Filipini J, Bianchi G, Rey R

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 103-106
PDF size: 142.79 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Therapeutic decision-making is a complex process in which multiple variables must be considered. There is a growing trend towards surgical indication, although scientific evidence is not always blunt. Understanding how surgeons make decisions can improve our understanding of treatment variability; Objectives: To expose the demographic situation of osteoarticular injuries in orthopedic surgeons in Uruguay and how they deal with their own injury and identify those variables that influence therapeutic decision-making in the orthopedist. Material and methods: Using the Uruguayan Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology database, residents and surgeons who had at least one osteoarticular injury were identified. Each of the selected ones was interviewed by telephone, obtaining the variables of interest. Results: In a total of 274 residents and Orthopedic surgeons, we include 56 professionals and 69 osteoarticular injuries. We highlight the existence of multiple injuries of controversial treatment, according to current scientific evidence. The surgeon did not always indicate the same treatment to himself, in respect of the one that would indicate a patient with the same injury. Fear of complications, rapid job reimbursement, opinion of an expert colleague, among others were some of the variables found in the therapeutic decision. Conclusions: When the lesion settles on the surgeon itself, a different action was observed with respect to a patient with equal injury.

REFERENCES

1. Pera M. Variability in surgical practice. An unresolved problem. Cir Esp. 2017; 95(2): 59-61.

2. Teunis T. Do orthopaedic surgeons acknowledge uncertainty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474(6): 1360-9.

3. Meunier A. Risk preferences and attitudes to surgery in decision making. Acta Orthop. 2017; 88(5): 466-71.

4. Janssen SJ. Do surgeons treat their patients like they would treat themselves? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(11): 3564-72.

5. Kirkpatrick JN. Golden rule reasoning in clinical medicine: theoretical and empirical aspects. J Clin Ethics. 2004; 15: 250-60.

6. Guthrie D. A history of medicine. Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, London; 1945.

7. Abdelghany M. Historical descriptions of physicians’ personal pathologies. Int Orthop. 2015; 39(5): 1027-30.

8. Arora R. A prospective randomized trial comparing nonoperative treatment with volar locking plate fixation for displaced and unstable distal radial fractures in patients sixty- five years of age and older. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(23): 2146-53.

9. Robinson CM. Open reduction and plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(17): 1576-84.

10. Sihvonen R. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(26): 2515-24.

11. Rangan A. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015; 313(10): 1037-47.

12. Thorlund JB. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee: systematic review and metaanalysis of benefits and harms. BMJ. 2015; 350: h2747.

13. Kise NJ. Exercise therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for degenerative meniscal tear in middle aged patients: randomised controlled trial with two-year follow-up. BMJ. 2016; 354: i3740.

14. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005; 294: 218-28.

15. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8): e124.

16. Bruinsma WE. How prevalent are hazardous attitudes among orthopaedic surgeons? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(5): 1582-9.

17. Kadzielski J, et al. Surgeons’ attitudes are associated with reoperation and readmission rates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(5): 1544-51.

18. Quill TE. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125: 763-9.

19. Gurmankin AD. The role of physicians’ recommendations in medical treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2002; 22: 262-71.

20. Kray L. Differential weighting in choice versus advice: I’ll do this, you do that. J Behav Decis Making. 1999; 12(3): 207-17.

21. Makela KT. Geographical variation in incidence of primary total hip arthroplasty: a population-based analysis of 34,642 replacements. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010; 130: 633-9.

22. Ubel PA. Physicians recommend different treatments for patients than they would choose for themselves. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 630-4.

23. Jonas E. Giving advice or making decisions in someone else’s place: the influence of impression, defense, and accuracy motivation on the search for new information. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005; 31: 977-990.

24. Verra WC. The reason why orthopaedic surgeons perform total knee replacement: results of a randomised study using case vignettes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24(8): 2697-703.

25. Vranceanu AM. Integrating patient values into evidence-based practice: effective communication for shared decision-making. Hand Clin. 2009; 25: 83-96.

26. Stacey D. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 1: CD001431.

27. Bozic KJ. Shared decision making in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95: 1633-9.

28. Knops AM. Decision aids for patients facing a surgical treatment decision: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Ann Surg. 2013; 257: 860-6.