Biomedical subjects

Barnaby Reeves

Publications and source records attributed to Barnaby Reeves.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Health-related quality of life after polypectomy with and without additional surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the health-related quality of life of patients undergoing simple polypectomy with that of patients undergoing polypectomy with additional surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study of adults undergoing sinonasal surgery. METHODS: Eight hundred forty-four patients received simple polypectomy and 1,004 patients received polypectomy with additional surgery. Health-related quality of life was compared at 12 and 36 months after surgery using the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Total SNOT-22 scores may range from zero to 110 with lower scores representing better outcomes. We used linear regression to adjust postoperative SNOT-22 scores for baseline characteristics. When comparing the difference between the two surgical techniques, positive SNOT-22 scores represent a better outcome for those undergoing additional surgery. RESULTS: There were only small differences between the two groups at 12 months (difference in SNOT-22 -0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-2.3-1.3; P=.58) and 36 months after surgery (difference -2.1; 95% CI=-4.4-0.2; P=.08). The additional surgery group had a slightly higher risk of excessive perioperative bleeding (8.6% vs. 6.0%; P=.04) but a slightly lower risk of revision surgery within 36 months (10.4% vs. 13.3%; P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal polypectomy with additional surgery seems to have no benefit over simple polypectomy in terms of health-related quality of life improvement for patients with nasal polyposis.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Radial versus right internal thoracic artery as a second arterial conduit for coronary surgery: early and midterm outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare early and midterm clinical outcomes in patients receiving a right internal thoracic artery or a radial artery as the second arterial conduit for myocardial revascularization. METHODS: Data prospectively collected for all patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery between April 1996 and May 2001 and who received both a left internal thoracic artery graft and either a right internal thoracic artery (n = 336) or a radial artery graft (n = 325) were analyzed. Patients in the radial artery group were older, with a greater body mass index, poorer ejection fraction, greater prevalence of diabetes, and higher New York Heart Association class than those in the right internal thoracic artery group. RESULTS: Odds ratios for perioperative myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, postoperative transfusion, and intensive care unit stay all showed a statistically significant benefit in the radial artery group compared with results in the right internal thoracic artery group (P <or=.05). Survival estimates at 18 months for patients who received right internal thoracic artery and radial artery grafts were 98.4% and 99.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-1.10; P =.07). Estimates for survival free from any cardiac-related event or death in the right internal thoracic artery and radial artery groups were 92.3% and 97.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.84; P =.02). A multivariate Cox regression model showed a stronger protective effect of a radial artery graft (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.51; P <.0001). CONCLUSION: Early and midterm outcomes of myocardial revascularization with 2 arterial grafts are better if the radial artery is used for the second graft rather than the right internal thoracic artery, assuming that the left internal thoracic artery is used for the first arterial graft.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are accepted as the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of clinical interventions but are rarely reported in pediatric surgery. Have RCTs submitted to the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) Annual Congress during the last 5 years been adequately designed and large enough to produce a valid result? METHODS: Abstracts accepted by the Annual BAPS Congress meetings between 1996 and 2000 were examined in collaboration with a senior health services researcher. The quality of the design, methodology, statistical analysis and conclusions, and the adequacy of the sample size were assessed for all identifiable clinical RCTs. RESULTS: From 760 accepted abstracts, there were only 9 RCTs (1%) of clinical interventions. In only 4 trials was the relevant primary end-point specified at the outset of the study, and none documented the method of randomization. Only one abstract mentioned blinding with respect to the intervention or outcome measure. Sample sizes were inadequate to detect even large clinical differences. To date, only one of these RCTs has been published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: Clear guidelines exist for the conduct of RCTs, yet compliance with these standards was rarely documented in abstracts of pediatric surgical RCTs presented at BAPS. Sample sizes were inadequate. RCTs in pediatric surgery are difficult to perform, but the specialty would benefit from well-designed, carefully conducted, multicentre, clinical RCTs to advance evidence-based practice.

Bibliometrics↗

PubMed2002

Does waiting for total hip replacement matter? Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact on the outcome of total hip replacement of the length of timing spent waiting for surgery. METHODS: One hundred and forty-three orthopaedic and general hospitals provided information about aspects of surgical practice for each total hip replacement conducted between September 1996 and October 1997 for publicly and privately funded operations in five English health regions. These data were linked to patient information about hip-related pain and disability status (measured using the Oxford Hip Score) before operation and at 3 and 12 months after. Data were analysed using multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by surgeons for 10,410 (78%) patients treated during the recruitment period and by 7151 (54%) patients. Twelve months after total hip replacement, the majority of patients experienced substantial improvements in hip-related pain and disability (as measured by the Oxford Hip Score). Those patients who started with a worse Oxford Hip Score before the operation tended to remain worse after the operation. Worse pre-operative score was associated with an increased length of either outpatient or inpatient wait, and this trend remained after the operation. The relationship between waiting time and outcome remained after adjustment for possible confounding variables. A consistently worse score was observed in public compared with private patients at all three time-points. In addition, in both sectors, those patients who were socially disadvantaged had a worse score than more socially advantaged patients both before and after the operation. CONCLUSIONS: Waiting for surgery is associated with worse outcomes 12 months later. Longer-term outcome needs to be considered to see if this association persists.

Activities of Daily Living↗