both). Males reported a higher risk tolerance to all six risks. Females reported a risk tolerance to skin rash that was similar to that of kidney injury and PML.

“There is a pattern to the risks that our patients accept,” Dr. Natarajan said. “I do not think a doctor would not recommend a therapy benefit because of a skin rash [risk], but he may need to address the concerns of the patient up front and have a talk with the patient.”

Researchers also found that current DMT users expressed increased risk tolerance for all outcomes, compared with those not using any DMT. Respondents who were older, those who were more disabled, and those taking infusion therapies also reported higher risk tolerance.

The National MS Society funded this study. Dr. Natarajan reported having no financial disclosures.

—Doug Brunk

NEW ORLEANS—Tolerance of risk related to current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on the part of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) varies widely, according to results from a large national survey presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Consortium of MS Centers.

“We have therapies available with a wide range of risks,” said Sneha Natarajan, PhD, a research coordinator at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic. “Some of the risks are relatively minor, like injection-site reactions or flu-like symptoms, and some are as bad as progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML], which can be fatal. We do not know what kind of risks people tolerate.”

To address these questions, Dr. Natarajan and colleagues conducted a survey of participants in the North American Research Committee on MS Registry and visitors to the National MS Society website who reported having MS. The benefit of a hypothetical oral DMT was set at 50% reduction in clinical relapses and 30% reduction in disability progression. The researchers chose six risk scenarios to evaluate tolerance to the following six risks: infection, skin rash, kidney injury, thyroid injury, liver injury, and PML. Starting from a risk tolerance of 1:1,000, the risk was adjusted to identify the highest risk tolerated, ranging from “would take regardless of the risk of death” to “no acceptable risk.”

Dr. Natarajan and colleagues reported results from 3,371 survey respondents. The mean age was 55, 93% of participants were white, 61% of participants had relapsing-remitting MS, and 53% of participants were currently taking a DMT. Overall, respondents reported the highest risk tolerance for infection or thyroid risks (1:1,000 for both) and lowest risk tolerance for PML and kidney injury (1:1,000,000 for both). Males reported a higher risk tolerance to all six risks. Females reported a risk tolerance to skin rash that was similar to that of kidney injury and PML.

“There is a pattern to the risks that our patients accept,” Dr. Natarajan said. “I do not think a doctor would not recommend a therapy benefit because of a skin rash [risk], but he may need to address the concerns of the patient up front and have a talk with the patient.”

Researchers also found that current DMT users expressed increased risk tolerance for all outcomes, compared with those not using any DMT. Respondents who were older, those who were more disabled, and those taking infusion therapies also reported higher risk tolerance.

The National MS Society funded this study. Dr. Natarajan reported having no financial disclosures.

—Doug Brunk

NEW YORK – Though flap reconstruction can provide elegant solutions with very good cosmesis after Mohs surgery and other excisional procedures, skin grafts provide another set of options.

Both split and full thickness grafts have a place in the dermatologist’s repertoire, but some tips and tricks can make a full thickness graft an attractive option in many instances, according to Marc Brown, MD, professor of dermatology and oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

Speaking at the summer meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Brown said that retrospective studies have shown that patients are highly satisfied with the cosmesis of full thickness skin grafting for reconstruction post Mohs surgery – if they’re asked after enough time has passed for the graft to mature and the dermatologist to perform some of the tweaks that are occasionally necessary. “It takes time to get to that point, but the overall satisfaction improves over time,” he said.

University of Rochester Medical Center

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

NEW YORK – Though flap reconstruction can provide elegant solutions with very good cosmesis after Mohs surgery and other excisional procedures, skin grafts provide another set of options.

Both split and full thickness grafts have a place in the dermatologist’s repertoire, but some tips and tricks can make a full thickness graft an attractive option in many instances, according to Marc Brown, MD, professor of dermatology and oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

Speaking at the summer meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Brown said that retrospective studies have shown that patients are highly satisfied with the cosmesis of full thickness skin grafting for reconstruction post Mohs surgery – if they’re asked after enough time has passed for the graft to mature and the dermatologist to perform some of the tweaks that are occasionally necessary. “It takes time to get to that point, but the overall satisfaction improves over time,” he said.

University of Rochester Medical Center

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

NEW YORK – Though flap reconstruction can provide elegant solutions with very good cosmesis after Mohs surgery and other excisional procedures, skin grafts provide another set of options.

Both split and full thickness grafts have a place in the dermatologist’s repertoire, but some tips and tricks can make a full thickness graft an attractive option in many instances, according to Marc Brown, MD, professor of dermatology and oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

Speaking at the summer meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Brown said that retrospective studies have shown that patients are highly satisfied with the cosmesis of full thickness skin grafting for reconstruction post Mohs surgery – if they’re asked after enough time has passed for the graft to mature and the dermatologist to perform some of the tweaks that are occasionally necessary. “It takes time to get to that point, but the overall satisfaction improves over time,” he said.

University of Rochester Medical Center

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

Take-Home Points

• Studies of AEs after orthopedic surgery commonly use composite AE outcomes.
• These types of outcomes treat AEs with different clinical significance similarly.
• This study created a single severity-weighted outcome that can be used to characterize the overall severity of a given patient’s postoperative course.
• Future studies may benefit from using this new severity-weighted outcome score.

Recently there has been an increase in the use of national databases for orthopedic surgery research.^1-4 Studies commonly compare rates of postoperative adverse events (AEs) across different demographic, comorbidity, and procedural characteristics.^5-23 Their conclusions often highlight different modifiable and/or nonmodifiable risk factors associated with the occurrence of postoperative events.

The several dozen AEs that have been investigated range from very severe (eg, death, myocardial infarction, coma) to less severe (eg, urinary tract infection [UTI], anemia requiring blood transfusion). A common approach for these studies is to consider many AEs together in the same analysis, asking a question such as, “What are risk factors for the occurrence of ‘adverse events’ after spine surgery?” Such studies test for associations with the occurrence of “any adverse event,” the occurrence of any “serious adverse event,” or similar composite outcomes. How common this type of study has become is indicated by the fact that in 2013 and 2014, at least 12 such studies were published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,^5-14,21-23 and many more in other orthopedic journals.^15-20 However, there is a problem in using this type of composite outcome to perform such analyses: AEs with highly varying degrees of severity have identical impacts on the outcome variable, changing it from negative (“no adverse event”) to positive (“at least one adverse event”). As a result, the system may treat a very severe AE such as death and a very minor AE such as UTI similarly. Even in studies that use the slightly more specific composite outcome of “serious adverse events,” death and a nonlethal thromboembolic event would be treated similarly. Failure to differentiate these AEs in terms of their clinical significance detracts from the clinical applicability of conclusions drawn from studies using these types of composite AE outcomes.

In one of many examples that can be considered, a retrospective cohort study compared general and spinal anesthesia used in total knee arthroplasty.¹⁰ The rate of any AEs was higher with general anesthesia than with spinal anesthesia (12.34% vs 10.72%; P = .003). However, the only 2 specific AEs that had statistically significant differences were anemia requiring blood transfusion (6.07% vs 5.02%; P = .009) and superficial surgical-site infection (SSI; 0.92% vs 0.68%; P < .001). These 2 AEs are of relatively low severity; nevertheless, because these AEs are common, their differences constituted the majority of the difference in the rate of any AEs. In contrast, differences in the more severe AEs, such as death (0.11% vs 0.22%; P > .05), septic shock (0.14% vs 0.12%; P > .05), and myocardial infarction (0.20% vs 0.20%; P > .05), were small and not statistically significant. Had more weight been given to these more severe events, the outcome of the study likely would have been “no difference.”

To address this shortcoming in orthopedic research methodology, we created a severity-weighted outcome score that can be used to determine the overall “severity” of any given patient’s postoperative course. We also tested this novel outcome score for correlation with procedure type and patient characteristics using orthopedic patients from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Our intention is for database investigators to be able to use this outcome score in place of the composite outcomes that are dominating this type of research.

Methods

Generation of Severity Weights

Our method is described generally as utility weighting, assigning value weights reflective of overall impact to differing outcome states.²⁴ Parallel methods have been used to generate the disability weights used to determine disability-adjusted life years for the Global Burden of Disease project²⁵ and many other areas of health, economic, and policy research.

All orthopedic faculty members at 2 geographically disparate, large US academic institutions were invited to participate in a severity-weighting exercise. Each surgeon who agreed to participate performed the exercise independently.

• STEP 1: Please reorder the AE cards by your perception of “severity” for a patient experiencing that event after an orthopedic procedure.
• STEP 2: Once your cards are in order, please determine how many postoperative occurrences of each event you would “trade” for 1 patient experiencing postoperative death. Place this number of occurrences in the box in the upper right corner of each card.
• NOTES: As you consider each AE:
• Please consider an “average” occurrence of that AE, but note that in no case does the AE result in perioperative death.
• Please consider only the “severity” for the patient. (Do not consider the extent to which the event may be related to surgical error.)
• Please consider that the numbers you assign are relative to each other. Hence, if you would trade 20 of “event A” for 1 death, and if you would trade 40 of “event B” for 1 death, the implication is that you would trade 20 of “event A” for 40 of “event B.”
• You may readjust the order of your cards at any point.

Participants’ responses were recorded. For each number provided by each participant, the inverse (reciprocal) was taken and multiplied by 100%. This new number was taken to be the percentage severity of death that the given participant considered the given AE to embody. For example, as a hypothetical on one end of the spectrum, if a participant reported 1 (he/she would trade 1 AE X for 1 death), then the severity would be 1/1 × 100% = 100% of death, a very severe AE. Conversely, if a participant reported a very large number like 100,000 (he/she would trade 100,000 AEs X for 1 death), then the severity would be 1/100,000 × 100% = 0.001% of death, a very minor AE. More commonly, a participant will report a number like 25, which would translate to 4% of death (1/25 × 100% = 4%). For each AE, weights were then averaged across participants to derive a mean severity weight to be used to generate a novel composite outcome score.

Definition of Novel Composite Outcome Score

The novel composite outcome score would be expressed as a percentage to be interpreted as percentage severity of death, which we termed severity-weighted outcome relative to death (SWORD). For each patient, SWORD was defined as no AE (0%) or postoperative death (100%), with other AEs assigned mean severity weights based on faculty members’ survey responses. A patient with multiple AEs would be assigned the weight for the more severe AE. This method was chosen over summing the AE weights because in many cases the AEs were thought to overlap; hence, summing would be inappropriate. For example, generally a deep SSI would result in a return to the operating room, and one would not want to double-count this AE. Similarly, it would not make sense for a patient who died of a complication to have a SWORD of >100%, which would be the summing result.

Application to ACS-NSQIP Patients

ACS-NSQIP is a surgical registry that prospectively identifies patients undergoing major surgery at any of >500 institutions nationwide.^26,27 Patients are characterized at baseline and are followed for AEs over the first 30 postoperative days.

First, mean SWORD was calculated and reported for patients undergoing each of the 8 procedures. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for associations of mean SWORD with type of procedure both before and after multivariate adjustment for demographics (sex; age in years, <40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, ≥90) and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exertional dyspnea, end-stage renal disease, congestive heart failure).

Second, patients undergoing the procedure with the highest mean SWORD (hip fracture surgery) were examined in depth. Among only these patients, multivariate ANOVA was used to test for associations of mean SWORD with the same demographics and comorbidities.

All statistical tests were 2-tailed. Significance was set at α = 0.05 (P < .05).

All 23 institution A faculty members (100%) and 24 (89%) of the 27 institution B faculty members completed the exercise.

Results

Figure 1 shows mean severity weights and standard errors generated from faculty responses. Mean (standard error) severity weight for UTI was 0.23% (0.08%); blood transfusion, 0.28% (0.09%); pneumonia, 0.55% (0.15%); hospital readmission, 0.59% (0.23%); wound dehiscence, 0.64% (0.17%); deep vein thrombosis, 0.64% (0.19%); superficial SSI, 0.68% (0.23%); return to operating room, 0.91% (0.29%); progressive renal insufficiency, 0.93% (0.27%); graft/prosthesis/flap failure, 1.20% (0.34%); unplanned intubation, 1.38% (0.53%); deep SSI, 1.45% (0.38%); failure to wean from ventilator, 1.45% (0.48%); organ/space SSI, 1.76% (0.46%); sepsis without shock, 1.77% (0.42%); peripheral nerve injury, 1.83% (0.47%); pulmonary embolism, 2.99% (0.76%); acute renal failure, 3.95% (0.85%); myocardial infarction, 4.16% (0.98%); septic shock, 7.17% (1.36%); stroke, 8.73% (1.74%); cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 9.97% (2.46%); and coma, 15.14% (3.04%).

Among ACS-NSQIP patients, mean SWORD ranged from 0.2% (elective anterior cervical decompression and fusion) to 6.0% (hip fracture surgery) (Figure 2).

Discussion

The use of national databases in studies has become increasingly common in orthopedic surgery.^1-4

The academic orthopedic surgeons who participated in our severity-weighting exercise thought the various AEs have markedly different severities. The least severe AE (UTI) was considered 0.23% as severe as postoperative death, with other events spanning the range up to 15.14% as severe as death. This wide range of severities demonstrates the problem with composite outcomes that implicitly consider all AEs similarly severe. Use of these markedly disparate weights in the development of SWORD enables this outcome to be more clinically applicable than outcomes such as “any adverse events.”

SWORD was highly associated with procedure type both before and after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. Among patients undergoing the highest SWORD procedure (hip fracture surgery), SWORD was also associated with age, sex, and 4 of 6 tested comorbidities. Together, our findings show how SWORD is intended to be used in studies: to identify demographic, comorbidity, and procedural risk factors for an adverse postoperative course. We propose that researchers use our weighted outcome as their primary outcome—it is more meaningful than the simpler composite outcomes commonly used.

Outside orthopedic surgery, a small series of studies has addressed severity weighting of postoperative AEs.^25,28-30 However, their approach was very different, as they were not designed to generate weights that could be transferred to future studies; rather, they simply compared severities of postoperative courses for patients within each individual study. In each study, a review of each original patient record was required, as the severity of each patient’s postoperative course was characterized according to the degree of any postoperative intervention—from no intervention to minor interventions such as placement of an intravenous catheter and major interventions such as endoscopic, radiologic, and surgical procedures. Only after the degree of intervention was defined could an outcome score be assigned to a given patient. However, databases do not depict the degree of intervention with nearly enough detail for this type of approach; they typically identify only occurrence or nonoccurrence of each event. Our work, which arose independently from this body of literature, enables an entirely different type of analysis. SWORD, which is not based on degree of intervention but on perceived severity of an “average” event, enables direct application of severity weights to large databases that store simple information on occurrence and nonoccurrence of specific AEs.

This study had several limitations. Most significantly, the generated severity weights were based on the surgeons’ subjective perceptions of severity, not on definitive assessments of the impacts of specific AEs on actual patients. We did not query the specialists who treat the complications or who present data on the costs and disabilities that may arise from these AEs. In addition, to develop our severity weighting scale, we queried faculty at only 2 institutions. A survey of surgeons throughout the United States would be more representative and would minimize selection bias. This is a potential research area. Another limitation is that scoring was subjective, based on surgeons’ perceptions of patients—in contrast to the Global Burden of Disease project, in which severity was based more objectively on epidemiologic data from >150 countries.

Orthopedic database research itself has often-noted limitations, including inability to sufficiently control for confounders, potential inaccuracies in data coding, limited follow-up, and lack of orthopedic-specific outcomes.^1-4,31-33 However, this research also has much to offer, has increased tremendously over the past several years, and is expected to continue to expand. Many of the limitations of database studies cannot be entirely reversed. In providing a system for weighting postoperative AEs, our study fills a methodologic void. Future studies in orthopedics may benefit from using the severity-weighted outcome score presented here. Other fields with growth in database research may consider using similar methods to create severity-weighting systems of their own.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E235-E243. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Studies of AEs after orthopedic surgery commonly use composite AE outcomes.
• These types of outcomes treat AEs with different clinical significance similarly.
• This study created a single severity-weighted outcome that can be used to characterize the overall severity of a given patient’s postoperative course.
• Future studies may benefit from using this new severity-weighted outcome score.

Recently there has been an increase in the use of national databases for orthopedic surgery research.^1-4 Studies commonly compare rates of postoperative adverse events (AEs) across different demographic, comorbidity, and procedural characteristics.^5-23 Their conclusions often highlight different modifiable and/or nonmodifiable risk factors associated with the occurrence of postoperative events.

The several dozen AEs that have been investigated range from very severe (eg, death, myocardial infarction, coma) to less severe (eg, urinary tract infection [UTI], anemia requiring blood transfusion). A common approach for these studies is to consider many AEs together in the same analysis, asking a question such as, “What are risk factors for the occurrence of ‘adverse events’ after spine surgery?” Such studies test for associations with the occurrence of “any adverse event,” the occurrence of any “serious adverse event,” or similar composite outcomes. How common this type of study has become is indicated by the fact that in 2013 and 2014, at least 12 such studies were published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,^5-14,21-23 and many more in other orthopedic journals.^15-20 However, there is a problem in using this type of composite outcome to perform such analyses: AEs with highly varying degrees of severity have identical impacts on the outcome variable, changing it from negative (“no adverse event”) to positive (“at least one adverse event”). As a result, the system may treat a very severe AE such as death and a very minor AE such as UTI similarly. Even in studies that use the slightly more specific composite outcome of “serious adverse events,” death and a nonlethal thromboembolic event would be treated similarly. Failure to differentiate these AEs in terms of their clinical significance detracts from the clinical applicability of conclusions drawn from studies using these types of composite AE outcomes.

In one of many examples that can be considered, a retrospective cohort study compared general and spinal anesthesia used in total knee arthroplasty.¹⁰ The rate of any AEs was higher with general anesthesia than with spinal anesthesia (12.34% vs 10.72%; P = .003). However, the only 2 specific AEs that had statistically significant differences were anemia requiring blood transfusion (6.07% vs 5.02%; P = .009) and superficial surgical-site infection (SSI; 0.92% vs 0.68%; P < .001). These 2 AEs are of relatively low severity; nevertheless, because these AEs are common, their differences constituted the majority of the difference in the rate of any AEs. In contrast, differences in the more severe AEs, such as death (0.11% vs 0.22%; P > .05), septic shock (0.14% vs 0.12%; P > .05), and myocardial infarction (0.20% vs 0.20%; P > .05), were small and not statistically significant. Had more weight been given to these more severe events, the outcome of the study likely would have been “no difference.”

To address this shortcoming in orthopedic research methodology, we created a severity-weighted outcome score that can be used to determine the overall “severity” of any given patient’s postoperative course. We also tested this novel outcome score for correlation with procedure type and patient characteristics using orthopedic patients from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Our intention is for database investigators to be able to use this outcome score in place of the composite outcomes that are dominating this type of research.

Methods

Generation of Severity Weights

Our method is described generally as utility weighting, assigning value weights reflective of overall impact to differing outcome states.²⁴ Parallel methods have been used to generate the disability weights used to determine disability-adjusted life years for the Global Burden of Disease project²⁵ and many other areas of health, economic, and policy research.

All orthopedic faculty members at 2 geographically disparate, large US academic institutions were invited to participate in a severity-weighting exercise. Each surgeon who agreed to participate performed the exercise independently.

• STEP 1: Please reorder the AE cards by your perception of “severity” for a patient experiencing that event after an orthopedic procedure.
• STEP 2: Once your cards are in order, please determine how many postoperative occurrences of each event you would “trade” for 1 patient experiencing postoperative death. Place this number of occurrences in the box in the upper right corner of each card.
• NOTES: As you consider each AE:
• Please consider an “average” occurrence of that AE, but note that in no case does the AE result in perioperative death.
• Please consider only the “severity” for the patient. (Do not consider the extent to which the event may be related to surgical error.)
• Please consider that the numbers you assign are relative to each other. Hence, if you would trade 20 of “event A” for 1 death, and if you would trade 40 of “event B” for 1 death, the implication is that you would trade 20 of “event A” for 40 of “event B.”
• You may readjust the order of your cards at any point.

Participants’ responses were recorded. For each number provided by each participant, the inverse (reciprocal) was taken and multiplied by 100%. This new number was taken to be the percentage severity of death that the given participant considered the given AE to embody. For example, as a hypothetical on one end of the spectrum, if a participant reported 1 (he/she would trade 1 AE X for 1 death), then the severity would be 1/1 × 100% = 100% of death, a very severe AE. Conversely, if a participant reported a very large number like 100,000 (he/she would trade 100,000 AEs X for 1 death), then the severity would be 1/100,000 × 100% = 0.001% of death, a very minor AE. More commonly, a participant will report a number like 25, which would translate to 4% of death (1/25 × 100% = 4%). For each AE, weights were then averaged across participants to derive a mean severity weight to be used to generate a novel composite outcome score.

Definition of Novel Composite Outcome Score

The novel composite outcome score would be expressed as a percentage to be interpreted as percentage severity of death, which we termed severity-weighted outcome relative to death (SWORD). For each patient, SWORD was defined as no AE (0%) or postoperative death (100%), with other AEs assigned mean severity weights based on faculty members’ survey responses. A patient with multiple AEs would be assigned the weight for the more severe AE. This method was chosen over summing the AE weights because in many cases the AEs were thought to overlap; hence, summing would be inappropriate. For example, generally a deep SSI would result in a return to the operating room, and one would not want to double-count this AE. Similarly, it would not make sense for a patient who died of a complication to have a SWORD of >100%, which would be the summing result.

Application to ACS-NSQIP Patients

ACS-NSQIP is a surgical registry that prospectively identifies patients undergoing major surgery at any of >500 institutions nationwide.^26,27 Patients are characterized at baseline and are followed for AEs over the first 30 postoperative days.

First, mean SWORD was calculated and reported for patients undergoing each of the 8 procedures. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for associations of mean SWORD with type of procedure both before and after multivariate adjustment for demographics (sex; age in years, <40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, ≥90) and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exertional dyspnea, end-stage renal disease, congestive heart failure).

Second, patients undergoing the procedure with the highest mean SWORD (hip fracture surgery) were examined in depth. Among only these patients, multivariate ANOVA was used to test for associations of mean SWORD with the same demographics and comorbidities.

All statistical tests were 2-tailed. Significance was set at α = 0.05 (P < .05).

All 23 institution A faculty members (100%) and 24 (89%) of the 27 institution B faculty members completed the exercise.

Results

Figure 1 shows mean severity weights and standard errors generated from faculty responses. Mean (standard error) severity weight for UTI was 0.23% (0.08%); blood transfusion, 0.28% (0.09%); pneumonia, 0.55% (0.15%); hospital readmission, 0.59% (0.23%); wound dehiscence, 0.64% (0.17%); deep vein thrombosis, 0.64% (0.19%); superficial SSI, 0.68% (0.23%); return to operating room, 0.91% (0.29%); progressive renal insufficiency, 0.93% (0.27%); graft/prosthesis/flap failure, 1.20% (0.34%); unplanned intubation, 1.38% (0.53%); deep SSI, 1.45% (0.38%); failure to wean from ventilator, 1.45% (0.48%); organ/space SSI, 1.76% (0.46%); sepsis without shock, 1.77% (0.42%); peripheral nerve injury, 1.83% (0.47%); pulmonary embolism, 2.99% (0.76%); acute renal failure, 3.95% (0.85%); myocardial infarction, 4.16% (0.98%); septic shock, 7.17% (1.36%); stroke, 8.73% (1.74%); cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 9.97% (2.46%); and coma, 15.14% (3.04%).

Among ACS-NSQIP patients, mean SWORD ranged from 0.2% (elective anterior cervical decompression and fusion) to 6.0% (hip fracture surgery) (Figure 2).

Discussion

The use of national databases in studies has become increasingly common in orthopedic surgery.^1-4

The academic orthopedic surgeons who participated in our severity-weighting exercise thought the various AEs have markedly different severities. The least severe AE (UTI) was considered 0.23% as severe as postoperative death, with other events spanning the range up to 15.14% as severe as death. This wide range of severities demonstrates the problem with composite outcomes that implicitly consider all AEs similarly severe. Use of these markedly disparate weights in the development of SWORD enables this outcome to be more clinically applicable than outcomes such as “any adverse events.”

SWORD was highly associated with procedure type both before and after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. Among patients undergoing the highest SWORD procedure (hip fracture surgery), SWORD was also associated with age, sex, and 4 of 6 tested comorbidities. Together, our findings show how SWORD is intended to be used in studies: to identify demographic, comorbidity, and procedural risk factors for an adverse postoperative course. We propose that researchers use our weighted outcome as their primary outcome—it is more meaningful than the simpler composite outcomes commonly used.

Outside orthopedic surgery, a small series of studies has addressed severity weighting of postoperative AEs.^25,28-30 However, their approach was very different, as they were not designed to generate weights that could be transferred to future studies; rather, they simply compared severities of postoperative courses for patients within each individual study. In each study, a review of each original patient record was required, as the severity of each patient’s postoperative course was characterized according to the degree of any postoperative intervention—from no intervention to minor interventions such as placement of an intravenous catheter and major interventions such as endoscopic, radiologic, and surgical procedures. Only after the degree of intervention was defined could an outcome score be assigned to a given patient. However, databases do not depict the degree of intervention with nearly enough detail for this type of approach; they typically identify only occurrence or nonoccurrence of each event. Our work, which arose independently from this body of literature, enables an entirely different type of analysis. SWORD, which is not based on degree of intervention but on perceived severity of an “average” event, enables direct application of severity weights to large databases that store simple information on occurrence and nonoccurrence of specific AEs.

This study had several limitations. Most significantly, the generated severity weights were based on the surgeons’ subjective perceptions of severity, not on definitive assessments of the impacts of specific AEs on actual patients. We did not query the specialists who treat the complications or who present data on the costs and disabilities that may arise from these AEs. In addition, to develop our severity weighting scale, we queried faculty at only 2 institutions. A survey of surgeons throughout the United States would be more representative and would minimize selection bias. This is a potential research area. Another limitation is that scoring was subjective, based on surgeons’ perceptions of patients—in contrast to the Global Burden of Disease project, in which severity was based more objectively on epidemiologic data from >150 countries.

Orthopedic database research itself has often-noted limitations, including inability to sufficiently control for confounders, potential inaccuracies in data coding, limited follow-up, and lack of orthopedic-specific outcomes.^1-4,31-33 However, this research also has much to offer, has increased tremendously over the past several years, and is expected to continue to expand. Many of the limitations of database studies cannot be entirely reversed. In providing a system for weighting postoperative AEs, our study fills a methodologic void. Future studies in orthopedics may benefit from using the severity-weighted outcome score presented here. Other fields with growth in database research may consider using similar methods to create severity-weighting systems of their own.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E235-E243. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Studies of AEs after orthopedic surgery commonly use composite AE outcomes.
• These types of outcomes treat AEs with different clinical significance similarly.
• This study created a single severity-weighted outcome that can be used to characterize the overall severity of a given patient’s postoperative course.
• Future studies may benefit from using this new severity-weighted outcome score.

Recently there has been an increase in the use of national databases for orthopedic surgery research.^1-4 Studies commonly compare rates of postoperative adverse events (AEs) across different demographic, comorbidity, and procedural characteristics.^5-23 Their conclusions often highlight different modifiable and/or nonmodifiable risk factors associated with the occurrence of postoperative events.

The several dozen AEs that have been investigated range from very severe (eg, death, myocardial infarction, coma) to less severe (eg, urinary tract infection [UTI], anemia requiring blood transfusion). A common approach for these studies is to consider many AEs together in the same analysis, asking a question such as, “What are risk factors for the occurrence of ‘adverse events’ after spine surgery?” Such studies test for associations with the occurrence of “any adverse event,” the occurrence of any “serious adverse event,” or similar composite outcomes. How common this type of study has become is indicated by the fact that in 2013 and 2014, at least 12 such studies were published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,^5-14,21-23 and many more in other orthopedic journals.^15-20 However, there is a problem in using this type of composite outcome to perform such analyses: AEs with highly varying degrees of severity have identical impacts on the outcome variable, changing it from negative (“no adverse event”) to positive (“at least one adverse event”). As a result, the system may treat a very severe AE such as death and a very minor AE such as UTI similarly. Even in studies that use the slightly more specific composite outcome of “serious adverse events,” death and a nonlethal thromboembolic event would be treated similarly. Failure to differentiate these AEs in terms of their clinical significance detracts from the clinical applicability of conclusions drawn from studies using these types of composite AE outcomes.

In one of many examples that can be considered, a retrospective cohort study compared general and spinal anesthesia used in total knee arthroplasty.¹⁰ The rate of any AEs was higher with general anesthesia than with spinal anesthesia (12.34% vs 10.72%; P = .003). However, the only 2 specific AEs that had statistically significant differences were anemia requiring blood transfusion (6.07% vs 5.02%; P = .009) and superficial surgical-site infection (SSI; 0.92% vs 0.68%; P < .001). These 2 AEs are of relatively low severity; nevertheless, because these AEs are common, their differences constituted the majority of the difference in the rate of any AEs. In contrast, differences in the more severe AEs, such as death (0.11% vs 0.22%; P > .05), septic shock (0.14% vs 0.12%; P > .05), and myocardial infarction (0.20% vs 0.20%; P > .05), were small and not statistically significant. Had more weight been given to these more severe events, the outcome of the study likely would have been “no difference.”

To address this shortcoming in orthopedic research methodology, we created a severity-weighted outcome score that can be used to determine the overall “severity” of any given patient’s postoperative course. We also tested this novel outcome score for correlation with procedure type and patient characteristics using orthopedic patients from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Our intention is for database investigators to be able to use this outcome score in place of the composite outcomes that are dominating this type of research.

Methods

Generation of Severity Weights

Our method is described generally as utility weighting, assigning value weights reflective of overall impact to differing outcome states.²⁴ Parallel methods have been used to generate the disability weights used to determine disability-adjusted life years for the Global Burden of Disease project²⁵ and many other areas of health, economic, and policy research.

All orthopedic faculty members at 2 geographically disparate, large US academic institutions were invited to participate in a severity-weighting exercise. Each surgeon who agreed to participate performed the exercise independently.

• STEP 1: Please reorder the AE cards by your perception of “severity” for a patient experiencing that event after an orthopedic procedure.
• STEP 2: Once your cards are in order, please determine how many postoperative occurrences of each event you would “trade” for 1 patient experiencing postoperative death. Place this number of occurrences in the box in the upper right corner of each card.
• NOTES: As you consider each AE:
• Please consider an “average” occurrence of that AE, but note that in no case does the AE result in perioperative death.
• Please consider only the “severity” for the patient. (Do not consider the extent to which the event may be related to surgical error.)
• Please consider that the numbers you assign are relative to each other. Hence, if you would trade 20 of “event A” for 1 death, and if you would trade 40 of “event B” for 1 death, the implication is that you would trade 20 of “event A” for 40 of “event B.”
• You may readjust the order of your cards at any point.

Participants’ responses were recorded. For each number provided by each participant, the inverse (reciprocal) was taken and multiplied by 100%. This new number was taken to be the percentage severity of death that the given participant considered the given AE to embody. For example, as a hypothetical on one end of the spectrum, if a participant reported 1 (he/she would trade 1 AE X for 1 death), then the severity would be 1/1 × 100% = 100% of death, a very severe AE. Conversely, if a participant reported a very large number like 100,000 (he/she would trade 100,000 AEs X for 1 death), then the severity would be 1/100,000 × 100% = 0.001% of death, a very minor AE. More commonly, a participant will report a number like 25, which would translate to 4% of death (1/25 × 100% = 4%). For each AE, weights were then averaged across participants to derive a mean severity weight to be used to generate a novel composite outcome score.

Definition of Novel Composite Outcome Score

The novel composite outcome score would be expressed as a percentage to be interpreted as percentage severity of death, which we termed severity-weighted outcome relative to death (SWORD). For each patient, SWORD was defined as no AE (0%) or postoperative death (100%), with other AEs assigned mean severity weights based on faculty members’ survey responses. A patient with multiple AEs would be assigned the weight for the more severe AE. This method was chosen over summing the AE weights because in many cases the AEs were thought to overlap; hence, summing would be inappropriate. For example, generally a deep SSI would result in a return to the operating room, and one would not want to double-count this AE. Similarly, it would not make sense for a patient who died of a complication to have a SWORD of >100%, which would be the summing result.

Application to ACS-NSQIP Patients

ACS-NSQIP is a surgical registry that prospectively identifies patients undergoing major surgery at any of >500 institutions nationwide.^26,27 Patients are characterized at baseline and are followed for AEs over the first 30 postoperative days.

First, mean SWORD was calculated and reported for patients undergoing each of the 8 procedures. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for associations of mean SWORD with type of procedure both before and after multivariate adjustment for demographics (sex; age in years, <40, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, ≥90) and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exertional dyspnea, end-stage renal disease, congestive heart failure).

Second, patients undergoing the procedure with the highest mean SWORD (hip fracture surgery) were examined in depth. Among only these patients, multivariate ANOVA was used to test for associations of mean SWORD with the same demographics and comorbidities.

All statistical tests were 2-tailed. Significance was set at α = 0.05 (P < .05).

All 23 institution A faculty members (100%) and 24 (89%) of the 27 institution B faculty members completed the exercise.

Results

Figure 1 shows mean severity weights and standard errors generated from faculty responses. Mean (standard error) severity weight for UTI was 0.23% (0.08%); blood transfusion, 0.28% (0.09%); pneumonia, 0.55% (0.15%); hospital readmission, 0.59% (0.23%); wound dehiscence, 0.64% (0.17%); deep vein thrombosis, 0.64% (0.19%); superficial SSI, 0.68% (0.23%); return to operating room, 0.91% (0.29%); progressive renal insufficiency, 0.93% (0.27%); graft/prosthesis/flap failure, 1.20% (0.34%); unplanned intubation, 1.38% (0.53%); deep SSI, 1.45% (0.38%); failure to wean from ventilator, 1.45% (0.48%); organ/space SSI, 1.76% (0.46%); sepsis without shock, 1.77% (0.42%); peripheral nerve injury, 1.83% (0.47%); pulmonary embolism, 2.99% (0.76%); acute renal failure, 3.95% (0.85%); myocardial infarction, 4.16% (0.98%); septic shock, 7.17% (1.36%); stroke, 8.73% (1.74%); cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 9.97% (2.46%); and coma, 15.14% (3.04%).

Among ACS-NSQIP patients, mean SWORD ranged from 0.2% (elective anterior cervical decompression and fusion) to 6.0% (hip fracture surgery) (Figure 2).

Discussion

The use of national databases in studies has become increasingly common in orthopedic surgery.^1-4

The academic orthopedic surgeons who participated in our severity-weighting exercise thought the various AEs have markedly different severities. The least severe AE (UTI) was considered 0.23% as severe as postoperative death, with other events spanning the range up to 15.14% as severe as death. This wide range of severities demonstrates the problem with composite outcomes that implicitly consider all AEs similarly severe. Use of these markedly disparate weights in the development of SWORD enables this outcome to be more clinically applicable than outcomes such as “any adverse events.”

SWORD was highly associated with procedure type both before and after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. Among patients undergoing the highest SWORD procedure (hip fracture surgery), SWORD was also associated with age, sex, and 4 of 6 tested comorbidities. Together, our findings show how SWORD is intended to be used in studies: to identify demographic, comorbidity, and procedural risk factors for an adverse postoperative course. We propose that researchers use our weighted outcome as their primary outcome—it is more meaningful than the simpler composite outcomes commonly used.

Outside orthopedic surgery, a small series of studies has addressed severity weighting of postoperative AEs.^25,28-30 However, their approach was very different, as they were not designed to generate weights that could be transferred to future studies; rather, they simply compared severities of postoperative courses for patients within each individual study. In each study, a review of each original patient record was required, as the severity of each patient’s postoperative course was characterized according to the degree of any postoperative intervention—from no intervention to minor interventions such as placement of an intravenous catheter and major interventions such as endoscopic, radiologic, and surgical procedures. Only after the degree of intervention was defined could an outcome score be assigned to a given patient. However, databases do not depict the degree of intervention with nearly enough detail for this type of approach; they typically identify only occurrence or nonoccurrence of each event. Our work, which arose independently from this body of literature, enables an entirely different type of analysis. SWORD, which is not based on degree of intervention but on perceived severity of an “average” event, enables direct application of severity weights to large databases that store simple information on occurrence and nonoccurrence of specific AEs.

This study had several limitations. Most significantly, the generated severity weights were based on the surgeons’ subjective perceptions of severity, not on definitive assessments of the impacts of specific AEs on actual patients. We did not query the specialists who treat the complications or who present data on the costs and disabilities that may arise from these AEs. In addition, to develop our severity weighting scale, we queried faculty at only 2 institutions. A survey of surgeons throughout the United States would be more representative and would minimize selection bias. This is a potential research area. Another limitation is that scoring was subjective, based on surgeons’ perceptions of patients—in contrast to the Global Burden of Disease project, in which severity was based more objectively on epidemiologic data from >150 countries.

Orthopedic database research itself has often-noted limitations, including inability to sufficiently control for confounders, potential inaccuracies in data coding, limited follow-up, and lack of orthopedic-specific outcomes.^1-4,31-33 However, this research also has much to offer, has increased tremendously over the past several years, and is expected to continue to expand. Many of the limitations of database studies cannot be entirely reversed. In providing a system for weighting postoperative AEs, our study fills a methodologic void. Future studies in orthopedics may benefit from using the severity-weighted outcome score presented here. Other fields with growth in database research may consider using similar methods to create severity-weighting systems of their own.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E235-E243. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Concussion, also known as mild traumatic brain injury, affects more than 600 adults per 100,000 each year and is commonly treated by nonneurologists.¹ Public attention to concussion has been increasing, particularly to concussion sustained during sports. Coincident with this increased attention, the diagnosis of concussion continues to increase in the outpatient setting. Thus, a review of the topic is timely.

ACCELERATION OF THE BRAIN DUE TO TRAUMA

The definition of concussion has changed considerably over the years. It is currently defined as a pathophysiologic process that results from an acceleration or deceleration of the brain induced by trauma.² It is largely a temporary, functional problem, as opposed to a gross structural injury.^2–5

The acceleration of the brain that results in a concussion is usually initiated by a direct blow to the head, although direct impact is not required.⁶ As the brain rotates, different areas accelerate at different rates, resulting in a shear strain imparted to the parenchyma.

This shear strain causes deformation of axonal membranes and opening of membrane-associated sodium-potassium channels. This in turn leads to release of excitatory neurotransmitters, ultimately culminating in a wave of neuronal depolarization and a spreading depression-like phenomenon that may mediate the loss of consciousness, posttraumatic amnesia, confusion, and many of the other immediate signs and symptoms associated with concussion.

The sudden metabolic demand created by the massive excitatory phenomena triggers an increased utilization of glucose to restore cellular homeostasis. At the same time, cerebral blood flow decreases after concussion, which, in the setting of increased glucose demand, leads to an “energy crisis”: an increased need for adenosine triphosphate with a concomitant decreased delivery of glucose.⁷ This mismatch between energy demand and supply is thought to underlie the most common signs and symptoms of concussion.

ASSESSMENT

History

The history of present illness is essential to a diagnosis of concussion. In the classic scenario, an otherwise asymptomatic person sustains some trauma to the head that is followed immediately by the signs and symptoms of concussion.

Many of these signs and symptoms are nonspecific and may occur without concussion or other trauma.^8,9 Thus, the diagnosis of concussion cannot be made on the basis of symptoms alone, but only in the overall context of history, physical examination, and, at times, additional clinical assessments.

The symptoms of concussion should gradually improve. While they may be exacerbated by certain activities or stimuli, the overall trend should be one of symptom improvement. If symptoms are worsening over time, alternative explanations for the patient’s symptoms should be considered.

Physical examination

A thorough neurologic examination should be conducted in all patients with suspected concussion and include the following.

A mental status examination should include assessment of attention, memory, and recall. Orientation is normal except in the most acute examinations.

Cranial nerve examination must include careful assessment of eye-movement control, including smooth pursuit and saccades. However, even in patients with prominent subjective dizziness, considerable experience may be needed to actually demonstrate abnormalities.

Balance testing. Balance demands careful assessment and, especially for young athletes, this testing should be more difficult than the tandem gait and eyes-closed, feet-together tests.

Standard strength, sensory, reflex, and coordination testing is usually normal.

Any focal neurologic findings should prompt consideration of other causes or of a more serious injury and should lead to further evaluation, including brain imaging.

Diagnostic tests

Current clinical brain imaging cannot diagnose a concussion. The purpose of neuroimaging is to assess for other etiologies or injuries, such as hemorrhage or contusion, that may cause similar symptoms but require different management.

Several guidelines are available to assess the need for imaging in the setting of recent trauma, of which 2 are typically used^10–12:

The Canadian CT Head Rule¹⁰ states that computed tomography (CT) is indicated in any of the following situations:

• The patient fails to reach a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15—on a scale of 3 (worst) to 15 (best)—within 2 hours
• There is a suspected open skull fracture
• There is any sign of basal skull fracture
• The patient has 2 or more episodes of vomiting
• The patient is 65 or older
• The patient has retrograde amnesia (ie, cannot remember events that occurred before the injury) for 30 minutes or more
• The mechanism of injury was dangerous (eg, a pedestrian was struck by a motor vehicle, or the patient fell from > 3 feet or > 5 stairs).

The New Orleans Criteria¹¹ state that a patient warrants CT of the head if any of the following is present:

• Severe headache
• Vomiting
• Age over 60
• Drug or alcohol intoxication
• Deficit in short-term memory
• Physical evidence of trauma above the clavicles
• Seizure.

Caveats: these imaging guidelines apply to adults; those for pediatric patients differ.¹² Also, because they were designed for use in an emergency department, their utility in clinical practice outside the emergency department is unclear.

Electroencephalography is not necessary in the evaluation of concussion unless a seizure disorder is believed to be the cause of the injury.

Concussion in athletes

Athletes who participate in contact and collision sports are at higher risk of concussion than the nonathletic population. Therefore, specific assessments of symptoms, balance, oculomotor function, cognitive function, and reaction time have been developed for athletes.

Ideally, these measures are taken at preseason baseline, so that they are available for comparison with postinjury assessments after a known or suspected concussion. These assessments can be used to help make the diagnosis of concussion in cases that are unclear and to help monitor recovery. Objective measures of injury are especially useful for athletes who may be reluctant to report symptoms in order to return to play.

Like most medical tests, these assessments need to be properly interpreted in the overall context of the medical history and physical examination by those who know how to administer them. It is important to remember that the natural history of concussion recovery differs between sport-related concussion and concussion that occurs outside of sports.⁸

The symptoms and signs after concussion are so variable and multidimensional that they make a generally applicable treatment hard to define.

Rest: Physical and cognitive

Treatment depends on the specifics of the injury, but there are common recommendations for the acute days after injury. Lacking hard data, the consensus among experts is that patients should undergo a period of physical and cognitive rest.^13,14 Exactly what “rest” means and how long it should last are unknown, leading to a wide variation in its application.

Rest aids recovery but also may have adverse effects: fatigue, diurnal sleep disruption, reactive depression, anxiety, and physiologic deconditioning.^15,16 Many guidelines recommend physical and cognitive rest until symptoms resolve,¹⁴ but this is likely too cautious. Even without a concussion, inactivity is associated with many of the nonspecific symptoms also associated with concussion. As recovery progresses, the somatic symptoms of concussion improve, while emotional symptoms worsen, likely in part due to prolonged rest.¹⁷

We recommend a period of rest lasting 3 to 5 days after injury, followed by a gradual resumption of both physical and cognitive activities as tolerated, remaining below the level at which symptoms are exacerbated.

Not surprisingly, many guidelines for returning to physical activity are focused on athletes. Yet the same principles apply to management of concussion in the general population who exercise: light physical activity (typically walking or stationary bicycling), followed by more vigorous aerobic activity, followed by some resistance activities. Mild aerobic exercise (to below the threshold of symptoms) may speed recovery from refractive postconcussion syndrome, even in those who did not exercise before the injury.¹⁸

Athletes require specific and strict instructions to avoid increased trauma to the head during the gradual increase of physical activities. The National Collegiate Athletic Association has published an algorithm for a gradual return to sport-specific training that is echoed in recent consensus statements on concussion.¹⁹ Once aerobic reconditioning produces no symptoms, then noncontact, sport-specific activities are begun, followed by contact activities. We have patients return to the clinic once they are symptom-free for repeat evaluation before clearing them for high-risk activities (eg, skiing, bicycling) or contact sports (eg, basketball, soccer, football, ice hockey).

Cognitive rest

While physical rest is fairly straightforward, cognitive rest is more challenging. The concept of cognitive rest is hard to define and even harder to enforce. Patients are often told to minimize any activities that require attention or concentration. This often includes, but is not limited to, avoiding reading, texting, playing video games, and using computers.¹³

In the modern world, full avoidance of these activities is difficult and can be profoundly socially isolating. Further, complete cognitive rest may be associated with symptoms of its own.^15,16,20 Still, some reasonable limitation of cognitive activities, at least initially, is likely beneficial.²¹ For patients engaged in school or academic work, often the daily schedule needs to be adjusted and accommodations made to help them return to a full academic schedule and level of activity. It is reasonable to have patients return gradually to work or school rather than attempt to immediately return to their preinjury level.

With these interventions, most patients have full resolution of their symptoms and return to preinjury levels of performance.

TREATING SOMATIC SYMPTOMS

Posttraumatic headache

Posttraumatic headache is the most common sequela of concussion.²² Surprisingly, it is more common after concussion than after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury.²³ A prior history of headache, particularly migraine, is a known risk factor for development of posttraumatic headache.²⁴

Posttraumatic headache is usually further defined by headache type using the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria (www.ichd-3.org). Migraine or probable migraine is the most common type of posttraumatic headache; tension headache is less common.²⁵

Analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used initially by patients to treat posttraumatic headache. One study found that 70% of patients used acetaminophen or an NSAID.²⁶

Treating early with effective therapy is the most important tenet of posttraumatic headache treatment, since 80% of those who self-treat have incomplete relief, and almost all of them are using over-the-counter products.²⁷ Overuse of over-the-counter abortive medications can lead to medication overuse headache, also known as rebound headache, thus complicating the treatment of posttraumatic headache.²⁶

Earlier treatment with a preventive medication can often limit the need for and overuse of over-the-counter analgesics and can minimize the occurrence of subsequent medication overuse headache. However, in pediatric populations, nonpharmacologic interventions such as rest and sleep hygiene are typically used first, then medications after 4 to 6 weeks if this is ineffective.

A number of medications have been studied for prophylactic treatment of posttraumatic headache, including topiramate, amitriptyline, and divalproex sodium,^28–30 but there is little compelling evidence for use of one over the other. If posttraumatic headache is migrainous, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibtors, and gabapentin are other prophylactic medication options under the appropriate circumstances.^27,31,32 In adults, we have clinically had success with nortriptyline 20 mg or gabapentin 300 mg at night as an initial prophylactic headache medication, increasing as tolerated or until pain is controlled, though there are no high-quality data to guide this decision.

The ideal prophylactic medication depends on headache type, patient tolerance, comorbidities, allergies, and medication sensitivities. Gabapentin, amitriptyline, and nortriptyline can produce sedation, which can help those suffering from sleep disturbance.

If a provider is not comfortable prescribing these medications or doesn’t prescribe them regularly, the patient should be referred to a concussion or headache specialist more familiar with their use.

In some patients, even some athletes, headache may be related to a cervical strain injury—whiplash—that should be treated with an NSAID (or acetaminophen), perhaps with a short course of a muscle relaxant in adults, and with physical therapy.³²

Some patients have chronic headache despite oral medications.²⁶ Therefore, alternatives to oral medications and complementary therapies should be considered. Especially for protracted cases requiring more complicated headache management or injectable treatments, patients should be referred to a pain clinic, headache specialist, or concussion specialist.

Dizziness is also common after concussion. But what the patient means by dizziness requires a little probing. Some have paroxysms of vertigo. This typically represents a peripheral vestibular injury, usually benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. The latter can be elicited with a Hallpike maneuver and treated in the office with the Epley maneuver.³³

Usually, dizziness is a subjective sense of poor coordination, gait instability, or dysequilibrium. Patients may also complain of associated nausea and motion sensitivity. This may all be secondary to a mechanism in the middle or inner ear or the brain. Patients should be encouraged to begin movement—gradually and safely—to help the vestibular system accommodate, which it will do with gradual stimulation. It usually resolves spontaneously.

Specific treatment is unfortunately limited. There is no established benefit from vestibular suppressants such as meclizine. Vestibular rehabilitation may accelerate improvement and decrease symptoms.³³ Referral for a comprehensive balance assessment or to vestibular therapy (a subset of physical therapy) should be considered and is something we typically undertake in our clinic if there is no recovery from dizziness 4 to 6 weeks after the concussion.

Visual symptoms can contribute to dizziness. Convergence spasm or convergence insufficiency (both related to muscle spasm of the eye) can occur after concussion, with some studies estimating that up to 69% of patients have these symptoms.³⁴ This can interfere with visual tracking and contribute to a feeling of dysequilibrium.³⁴ Referral to a concussion specialist or vestibular rehabilitation physical therapist can be helpful in treating this issue if it does not resolve spontaneously.

Orthostasis and lightheadedness also contribute to dizziness and are associated with cerebrovascular autoregulation. Available data suggest that dysregulation of neurovascular coupling, cerebral vasoreactivity, and cerebral autoregulation contribute to some of the chronic symptoms of concussion, including dizziness. A gradual return to exercise may help regulate cerebral blood flow and improve this type of dizziness.³⁵

Sleep disturbance

Sleep disturbance is common after concussion, but the form is variable: insomnia, excessive daytime somnolence, and alteration of the sleep-wake cycle are all seen and may themselves affect recovery.³⁶

Sleep hygiene education should be the first intervention for postconcussive sleep issues. For example, the patient should be encouraged to do the following:

• Minimize “screen time” an hour before going to bed: cell phone, tablet, and computer screens emit a wavelength of light that suppresses endogenous melatonin release^37,38
• Go to bed and wake up at the same time each day
• Minimize or avoid caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol
• Avoid naps.³⁹

Melatonin is a safe and effective treatment that could be added.⁴⁰ In addition, some studies suggest that melatonin may improve recovery from traumatic brain injury.^41,42

Mild exercise (to below the threshold of causing or exacerbating symptoms) may also improve sleep quality.

Amitriptyline or nortriptyline may reduce headache frequency and intensity and also help treat insomnia.

Trazodone is recommended by some as a first-line agent,³⁹ but we usually reserve it for protracted insomnia refractory to the above treatments.

Benzodiazepines should be avoided, as they reduce arousal, impair cognition, and exacerbate motor impairments.⁴³

Emotional symptoms

Acute-onset anxiety or depression often occurs after concussion.^44,45 There is abundant evidence that emotional effects of injury may be the most significant factor in recovery.⁴⁶ A preinjury history of anxiety may be a prognostic factor.⁹ Patients with a history of anxiety or depression are more likely to develop emotional symptoms after a concussion, but emotional problems may develop in any patient after a concussion.^47,48

The circumstances under which an injury is sustained may be traumatic (eg, car accident, assault), leading to an acute stress reaction or disorder and, if untreated, may result in a more chronic condition—posttraumatic stress disorder. Moreover, the injury and subsequent symptoms may have repercussions in many aspects of the patient’s life, leading to further psychologic stress (eg, loss of wages or the inability to handle normal work, school, and family responsibilities).

Referral to a therapist trained in skills-based psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy, exposure-based treatment) is often helpful.

Pharmacologic treatment can be a useful adjunct. Several studies have shown that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants may improve depression after concussion.⁴⁹ The prescription of antidepressants, however, is best left to providers with experience in treating anxiety and depression.

As with sleep disorders after concussion, benzodiazepines should be avoided, as they can impair cognition.⁴³

Cognitive problems

Cognitive problems are also common after concussion. Patients complain about everyday experiences of forgetfulness, distractibility, loss of concentration, and mental fatigue. Although patients often subjectively perceive these symptoms as quite limiting, the impairments can be difficult to demonstrate in office testing.

A program of gradual increase in mental activity, parallel to recovery of physical capacity, should be undertaken. Most patients make a gradual recovery within a few weeks.⁵⁰

When cognitive symptoms cause significant school or vocational problems or become persistent, patients should be referred to a specialty clinic. As with most of the consequences of concussion, there are few established treatments. When cognitive difficulties persist, it is important to consider the complications of concussion mentioned above: headache, pain, sleep disturbance, and anxiety, all of which may cause subjective cognitive problems and are treatable.

If cognitive symptoms are prolonged despite improvement of other issues like headache and sleep disturbance, a low-dose stimulant medication such as amphetamine salts or methylphenidate may be useful for symptoms of poor attention.⁴⁹ They should be only a temporary measure after concussion to carry the patient through a cognitively challenging period, unless there was a history of attention-deficit disorder before the injury. A variety of other agents, including amantadine,⁵¹ have been proposed based on limited studies; all are off-label uses. Before considering these types of interventions, referral to a specialist or a specialty program would be appropriate.

With the interventions suggested above, most patients with concussion have a resolution of symptoms and can return to preinjury levels of performance. But some have prolonged symptoms and sequelae. Approximately 10% of athletes have persistent signs and symptoms of concussion beyond 2 weeks. If concussion is not sport-related, most patients recover completely within the first 3 months, but up to 33% may have symptoms beyond that.⁵²

Four types of patients have persistent symptoms:

Patients who sustained a high-force mechanism of injury. These patients simply need more time and accommodation.

Patients who sustained multiple concussions. These patients may also need more time and accommodation.

Patients with an underlying neurologic condition, recognized prior to injury or not, may have delayed or incomplete recovery. Even aging may be an “underlying condition” in concussion.

Patients whose symptoms from an apparently single mild concussion do not resolve despite appropriate treatments may have identifiable factors, but intractable pain (usually headache) or significant emotional disturbance or both are common. Once established and persistent, this is difficult to treat. Referral to a specialty practice is appropriate, but even in that setting effective treatment may be elusive.

PATIENT EDUCATION

Most important for patient education is reassurance. Ultimately, concussion is a self-limited phenomenon, and reinforcing this is helpful for patients. If concussion is not sport-related, most patients recover completely within 3 months.

The next important tenet in patient education is that they should rest for 3 to 5 days, then resume gradual physical and cognitive activities. If resuming activities too soon results in symptoms, then they should rest for a day and gradually resume activity. If their recovery is prolonged (ie, longer than 6 weeks), they likely need to be referred to a concussion specialist.

Concussion, also known as mild traumatic brain injury, affects more than 600 adults per 100,000 each year and is commonly treated by nonneurologists.¹ Public attention to concussion has been increasing, particularly to concussion sustained during sports. Coincident with this increased attention, the diagnosis of concussion continues to increase in the outpatient setting. Thus, a review of the topic is timely.

ACCELERATION OF THE BRAIN DUE TO TRAUMA

The definition of concussion has changed considerably over the years. It is currently defined as a pathophysiologic process that results from an acceleration or deceleration of the brain induced by trauma.² It is largely a temporary, functional problem, as opposed to a gross structural injury.^2–5

The acceleration of the brain that results in a concussion is usually initiated by a direct blow to the head, although direct impact is not required.⁶ As the brain rotates, different areas accelerate at different rates, resulting in a shear strain imparted to the parenchyma.

This shear strain causes deformation of axonal membranes and opening of membrane-associated sodium-potassium channels. This in turn leads to release of excitatory neurotransmitters, ultimately culminating in a wave of neuronal depolarization and a spreading depression-like phenomenon that may mediate the loss of consciousness, posttraumatic amnesia, confusion, and many of the other immediate signs and symptoms associated with concussion.

The sudden metabolic demand created by the massive excitatory phenomena triggers an increased utilization of glucose to restore cellular homeostasis. At the same time, cerebral blood flow decreases after concussion, which, in the setting of increased glucose demand, leads to an “energy crisis”: an increased need for adenosine triphosphate with a concomitant decreased delivery of glucose.⁷ This mismatch between energy demand and supply is thought to underlie the most common signs and symptoms of concussion.

ASSESSMENT

History

The history of present illness is essential to a diagnosis of concussion. In the classic scenario, an otherwise asymptomatic person sustains some trauma to the head that is followed immediately by the signs and symptoms of concussion.

Many of these signs and symptoms are nonspecific and may occur without concussion or other trauma.^8,9 Thus, the diagnosis of concussion cannot be made on the basis of symptoms alone, but only in the overall context of history, physical examination, and, at times, additional clinical assessments.

The symptoms of concussion should gradually improve. While they may be exacerbated by certain activities or stimuli, the overall trend should be one of symptom improvement. If symptoms are worsening over time, alternative explanations for the patient’s symptoms should be considered.

Physical examination

A thorough neurologic examination should be conducted in all patients with suspected concussion and include the following.

A mental status examination should include assessment of attention, memory, and recall. Orientation is normal except in the most acute examinations.

Cranial nerve examination must include careful assessment of eye-movement control, including smooth pursuit and saccades. However, even in patients with prominent subjective dizziness, considerable experience may be needed to actually demonstrate abnormalities.

Balance testing. Balance demands careful assessment and, especially for young athletes, this testing should be more difficult than the tandem gait and eyes-closed, feet-together tests.

Standard strength, sensory, reflex, and coordination testing is usually normal.

Any focal neurologic findings should prompt consideration of other causes or of a more serious injury and should lead to further evaluation, including brain imaging.

Diagnostic tests

Current clinical brain imaging cannot diagnose a concussion. The purpose of neuroimaging is to assess for other etiologies or injuries, such as hemorrhage or contusion, that may cause similar symptoms but require different management.

Several guidelines are available to assess the need for imaging in the setting of recent trauma, of which 2 are typically used^10–12:

The Canadian CT Head Rule¹⁰ states that computed tomography (CT) is indicated in any of the following situations:

• The patient fails to reach a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15—on a scale of 3 (worst) to 15 (best)—within 2 hours
• There is a suspected open skull fracture
• There is any sign of basal skull fracture
• The patient has 2 or more episodes of vomiting
• The patient is 65 or older
• The patient has retrograde amnesia (ie, cannot remember events that occurred before the injury) for 30 minutes or more
• The mechanism of injury was dangerous (eg, a pedestrian was struck by a motor vehicle, or the patient fell from > 3 feet or > 5 stairs).

The New Orleans Criteria¹¹ state that a patient warrants CT of the head if any of the following is present:

• Severe headache
• Vomiting
• Age over 60
• Drug or alcohol intoxication
• Deficit in short-term memory
• Physical evidence of trauma above the clavicles
• Seizure.

Caveats: these imaging guidelines apply to adults; those for pediatric patients differ.¹² Also, because they were designed for use in an emergency department, their utility in clinical practice outside the emergency department is unclear.

Electroencephalography is not necessary in the evaluation of concussion unless a seizure disorder is believed to be the cause of the injury.

Concussion in athletes

Athletes who participate in contact and collision sports are at higher risk of concussion than the nonathletic population. Therefore, specific assessments of symptoms, balance, oculomotor function, cognitive function, and reaction time have been developed for athletes.

Ideally, these measures are taken at preseason baseline, so that they are available for comparison with postinjury assessments after a known or suspected concussion. These assessments can be used to help make the diagnosis of concussion in cases that are unclear and to help monitor recovery. Objective measures of injury are especially useful for athletes who may be reluctant to report symptoms in order to return to play.

Like most medical tests, these assessments need to be properly interpreted in the overall context of the medical history and physical examination by those who know how to administer them. It is important to remember that the natural history of concussion recovery differs between sport-related concussion and concussion that occurs outside of sports.⁸

The symptoms and signs after concussion are so variable and multidimensional that they make a generally applicable treatment hard to define.

Rest: Physical and cognitive

Treatment depends on the specifics of the injury, but there are common recommendations for the acute days after injury. Lacking hard data, the consensus among experts is that patients should undergo a period of physical and cognitive rest.^13,14 Exactly what “rest” means and how long it should last are unknown, leading to a wide variation in its application.

Rest aids recovery but also may have adverse effects: fatigue, diurnal sleep disruption, reactive depression, anxiety, and physiologic deconditioning.^15,16 Many guidelines recommend physical and cognitive rest until symptoms resolve,¹⁴ but this is likely too cautious. Even without a concussion, inactivity is associated with many of the nonspecific symptoms also associated with concussion. As recovery progresses, the somatic symptoms of concussion improve, while emotional symptoms worsen, likely in part due to prolonged rest.¹⁷

We recommend a period of rest lasting 3 to 5 days after injury, followed by a gradual resumption of both physical and cognitive activities as tolerated, remaining below the level at which symptoms are exacerbated.

Not surprisingly, many guidelines for returning to physical activity are focused on athletes. Yet the same principles apply to management of concussion in the general population who exercise: light physical activity (typically walking or stationary bicycling), followed by more vigorous aerobic activity, followed by some resistance activities. Mild aerobic exercise (to below the threshold of symptoms) may speed recovery from refractive postconcussion syndrome, even in those who did not exercise before the injury.¹⁸

Athletes require specific and strict instructions to avoid increased trauma to the head during the gradual increase of physical activities. The National Collegiate Athletic Association has published an algorithm for a gradual return to sport-specific training that is echoed in recent consensus statements on concussion.¹⁹ Once aerobic reconditioning produces no symptoms, then noncontact, sport-specific activities are begun, followed by contact activities. We have patients return to the clinic once they are symptom-free for repeat evaluation before clearing them for high-risk activities (eg, skiing, bicycling) or contact sports (eg, basketball, soccer, football, ice hockey).

Cognitive rest

While physical rest is fairly straightforward, cognitive rest is more challenging. The concept of cognitive rest is hard to define and even harder to enforce. Patients are often told to minimize any activities that require attention or concentration. This often includes, but is not limited to, avoiding reading, texting, playing video games, and using computers.¹³

In the modern world, full avoidance of these activities is difficult and can be profoundly socially isolating. Further, complete cognitive rest may be associated with symptoms of its own.^15,16,20 Still, some reasonable limitation of cognitive activities, at least initially, is likely beneficial.²¹ For patients engaged in school or academic work, often the daily schedule needs to be adjusted and accommodations made to help them return to a full academic schedule and level of activity. It is reasonable to have patients return gradually to work or school rather than attempt to immediately return to their preinjury level.

With these interventions, most patients have full resolution of their symptoms and return to preinjury levels of performance.

TREATING SOMATIC SYMPTOMS

Posttraumatic headache

Posttraumatic headache is the most common sequela of concussion.²² Surprisingly, it is more common after concussion than after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury.²³ A prior history of headache, particularly migraine, is a known risk factor for development of posttraumatic headache.²⁴

Posttraumatic headache is usually further defined by headache type using the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria (www.ichd-3.org). Migraine or probable migraine is the most common type of posttraumatic headache; tension headache is less common.²⁵

Analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used initially by patients to treat posttraumatic headache. One study found that 70% of patients used acetaminophen or an NSAID.²⁶

Treating early with effective therapy is the most important tenet of posttraumatic headache treatment, since 80% of those who self-treat have incomplete relief, and almost all of them are using over-the-counter products.²⁷ Overuse of over-the-counter abortive medications can lead to medication overuse headache, also known as rebound headache, thus complicating the treatment of posttraumatic headache.²⁶

Earlier treatment with a preventive medication can often limit the need for and overuse of over-the-counter analgesics and can minimize the occurrence of subsequent medication overuse headache. However, in pediatric populations, nonpharmacologic interventions such as rest and sleep hygiene are typically used first, then medications after 4 to 6 weeks if this is ineffective.

A number of medications have been studied for prophylactic treatment of posttraumatic headache, including topiramate, amitriptyline, and divalproex sodium,^28–30 but there is little compelling evidence for use of one over the other. If posttraumatic headache is migrainous, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibtors, and gabapentin are other prophylactic medication options under the appropriate circumstances.^27,31,32 In adults, we have clinically had success with nortriptyline 20 mg or gabapentin 300 mg at night as an initial prophylactic headache medication, increasing as tolerated or until pain is controlled, though there are no high-quality data to guide this decision.

The ideal prophylactic medication depends on headache type, patient tolerance, comorbidities, allergies, and medication sensitivities. Gabapentin, amitriptyline, and nortriptyline can produce sedation, which can help those suffering from sleep disturbance.

If a provider is not comfortable prescribing these medications or doesn’t prescribe them regularly, the patient should be referred to a concussion or headache specialist more familiar with their use.

In some patients, even some athletes, headache may be related to a cervical strain injury—whiplash—that should be treated with an NSAID (or acetaminophen), perhaps with a short course of a muscle relaxant in adults, and with physical therapy.³²

Some patients have chronic headache despite oral medications.²⁶ Therefore, alternatives to oral medications and complementary therapies should be considered. Especially for protracted cases requiring more complicated headache management or injectable treatments, patients should be referred to a pain clinic, headache specialist, or concussion specialist.

Dizziness is also common after concussion. But what the patient means by dizziness requires a little probing. Some have paroxysms of vertigo. This typically represents a peripheral vestibular injury, usually benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. The latter can be elicited with a Hallpike maneuver and treated in the office with the Epley maneuver.³³

Usually, dizziness is a subjective sense of poor coordination, gait instability, or dysequilibrium. Patients may also complain of associated nausea and motion sensitivity. This may all be secondary to a mechanism in the middle or inner ear or the brain. Patients should be encouraged to begin movement—gradually and safely—to help the vestibular system accommodate, which it will do with gradual stimulation. It usually resolves spontaneously.

Specific treatment is unfortunately limited. There is no established benefit from vestibular suppressants such as meclizine. Vestibular rehabilitation may accelerate improvement and decrease symptoms.³³ Referral for a comprehensive balance assessment or to vestibular therapy (a subset of physical therapy) should be considered and is something we typically undertake in our clinic if there is no recovery from dizziness 4 to 6 weeks after the concussion.

Visual symptoms can contribute to dizziness. Convergence spasm or convergence insufficiency (both related to muscle spasm of the eye) can occur after concussion, with some studies estimating that up to 69% of patients have these symptoms.³⁴ This can interfere with visual tracking and contribute to a feeling of dysequilibrium.³⁴ Referral to a concussion specialist or vestibular rehabilitation physical therapist can be helpful in treating this issue if it does not resolve spontaneously.

Orthostasis and lightheadedness also contribute to dizziness and are associated with cerebrovascular autoregulation. Available data suggest that dysregulation of neurovascular coupling, cerebral vasoreactivity, and cerebral autoregulation contribute to some of the chronic symptoms of concussion, including dizziness. A gradual return to exercise may help regulate cerebral blood flow and improve this type of dizziness.³⁵

Sleep disturbance

Sleep disturbance is common after concussion, but the form is variable: insomnia, excessive daytime somnolence, and alteration of the sleep-wake cycle are all seen and may themselves affect recovery.³⁶

Sleep hygiene education should be the first intervention for postconcussive sleep issues. For example, the patient should be encouraged to do the following:

• Minimize “screen time” an hour before going to bed: cell phone, tablet, and computer screens emit a wavelength of light that suppresses endogenous melatonin release^37,38
• Go to bed and wake up at the same time each day
• Minimize or avoid caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol
• Avoid naps.³⁹

Melatonin is a safe and effective treatment that could be added.⁴⁰ In addition, some studies suggest that melatonin may improve recovery from traumatic brain injury.^41,42

Mild exercise (to below the threshold of causing or exacerbating symptoms) may also improve sleep quality.

Amitriptyline or nortriptyline may reduce headache frequency and intensity and also help treat insomnia.

Trazodone is recommended by some as a first-line agent,³⁹ but we usually reserve it for protracted insomnia refractory to the above treatments.

Benzodiazepines should be avoided, as they reduce arousal, impair cognition, and exacerbate motor impairments.⁴³

Emotional symptoms

Acute-onset anxiety or depression often occurs after concussion.^44,45 There is abundant evidence that emotional effects of injury may be the most significant factor in recovery.⁴⁶ A preinjury history of anxiety may be a prognostic factor.⁹ Patients with a history of anxiety or depression are more likely to develop emotional symptoms after a concussion, but emotional problems may develop in any patient after a concussion.^47,48

The circumstances under which an injury is sustained may be traumatic (eg, car accident, assault), leading to an acute stress reaction or disorder and, if untreated, may result in a more chronic condition—posttraumatic stress disorder. Moreover, the injury and subsequent symptoms may have repercussions in many aspects of the patient’s life, leading to further psychologic stress (eg, loss of wages or the inability to handle normal work, school, and family responsibilities).

Referral to a therapist trained in skills-based psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy, exposure-based treatment) is often helpful.

Pharmacologic treatment can be a useful adjunct. Several studies have shown that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants may improve depression after concussion.⁴⁹ The prescription of antidepressants, however, is best left to providers with experience in treating anxiety and depression.

As with sleep disorders after concussion, benzodiazepines should be avoided, as they can impair cognition.⁴³

Cognitive problems

Cognitive problems are also common after concussion. Patients complain about everyday experiences of forgetfulness, distractibility, loss of concentration, and mental fatigue. Although patients often subjectively perceive these symptoms as quite limiting, the impairments can be difficult to demonstrate in office testing.

A program of gradual increase in mental activity, parallel to recovery of physical capacity, should be undertaken. Most patients make a gradual recovery within a few weeks.⁵⁰

When cognitive symptoms cause significant school or vocational problems or become persistent, patients should be referred to a specialty clinic. As with most of the consequences of concussion, there are few established treatments. When cognitive difficulties persist, it is important to consider the complications of concussion mentioned above: headache, pain, sleep disturbance, and anxiety, all of which may cause subjective cognitive problems and are treatable.

If cognitive symptoms are prolonged despite improvement of other issues like headache and sleep disturbance, a low-dose stimulant medication such as amphetamine salts or methylphenidate may be useful for symptoms of poor attention.⁴⁹ They should be only a temporary measure after concussion to carry the patient through a cognitively challenging period, unless there was a history of attention-deficit disorder before the injury. A variety of other agents, including amantadine,⁵¹ have been proposed based on limited studies; all are off-label uses. Before considering these types of interventions, referral to a specialist or a specialty program would be appropriate.

With the interventions suggested above, most patients with concussion have a resolution of symptoms and can return to preinjury levels of performance. But some have prolonged symptoms and sequelae. Approximately 10% of athletes have persistent signs and symptoms of concussion beyond 2 weeks. If concussion is not sport-related, most patients recover completely within the first 3 months, but up to 33% may have symptoms beyond that.⁵²

Four types of patients have persistent symptoms:

Patients who sustained a high-force mechanism of injury. These patients simply need more time and accommodation.

Patients who sustained multiple concussions. These patients may also need more time and accommodation.

Patients with an underlying neurologic condition, recognized prior to injury or not, may have delayed or incomplete recovery. Even aging may be an “underlying condition” in concussion.

Patients whose symptoms from an apparently single mild concussion do not resolve despite appropriate treatments may have identifiable factors, but intractable pain (usually headache) or significant emotional disturbance or both are common. Once established and persistent, this is difficult to treat. Referral to a specialty practice is appropriate, but even in that setting effective treatment may be elusive.

PATIENT EDUCATION

Most important for patient education is reassurance. Ultimately, concussion is a self-limited phenomenon, and reinforcing this is helpful for patients. If concussion is not sport-related, most patients recover completely within 3 months.

The next important tenet in patient education is that they should rest for 3 to 5 days, then resume gradual physical and cognitive activities. If resuming activities too soon results in symptoms, then they should rest for a day and gradually resume activity. If their recovery is prolonged (ie, longer than 6 weeks), they likely need to be referred to a concussion specialist.

Concussion, also known as mild traumatic brain injury, affects more than 600 adults per 100,000 each year and is commonly treated by nonneurologists.¹ Public attention to concussion has been increasing, particularly to concussion sustained during sports. Coincident with this increased attention, the diagnosis of concussion continues to increase in the outpatient setting. Thus, a review of the topic is timely.

ACCELERATION OF THE BRAIN DUE TO TRAUMA

The definition of concussion has changed considerably over the years. It is currently defined as a pathophysiologic process that results from an acceleration or deceleration of the brain induced by trauma.² It is largely a temporary, functional problem, as opposed to a gross structural injury.^2–5

The acceleration of the brain that results in a concussion is usually initiated by a direct blow to the head, although direct impact is not required.⁶ As the brain rotates, different areas accelerate at different rates, resulting in a shear strain imparted to the parenchyma.

This shear strain causes deformation of axonal membranes and opening of membrane-associated sodium-potassium channels. This in turn leads to release of excitatory neurotransmitters, ultimately culminating in a wave of neuronal depolarization and a spreading depression-like phenomenon that may mediate the loss of consciousness, posttraumatic amnesia, confusion, and many of the other immediate signs and symptoms associated with concussion.

The sudden metabolic demand created by the massive excitatory phenomena triggers an increased utilization of glucose to restore cellular homeostasis. At the same time, cerebral blood flow decreases after concussion, which, in the setting of increased glucose demand, leads to an “energy crisis”: an increased need for adenosine triphosphate with a concomitant decreased delivery of glucose.⁷ This mismatch between energy demand and supply is thought to underlie the most common signs and symptoms of concussion.

ASSESSMENT

History

The history of present illness is essential to a diagnosis of concussion. In the classic scenario, an otherwise asymptomatic person sustains some trauma to the head that is followed immediately by the signs and symptoms of concussion.

Many of these signs and symptoms are nonspecific and may occur without concussion or other trauma.^8,9 Thus, the diagnosis of concussion cannot be made on the basis of symptoms alone, but only in the overall context of history, physical examination, and, at times, additional clinical assessments.

The symptoms of concussion should gradually improve. While they may be exacerbated by certain activities or stimuli, the overall trend should be one of symptom improvement. If symptoms are worsening over time, alternative explanations for the patient’s symptoms should be considered.

Physical examination

A thorough neurologic examination should be conducted in all patients with suspected concussion and include the following.

A mental status examination should include assessment of attention, memory, and recall. Orientation is normal except in the most acute examinations.

Cranial nerve examination must include careful assessment of eye-movement control, including smooth pursuit and saccades. However, even in patients with prominent subjective dizziness, considerable experience may be needed to actually demonstrate abnormalities.

Balance testing. Balance demands careful assessment and, especially for young athletes, this testing should be more difficult than the tandem gait and eyes-closed, feet-together tests.

Standard strength, sensory, reflex, and coordination testing is usually normal.

Any focal neurologic findings should prompt consideration of other causes or of a more serious injury and should lead to further evaluation, including brain imaging.

Diagnostic tests

Current clinical brain imaging cannot diagnose a concussion. The purpose of neuroimaging is to assess for other etiologies or injuries, such as hemorrhage or contusion, that may cause similar symptoms but require different management.

Several guidelines are available to assess the need for imaging in the setting of recent trauma, of which 2 are typically used^10–12:

The Canadian CT Head Rule¹⁰ states that computed tomography (CT) is indicated in any of the following situations:

• The patient fails to reach a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15—on a scale of 3 (worst) to 15 (best)—within 2 hours
• There is a suspected open skull fracture
• There is any sign of basal skull fracture
• The patient has 2 or more episodes of vomiting
• The patient is 65 or older
• The patient has retrograde amnesia (ie, cannot remember events that occurred before the injury) for 30 minutes or more
• The mechanism of injury was dangerous (eg, a pedestrian was struck by a motor vehicle, or the patient fell from > 3 feet or > 5 stairs).

The New Orleans Criteria¹¹ state that a patient warrants CT of the head if any of the following is present:

• Severe headache
• Vomiting
• Age over 60
• Drug or alcohol intoxication
• Deficit in short-term memory
• Physical evidence of trauma above the clavicles
• Seizure.

Caveats: these imaging guidelines apply to adults; those for pediatric patients differ.¹² Also, because they were designed for use in an emergency department, their utility in clinical practice outside the emergency department is unclear.

Electroencephalography is not necessary in the evaluation of concussion unless a seizure disorder is believed to be the cause of the injury.

Concussion in athletes

Athletes who participate in contact and collision sports are at higher risk of concussion than the nonathletic population. Therefore, specific assessments of symptoms, balance, oculomotor function, cognitive function, and reaction time have been developed for athletes.

Ideally, these measures are taken at preseason baseline, so that they are available for comparison with postinjury assessments after a known or suspected concussion. These assessments can be used to help make the diagnosis of concussion in cases that are unclear and to help monitor recovery. Objective measures of injury are especially useful for athletes who may be reluctant to report symptoms in order to return to play.

Like most medical tests, these assessments need to be properly interpreted in the overall context of the medical history and physical examination by those who know how to administer them. It is important to remember that the natural history of concussion recovery differs between sport-related concussion and concussion that occurs outside of sports.⁸

The symptoms and signs after concussion are so variable and multidimensional that they make a generally applicable treatment hard to define.

Rest: Physical and cognitive

Treatment depends on the specifics of the injury, but there are common recommendations for the acute days after injury. Lacking hard data, the consensus among experts is that patients should undergo a period of physical and cognitive rest.^13,14 Exactly what “rest” means and how long it should last are unknown, leading to a wide variation in its application.

Rest aids recovery but also may have adverse effects: fatigue, diurnal sleep disruption, reactive depression, anxiety, and physiologic deconditioning.^15,16 Many guidelines recommend physical and cognitive rest until symptoms resolve,¹⁴ but this is likely too cautious. Even without a concussion, inactivity is associated with many of the nonspecific symptoms also associated with concussion. As recovery progresses, the somatic symptoms of concussion improve, while emotional symptoms worsen, likely in part due to prolonged rest.¹⁷

We recommend a period of rest lasting 3 to 5 days after injury, followed by a gradual resumption of both physical and cognitive activities as tolerated, remaining below the level at which symptoms are exacerbated.

Not surprisingly, many guidelines for returning to physical activity are focused on athletes. Yet the same principles apply to management of concussion in the general population who exercise: light physical activity (typically walking or stationary bicycling), followed by more vigorous aerobic activity, followed by some resistance activities. Mild aerobic exercise (to below the threshold of symptoms) may speed recovery from refractive postconcussion syndrome, even in those who did not exercise before the injury.¹⁸

Athletes require specific and strict instructions to avoid increased trauma to the head during the gradual increase of physical activities. The National Collegiate Athletic Association has published an algorithm for a gradual return to sport-specific training that is echoed in recent consensus statements on concussion.¹⁹ Once aerobic reconditioning produces no symptoms, then noncontact, sport-specific activities are begun, followed by contact activities. We have patients return to the clinic once they are symptom-free for repeat evaluation before clearing them for high-risk activities (eg, skiing, bicycling) or contact sports (eg, basketball, soccer, football, ice hockey).

Cognitive rest

While physical rest is fairly straightforward, cognitive rest is more challenging. The concept of cognitive rest is hard to define and even harder to enforce. Patients are often told to minimize any activities that require attention or concentration. This often includes, but is not limited to, avoiding reading, texting, playing video games, and using computers.¹³

In the modern world, full avoidance of these activities is difficult and can be profoundly socially isolating. Further, complete cognitive rest may be associated with symptoms of its own.^15,16,20 Still, some reasonable limitation of cognitive activities, at least initially, is likely beneficial.²¹ For patients engaged in school or academic work, often the daily schedule needs to be adjusted and accommodations made to help them return to a full academic schedule and level of activity. It is reasonable to have patients return gradually to work or school rather than attempt to immediately return to their preinjury level.

With these interventions, most patients have full resolution of their symptoms and return to preinjury levels of performance.

TREATING SOMATIC SYMPTOMS

Posttraumatic headache

Posttraumatic headache is the most common sequela of concussion.²² Surprisingly, it is more common after concussion than after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury.²³ A prior history of headache, particularly migraine, is a known risk factor for development of posttraumatic headache.²⁴

Posttraumatic headache is usually further defined by headache type using the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria (www.ichd-3.org). Migraine or probable migraine is the most common type of posttraumatic headache; tension headache is less common.²⁵

Analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used initially by patients to treat posttraumatic headache. One study found that 70% of patients used acetaminophen or an NSAID.²⁶

Treating early with effective therapy is the most important tenet of posttraumatic headache treatment, since 80% of those who self-treat have incomplete relief, and almost all of them are using over-the-counter products.²⁷ Overuse of over-the-counter abortive medications can lead to medication overuse headache, also known as rebound headache, thus complicating the treatment of posttraumatic headache.²⁶

Earlier treatment with a preventive medication can often limit the need for and overuse of over-the-counter analgesics and can minimize the occurrence of subsequent medication overuse headache. However, in pediatric populations, nonpharmacologic interventions such as rest and sleep hygiene are typically used first, then medications after 4 to 6 weeks if this is ineffective.

A number of medications have been studied for prophylactic treatment of posttraumatic headache, including topiramate, amitriptyline, and divalproex sodium,^28–30 but there is little compelling evidence for use of one over the other. If posttraumatic headache is migrainous, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibtors, and gabapentin are other prophylactic medication options under the appropriate circumstances.^27,31,32 In adults, we have clinically had success with nortriptyline 20 mg or gabapentin 300 mg at night as an initial prophylactic headache medication, increasing as tolerated or until pain is controlled, though there are no high-quality data to guide this decision.

The ideal prophylactic medication depends on headache type, patient tolerance, comorbidities, allergies, and medication sensitivities. Gabapentin, amitriptyline, and nortriptyline can produce sedation, which can help those suffering from sleep disturbance.

If a provider is not comfortable prescribing these medications or doesn’t prescribe them regularly, the patient should be referred to a concussion or headache specialist more familiar with their use.

In some patients, even some athletes, headache may be related to a cervical strain injury—whiplash—that should be treated with an NSAID (or acetaminophen), perhaps with a short course of a muscle relaxant in adults, and with physical therapy.³²

Some patients have chronic headache despite oral medications.²⁶ Therefore, alternatives to oral medications and complementary therapies should be considered. Especially for protracted cases requiring more complicated headache management or injectable treatments, patients should be referred to a pain clinic, headache specialist, or concussion specialist.

Dizziness is also common after concussion. But what the patient means by dizziness requires a little probing. Some have paroxysms of vertigo. This typically represents a peripheral vestibular injury, usually benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. The latter can be elicited with a Hallpike maneuver and treated in the office with the Epley maneuver.³³

Usually, dizziness is a subjective sense of poor coordination, gait instability, or dysequilibrium. Patients may also complain of associated nausea and motion sensitivity. This may all be secondary to a mechanism in the middle or inner ear or the brain. Patients should be encouraged to begin movement—gradually and safely—to help the vestibular system accommodate, which it will do with gradual stimulation. It usually resolves spontaneously.

Specific treatment is unfortunately limited. There is no established benefit from vestibular suppressants such as meclizine. Vestibular rehabilitation may accelerate improvement and decrease symptoms.³³ Referral for a comprehensive balance assessment or to vestibular therapy (a subset of physical therapy) should be considered and is something we typically undertake in our clinic if there is no recovery from dizziness 4 to 6 weeks after the concussion.

Visual symptoms can contribute to dizziness. Convergence spasm or convergence insufficiency (both related to muscle spasm of the eye) can occur after concussion, with some studies estimating that up to 69% of patients have these symptoms.³⁴ This can interfere with visual tracking and contribute to a feeling of dysequilibrium.³⁴ Referral to a concussion specialist or vestibular rehabilitation physical therapist can be helpful in treating this issue if it does not resolve spontaneously.

Orthostasis and lightheadedness also contribute to dizziness and are associated with cerebrovascular autoregulation. Available data suggest that dysregulation of neurovascular coupling, cerebral vasoreactivity, and cerebral autoregulation contribute to some of the chronic symptoms of concussion, including dizziness. A gradual return to exercise may help regulate cerebral blood flow and improve this type of dizziness.³⁵

Sleep disturbance

Sleep disturbance is common after concussion, but the form is variable: insomnia, excessive daytime somnolence, and alteration of the sleep-wake cycle are all seen and may themselves affect recovery.³⁶

Sleep hygiene education should be the first intervention for postconcussive sleep issues. For example, the patient should be encouraged to do the following:

• Minimize “screen time” an hour before going to bed: cell phone, tablet, and computer screens emit a wavelength of light that suppresses endogenous melatonin release^37,38
• Go to bed and wake up at the same time each day
• Minimize or avoid caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol
• Avoid naps.³⁹

Melatonin is a safe and effective treatment that could be added.⁴⁰ In addition, some studies suggest that melatonin may improve recovery from traumatic brain injury.^41,42

Mild exercise (to below the threshold of causing or exacerbating symptoms) may also improve sleep quality.

Amitriptyline or nortriptyline may reduce headache frequency and intensity and also help treat insomnia.

Trazodone is recommended by some as a first-line agent,³⁹ but we usually reserve it for protracted insomnia refractory to the above treatments.

Benzodiazepines should be avoided, as they reduce arousal, impair cognition, and exacerbate motor impairments.⁴³

Emotional symptoms

Acute-onset anxiety or depression often occurs after concussion.^44,45 There is abundant evidence that emotional effects of injury may be the most significant factor in recovery.⁴⁶ A preinjury history of anxiety may be a prognostic factor.⁹ Patients with a history of anxiety or depression are more likely to develop emotional symptoms after a concussion, but emotional problems may develop in any patient after a concussion.^47,48

The circumstances under which an injury is sustained may be traumatic (eg, car accident, assault), leading to an acute stress reaction or disorder and, if untreated, may result in a more chronic condition—posttraumatic stress disorder. Moreover, the injury and subsequent symptoms may have repercussions in many aspects of the patient’s life, leading to further psychologic stress (eg, loss of wages or the inability to handle normal work, school, and family responsibilities).

Referral to a therapist trained in skills-based psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy, exposure-based treatment) is often helpful.

Pharmacologic treatment can be a useful adjunct. Several studies have shown that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants may improve depression after concussion.⁴⁹ The prescription of antidepressants, however, is best left to providers with experience in treating anxiety and depression.

As with sleep disorders after concussion, benzodiazepines should be avoided, as they can impair cognition.⁴³

Cognitive problems

Cognitive problems are also common after concussion. Patients complain about everyday experiences of forgetfulness, distractibility, loss of concentration, and mental fatigue. Although patients often subjectively perceive these symptoms as quite limiting, the impairments can be difficult to demonstrate in office testing.

A program of gradual increase in mental activity, parallel to recovery of physical capacity, should be undertaken. Most patients make a gradual recovery within a few weeks.⁵⁰

When cognitive symptoms cause significant school or vocational problems or become persistent, patients should be referred to a specialty clinic. As with most of the consequences of concussion, there are few established treatments. When cognitive difficulties persist, it is important to consider the complications of concussion mentioned above: headache, pain, sleep disturbance, and anxiety, all of which may cause subjective cognitive problems and are treatable.

If cognitive symptoms are prolonged despite improvement of other issues like headache and sleep disturbance, a low-dose stimulant medication such as amphetamine salts or methylphenidate may be useful for symptoms of poor attention.⁴⁹ They should be only a temporary measure after concussion to carry the patient through a cognitively challenging period, unless there was a history of attention-deficit disorder before the injury. A variety of other agents, including amantadine,⁵¹ have been proposed based on limited studies; all are off-label uses. Before considering these types of interventions, referral to a specialist or a specialty program would be appropriate.

With the interventions suggested above, most patients with concussion have a resolution of symptoms and can return to preinjury levels of performance. But some have prolonged symptoms and sequelae. Approximately 10% of athletes have persistent signs and symptoms of concussion beyond 2 weeks. If concussion is not sport-related, most patients recover completely within the first 3 months, but up to 33% may have symptoms beyond that.⁵²

Four types of patients have persistent symptoms:

Patients who sustained a high-force mechanism of injury. These patients simply need more time and accommodation.

Patients who sustained multiple concussions. These patients may also need more time and accommodation.

Patients with an underlying neurologic condition, recognized prior to injury or not, may have delayed or incomplete recovery. Even aging may be an “underlying condition” in concussion.

Patients whose symptoms from an apparently single mild concussion do not resolve despite appropriate treatments may have identifiable factors, but intractable pain (usually headache) or significant emotional disturbance or both are common. Once established and persistent, this is difficult to treat. Referral to a specialty practice is appropriate, but even in that setting effective treatment may be elusive.

PATIENT EDUCATION

Most important for patient education is reassurance. Ultimately, concussion is a self-limited phenomenon, and reinforcing this is helpful for patients. If concussion is not sport-related, most patients recover completely within 3 months.

The next important tenet in patient education is that they should rest for 3 to 5 days, then resume gradual physical and cognitive activities. If resuming activities too soon results in symptoms, then they should rest for a day and gradually resume activity. If their recovery is prolonged (ie, longer than 6 weeks), they likely need to be referred to a concussion specialist.

The VA is intent on reducing and preventing veteran deaths by suicide. Most veteran who die by suicide, however, did not get treatment from the VHA, emphasizing the need for improved outreach to those veterans who are not part of the VA health care system.

I will begin by reviewing some reasons why veterans do not go to the VHA or to other mental health treatment centers and how we can change that. I am well aware that the health care providers at the DoD and VHA—including myself—feel overwhelmed by the influx of patients already at their doorstep. Thus, many providers are ambivalent about bringing in more patients when timely access remains a challenge. However, it is critical to engage patients in care to try to improve their lives and, hopefully, bring down the suicide rate.

Another critical issue then is hiring additional clinical providers and administrative staff. More providers are essential for timely patient care. If phones are not answered and patients cannot make appointments, they become frustrated and give up, especially if they already are ambivalent about seeking treatment.  

Mental Health Service Experiences

Active-duty service members’ experience of the mental health service ranges from helpful to humiliating. Why is this? The helpful part is easy. The military has hundreds of finely trained professional mental health care providers who try their best to help the soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors recover from the stress of combat or from providing humanitarian assistance. They use up-to-date therapeutic techniques and medication.

At the humiliating end of the spectrum, many service members are sent to behavioral health for “clearance” before they are administratively separated, ie, discharged without benefits. The separation may be for a variety of administrative discharges, such as a personality disorder; other mental health or medical disorders; or less than honorable discharges. The labels of the discharge vary in the different services, but the disappointment remains.

If the service member is enrolled in a drug and alcohol program (eg, the Army Substance Alcohol Program), the standard is total abstinence. If a service member fails to achieve abstinence, he or she may be discharged without benefits. The denial of benefits is controversial but is still the standard. I recommend a harm reduction model, eg, less drinking or drug use, which may be more achievable in many cases.

The waiting room of a military mental health or behavioral health clinic usually is occupied with service members who are facing a variety of discharges from the military (considered “losers”). Sitting in a crowded waiting room, sometimes for hours, can be humiliating.

To be clear, the clinic experience is not always humiliating. At many Wounded Warrior clinics, the environment is more welcoming. For example, at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence and other specialty clinics, the atmosphere is much more therapeutic.

Significantly, the negative feelings from the routine military clinics often translate into reluctance to go to a mental health clinic at the VHA or elsewhere. To reduce the stigma, the military has switched from using the term mental health to behavioral health, but a name change does not really change the stigma.

Ending the Stigma

To reduce the stigma, DoD has deployed many public service announcements (PSAs). These often have positive messages, such as: It is a sign of strength to accept help; Being mentally injured is like having a broken leg; I am a 3-star general, I have PTSD, and I got help—you can too. Unfortunately, these messages do not resonate with many service members: They have seen many of their friends discharged after seeking mental health services (although that may not have been the actual reason for their discharge). Hoping for a promotion may lead to avoidance of care out of fear that treatment will lead to being passed over for promotion.

Reluctance

When service members come to the VA, it is often with a defeatist attitude. “My wife said I need to come, or she will divorce me.” “I cannot concentrate in school, and I am failing classes.” “My girlfriend threw me out, and I have no place to live.” There is an initial interview with a mental health provider—often after a long waiting period. Often the veteran does not return for a follow-up.

Unquestionably, psychiatric and psychological treatments benefit service members—but the treatments also have drawbacks. Psychiatric medications, although potentially helpful often cause weight gain and sexual adverse effects. Trauma-based therapies deliberately force service members to reexperience the trauma. Reliving the traumatic experience is inherently painful. Additionally, there may be practical concerns, such as getting to the clinic, traffic, and parking.

Solutions

So how do we engage the veteran? There are several well-established practices. I am a big supporter of all veteran outreach. The veteran service organizations (VSOs) are well established but traditionally appeal to older veterans. However, VSOs are working to reach younger veterans in the context of outreach or sporting activities. Peer outreach also works well with veterans in or out of the VA system connecting with their fellow veterans. I favor engaging veterans through baseball games, kayaking, picnics, and other athletic/social activities. These are nonthreatening ways to engage the veteran and his or her family. Using animals, especially dogs and horses, also is a good way to connect.

Clinical Strategies

When I treat veterans who are ambivalent—which the younger ones usually are—I ask where they live, then when or where did they serve, and what was their military occupational specialty. In other words, I ask them about their strengths.

Besides the standard depression and PTSD symptoms, I ask about sexual health, knowing that it often is a major concern. I describe the wide range of PTSD treatments, using the “3 buckets” model to describe them. The 3 buckets are psychiatric medication, talking therapies, and everything else. The last bucket includes exercise, yoga, meditation, animal-assisted therapies, and others, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and stellate ganglion block.

Veterans often are more comfortable with the last bucket, as it allows them more options. With this knowledge the service members have more tools, so they feel less helpless and more in charge of their health care.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why service members do not seek mental health care. Stigma is one that is often cited. Also, they often associate mental health treatment with humiliation. We have a duty to change that paradigm.

The VA is intent on reducing and preventing veteran deaths by suicide. Most veteran who die by suicide, however, did not get treatment from the VHA, emphasizing the need for improved outreach to those veterans who are not part of the VA health care system.

I will begin by reviewing some reasons why veterans do not go to the VHA or to other mental health treatment centers and how we can change that. I am well aware that the health care providers at the DoD and VHA—including myself—feel overwhelmed by the influx of patients already at their doorstep. Thus, many providers are ambivalent about bringing in more patients when timely access remains a challenge. However, it is critical to engage patients in care to try to improve their lives and, hopefully, bring down the suicide rate.

Another critical issue then is hiring additional clinical providers and administrative staff. More providers are essential for timely patient care. If phones are not answered and patients cannot make appointments, they become frustrated and give up, especially if they already are ambivalent about seeking treatment.  

Mental Health Service Experiences

Active-duty service members’ experience of the mental health service ranges from helpful to humiliating. Why is this? The helpful part is easy. The military has hundreds of finely trained professional mental health care providers who try their best to help the soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors recover from the stress of combat or from providing humanitarian assistance. They use up-to-date therapeutic techniques and medication.

At the humiliating end of the spectrum, many service members are sent to behavioral health for “clearance” before they are administratively separated, ie, discharged without benefits. The separation may be for a variety of administrative discharges, such as a personality disorder; other mental health or medical disorders; or less than honorable discharges. The labels of the discharge vary in the different services, but the disappointment remains.

If the service member is enrolled in a drug and alcohol program (eg, the Army Substance Alcohol Program), the standard is total abstinence. If a service member fails to achieve abstinence, he or she may be discharged without benefits. The denial of benefits is controversial but is still the standard. I recommend a harm reduction model, eg, less drinking or drug use, which may be more achievable in many cases.

The waiting room of a military mental health or behavioral health clinic usually is occupied with service members who are facing a variety of discharges from the military (considered “losers”). Sitting in a crowded waiting room, sometimes for hours, can be humiliating.

To be clear, the clinic experience is not always humiliating. At many Wounded Warrior clinics, the environment is more welcoming. For example, at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence and other specialty clinics, the atmosphere is much more therapeutic.

Significantly, the negative feelings from the routine military clinics often translate into reluctance to go to a mental health clinic at the VHA or elsewhere. To reduce the stigma, the military has switched from using the term mental health to behavioral health, but a name change does not really change the stigma.

Ending the Stigma

To reduce the stigma, DoD has deployed many public service announcements (PSAs). These often have positive messages, such as: It is a sign of strength to accept help; Being mentally injured is like having a broken leg; I am a 3-star general, I have PTSD, and I got help—you can too. Unfortunately, these messages do not resonate with many service members: They have seen many of their friends discharged after seeking mental health services (although that may not have been the actual reason for their discharge). Hoping for a promotion may lead to avoidance of care out of fear that treatment will lead to being passed over for promotion.

Reluctance

When service members come to the VA, it is often with a defeatist attitude. “My wife said I need to come, or she will divorce me.” “I cannot concentrate in school, and I am failing classes.” “My girlfriend threw me out, and I have no place to live.” There is an initial interview with a mental health provider—often after a long waiting period. Often the veteran does not return for a follow-up.

Unquestionably, psychiatric and psychological treatments benefit service members—but the treatments also have drawbacks. Psychiatric medications, although potentially helpful often cause weight gain and sexual adverse effects. Trauma-based therapies deliberately force service members to reexperience the trauma. Reliving the traumatic experience is inherently painful. Additionally, there may be practical concerns, such as getting to the clinic, traffic, and parking.

Solutions

So how do we engage the veteran? There are several well-established practices. I am a big supporter of all veteran outreach. The veteran service organizations (VSOs) are well established but traditionally appeal to older veterans. However, VSOs are working to reach younger veterans in the context of outreach or sporting activities. Peer outreach also works well with veterans in or out of the VA system connecting with their fellow veterans. I favor engaging veterans through baseball games, kayaking, picnics, and other athletic/social activities. These are nonthreatening ways to engage the veteran and his or her family. Using animals, especially dogs and horses, also is a good way to connect.

Clinical Strategies

When I treat veterans who are ambivalent—which the younger ones usually are—I ask where they live, then when or where did they serve, and what was their military occupational specialty. In other words, I ask them about their strengths.

Besides the standard depression and PTSD symptoms, I ask about sexual health, knowing that it often is a major concern. I describe the wide range of PTSD treatments, using the “3 buckets” model to describe them. The 3 buckets are psychiatric medication, talking therapies, and everything else. The last bucket includes exercise, yoga, meditation, animal-assisted therapies, and others, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and stellate ganglion block.

Veterans often are more comfortable with the last bucket, as it allows them more options. With this knowledge the service members have more tools, so they feel less helpless and more in charge of their health care.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why service members do not seek mental health care. Stigma is one that is often cited. Also, they often associate mental health treatment with humiliation. We have a duty to change that paradigm.

The VA is intent on reducing and preventing veteran deaths by suicide. Most veteran who die by suicide, however, did not get treatment from the VHA, emphasizing the need for improved outreach to those veterans who are not part of the VA health care system.

I will begin by reviewing some reasons why veterans do not go to the VHA or to other mental health treatment centers and how we can change that. I am well aware that the health care providers at the DoD and VHA—including myself—feel overwhelmed by the influx of patients already at their doorstep. Thus, many providers are ambivalent about bringing in more patients when timely access remains a challenge. However, it is critical to engage patients in care to try to improve their lives and, hopefully, bring down the suicide rate.

Another critical issue then is hiring additional clinical providers and administrative staff. More providers are essential for timely patient care. If phones are not answered and patients cannot make appointments, they become frustrated and give up, especially if they already are ambivalent about seeking treatment.  

Mental Health Service Experiences

Active-duty service members’ experience of the mental health service ranges from helpful to humiliating. Why is this? The helpful part is easy. The military has hundreds of finely trained professional mental health care providers who try their best to help the soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors recover from the stress of combat or from providing humanitarian assistance. They use up-to-date therapeutic techniques and medication.

At the humiliating end of the spectrum, many service members are sent to behavioral health for “clearance” before they are administratively separated, ie, discharged without benefits. The separation may be for a variety of administrative discharges, such as a personality disorder; other mental health or medical disorders; or less than honorable discharges. The labels of the discharge vary in the different services, but the disappointment remains.

If the service member is enrolled in a drug and alcohol program (eg, the Army Substance Alcohol Program), the standard is total abstinence. If a service member fails to achieve abstinence, he or she may be discharged without benefits. The denial of benefits is controversial but is still the standard. I recommend a harm reduction model, eg, less drinking or drug use, which may be more achievable in many cases.

The waiting room of a military mental health or behavioral health clinic usually is occupied with service members who are facing a variety of discharges from the military (considered “losers”). Sitting in a crowded waiting room, sometimes for hours, can be humiliating.

To be clear, the clinic experience is not always humiliating. At many Wounded Warrior clinics, the environment is more welcoming. For example, at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence and other specialty clinics, the atmosphere is much more therapeutic.

Significantly, the negative feelings from the routine military clinics often translate into reluctance to go to a mental health clinic at the VHA or elsewhere. To reduce the stigma, the military has switched from using the term mental health to behavioral health, but a name change does not really change the stigma.

Ending the Stigma

To reduce the stigma, DoD has deployed many public service announcements (PSAs). These often have positive messages, such as: It is a sign of strength to accept help; Being mentally injured is like having a broken leg; I am a 3-star general, I have PTSD, and I got help—you can too. Unfortunately, these messages do not resonate with many service members: They have seen many of their friends discharged after seeking mental health services (although that may not have been the actual reason for their discharge). Hoping for a promotion may lead to avoidance of care out of fear that treatment will lead to being passed over for promotion.

Reluctance

When service members come to the VA, it is often with a defeatist attitude. “My wife said I need to come, or she will divorce me.” “I cannot concentrate in school, and I am failing classes.” “My girlfriend threw me out, and I have no place to live.” There is an initial interview with a mental health provider—often after a long waiting period. Often the veteran does not return for a follow-up.

Unquestionably, psychiatric and psychological treatments benefit service members—but the treatments also have drawbacks. Psychiatric medications, although potentially helpful often cause weight gain and sexual adverse effects. Trauma-based therapies deliberately force service members to reexperience the trauma. Reliving the traumatic experience is inherently painful. Additionally, there may be practical concerns, such as getting to the clinic, traffic, and parking.

Solutions

So how do we engage the veteran? There are several well-established practices. I am a big supporter of all veteran outreach. The veteran service organizations (VSOs) are well established but traditionally appeal to older veterans. However, VSOs are working to reach younger veterans in the context of outreach or sporting activities. Peer outreach also works well with veterans in or out of the VA system connecting with their fellow veterans. I favor engaging veterans through baseball games, kayaking, picnics, and other athletic/social activities. These are nonthreatening ways to engage the veteran and his or her family. Using animals, especially dogs and horses, also is a good way to connect.

Clinical Strategies

When I treat veterans who are ambivalent—which the younger ones usually are—I ask where they live, then when or where did they serve, and what was their military occupational specialty. In other words, I ask them about their strengths.

Besides the standard depression and PTSD symptoms, I ask about sexual health, knowing that it often is a major concern. I describe the wide range of PTSD treatments, using the “3 buckets” model to describe them. The 3 buckets are psychiatric medication, talking therapies, and everything else. The last bucket includes exercise, yoga, meditation, animal-assisted therapies, and others, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and stellate ganglion block.

Veterans often are more comfortable with the last bucket, as it allows them more options. With this knowledge the service members have more tools, so they feel less helpless and more in charge of their health care.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why service members do not seek mental health care. Stigma is one that is often cited. Also, they often associate mental health treatment with humiliation. We have a duty to change that paradigm.

We well recall, back in the day, getting our “bell rung” from some form of sports-related head contact. If we could count the coach’s fingers clearly, run fast and straight, and know the plays, we could happily go back into the game. There was little additional thought given to short-term or lasting effects. I recall hearing tales from my grandfather, a boxing enthusiast, of retired punch-drunk fighters working as bouncers and greeters at sports-focused restaurants and clubs. I certainly didn’t draw any link to a few episodes of personally feeling spacey or dizzy after playing football.

But now, as parents, we are all highly tuned in to the issue of wrongly minimized “minor” head contact and concussion in our children playing sports. There is a growing research-based understanding of the mechanisms of concussion, which remains a clinical syndrome diagnosed on the basis of symptoms and sometimes subtle objective findings that occur in the appropriate environmental context. Intracranial brain impact sets the stage for locally spreading firing of neurons outside their usual pattern. This can result in a diffuse jamming of some normal electrochemical pathways of cognitive function, as well as create additional mismatch between neuronal metabolic needs and the local blood flow providing oxygen and nutrients. This disruption in autoregulation of blood flow sets the stage for enhanced brain sensitivity to any second injurious event, even a minimal one. Hence the aggressive implementation of enforced rest and recovery time for athletes and others with concussion.

It is critical to realize that the patient may not have had a loss of consciousness. Equally important is to consider the need for imaging and protection of patients who are not recovering as expected in 7 to 10 days, as well as for initial imaging of those with severe head impact or baseline neurologic disease, the aged, and those on anticoagulation.

We well recall, back in the day, getting our “bell rung” from some form of sports-related head contact. If we could count the coach’s fingers clearly, run fast and straight, and know the plays, we could happily go back into the game. There was little additional thought given to short-term or lasting effects. I recall hearing tales from my grandfather, a boxing enthusiast, of retired punch-drunk fighters working as bouncers and greeters at sports-focused restaurants and clubs. I certainly didn’t draw any link to a few episodes of personally feeling spacey or dizzy after playing football.

But now, as parents, we are all highly tuned in to the issue of wrongly minimized “minor” head contact and concussion in our children playing sports. There is a growing research-based understanding of the mechanisms of concussion, which remains a clinical syndrome diagnosed on the basis of symptoms and sometimes subtle objective findings that occur in the appropriate environmental context. Intracranial brain impact sets the stage for locally spreading firing of neurons outside their usual pattern. This can result in a diffuse jamming of some normal electrochemical pathways of cognitive function, as well as create additional mismatch between neuronal metabolic needs and the local blood flow providing oxygen and nutrients. This disruption in autoregulation of blood flow sets the stage for enhanced brain sensitivity to any second injurious event, even a minimal one. Hence the aggressive implementation of enforced rest and recovery time for athletes and others with concussion.

It is critical to realize that the patient may not have had a loss of consciousness. Equally important is to consider the need for imaging and protection of patients who are not recovering as expected in 7 to 10 days, as well as for initial imaging of those with severe head impact or baseline neurologic disease, the aged, and those on anticoagulation.

We well recall, back in the day, getting our “bell rung” from some form of sports-related head contact. If we could count the coach’s fingers clearly, run fast and straight, and know the plays, we could happily go back into the game. There was little additional thought given to short-term or lasting effects. I recall hearing tales from my grandfather, a boxing enthusiast, of retired punch-drunk fighters working as bouncers and greeters at sports-focused restaurants and clubs. I certainly didn’t draw any link to a few episodes of personally feeling spacey or dizzy after playing football.

But now, as parents, we are all highly tuned in to the issue of wrongly minimized “minor” head contact and concussion in our children playing sports. There is a growing research-based understanding of the mechanisms of concussion, which remains a clinical syndrome diagnosed on the basis of symptoms and sometimes subtle objective findings that occur in the appropriate environmental context. Intracranial brain impact sets the stage for locally spreading firing of neurons outside their usual pattern. This can result in a diffuse jamming of some normal electrochemical pathways of cognitive function, as well as create additional mismatch between neuronal metabolic needs and the local blood flow providing oxygen and nutrients. This disruption in autoregulation of blood flow sets the stage for enhanced brain sensitivity to any second injurious event, even a minimal one. Hence the aggressive implementation of enforced rest and recovery time for athletes and others with concussion.

It is critical to realize that the patient may not have had a loss of consciousness. Equally important is to consider the need for imaging and protection of patients who are not recovering as expected in 7 to 10 days, as well as for initial imaging of those with severe head impact or baseline neurologic disease, the aged, and those on anticoagulation.