ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2024
Assessing Public-Reported Perceptions of Low-Risk Hand Surgery Provided in the Office Versus an Ambulatory Surgery Center: Survey Study.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: There is growing evidence for the safety of wide-awake, office-based, low-risk hand surgery. However, there is limited insight into patient receptiveness to these procedures. Here, we evaluate the public perceptions and degree of tolerance of low-risk, office-based hand surgery. Methods: A prospective study was performed using a 26-question, paid survey via a clinically validated, public, online marketplace. Participants were divided based on (pre-education) perceptions of in-office hand surgery into three cohorts as follows: in-office surgery (IOS), no in-office surgery, or no preference (NP). Educational material was then presented comparing three surgical settings and anesthetic types. Then, participants selected their setting/anesthetic preferences for the following four procedures: trigger finger release, cyst excision, carpal tunnel release, and distal radius fracture. Statistical analyses with unpaired Results: There were 509 respondents-266 in the IOS group, 104 in the no in-office surgery group, and 139 in the NP group. Previous outpatient surgery was most frequent in the IOS cohort. In-office surgery and NP cohorts were more likely to believe that surgical procedures could be performed in the clinic setting. The remaining demographics were similar across cohorts. After reviewing the education graphic, 50 of the 139 in the NP group switched to prefer IOS. For procedure-specific questioning, 40.6% (207/509) were amenable to in-office trigger finger release and 58.3% (297/509) for cyst excision, unlike more invasive procedures (carpal tunnel release: 25.6% (130/509); distal radius fracture: 9.8% (50/509). The most influential factors determining surgical location were comfort during the procedure and total encounter time. The IOS group favored location to be at the surgeon's discretion more than the no in-office surgery group. Conclusions: In-office, low-risk, hand surgery appears desirable to select patients. If presented with the option for in-office trigger finger release or cyst excision, approximately 40.6% (207/509) and 58.3% (297/509), respectively, may be amenable to IOS. Type of study/level of evidence: Prospective IB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.