Avanos Medical, Inc. is a medical technology company making clinical medical devices. The company consists of two franchises – Pain Management and Chronic Care – that address reducing the use of opioids while helping patients recover faster and preventing infection.
Introduction Preclinical research demonstrated water-cooled radiofrequency (CRF) ablations have a significant impact on structural and functional changes compared to standard radiofrequency (SRF) ablations. Clinical procedures utilizing RF to treat chronic pain conditions also show sustained functional outcomes. We hypothesize that the design of the RF probes plays an important role in interventional procedure success, but it remains unclear which specific design features. Methods RF ablations were performed in male Lewis rats (n=51) using multiple-sized probes for CRF (17 Ga/2 mm and 17Ga/4 mm) and SRF (22Ga/5 mm, 18Ga/10 mm and 16Ga/10 mm) to evaluate generator energy output, lesion length, axon damage by histology and nerve function analysis via electromyography. To exclude probe design variables beyond size and remain objective, we tested cooled probes with and without water circulation, which resulted in the CRF probe performing like an SRF probe. Results Consistent with our previous findings in smaller probes, CRF large probes delivered more energy (p<0.01) and generated multiple zones of thermal damage in sciatic nerves. When the water-circulating feature was turned off, however, energy output (p<0.001) and lesion length (p<0.05) was significantly reduced. CRF probes with the water circulation also featured significantly more axonal disruption, than larger sized SRF probes (p<0.0001). Conclusions Overall, this data confirms that CRF’s water-circulating technology has a greater impact on energy deposition, lesion length and axon damage compared with SRF ablations. Moreover, results suggest that the structural differences between RF modalities cannot be solely attributed to probe size, and it may shed light on its differences in clinical outcomes.
Provision of enteral nutrition (EN) in hospitalized patients is an integral part of clinical care. For various reasons, including but not limited to delayed enteral access placement and EN initiation, it is becoming more prevalent for registered dietitians (RDs) to place feeding tubes in various clinical settings. Although numerous RDs have expanded their practice by learning this skill, many remain hesitant about adding feeding tube placement to their scope of responsibilities. Feeding tube placement is within RDs' scope of practice. The recently updated Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND) standards is requiring dietetic interns to learn the process and assist in placing feeding tubes. This will help promote the inclusion of this practice and open doors for future advancement in the scope of practice for RDs. This review will provide an overview of feeding tube placement methods, evidence-based techniques, training, competencies, and barriers to accepting this practice in dietetics.
Background Effective symptom control in painful knee osteoarthritis (OA) may improve patient quality of life. In a randomised crossover trial (NCT03381248), COOLIEF* cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) reduced pain and stiffness and improved physical function and quality of life compared with intra-articular hyaluronan (HA) injections. The present study aimed to establish the cost effectiveness of CRFA versus intra-articular HA injections for treating moderate-to-severe OA knee pain from a US Medicare perspective. Methods We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using utility data (EQ-5D) from the randomised crossover trial of CRFA versus intra-articular HA injections, which had follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients in the HA group with unsatisfactory outcomes (e.g., continued pain) at 6 months could cross over to CRFA. Economic analysis outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost effectiveness (cost per QALY gained). Base-case analyses were modelled on a 6-month time horizon (to trial crossover). Due to limited trial data in the HA arm beyond 6 months, scenarios explored potential outcomes to 12 months if: 1) Utility with HA persisted for a further 6 months; 2) A second HA injection was received at 6 months and achieved the same utility change for the second 6 months. In both scenarios, the CRFA arm used trial data for patients who received CRFA from baseline to 12 months. Alternative costing scenarios were also explored. Results CRFA resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.020 at an incremental cost of US$1707, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$84,392 per QALY over 6 months, versus intra-articular HA injections. Extending the analysis to 12 months and assuming persistence in utility in the HA arm resulted in a larger utility gain for CRFA (0.056 QALYs) and a lower ICER of US$30,275 per QALY. If patients received a second HA injection, the incremental benefit of CRFA out to 12 months was reduced (QALY gain 0.043) but was offset by the costs of the second HA injection (incremental cost US$832). This resulted in an ICER of US$19,316 per QALY. Conclusions CRFA is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with OA-related knee pain considering the typical US threshold of US$100,000/QALY.
BACKGROUND:Wearables, as small portable computer systems worn on the body, can track user fitness and health data, which can be used to customize health insurance contributions individually. In particular, insured individuals with a healthy lifestyle can receive a reduction of their contributions to be paid. However, this potential is hardly used in practice.OBJECTIVE:This study aims to identify which barrier factors impede the usage of wearables for assessing individual risk scores for health insurances, despite its technological feasibility, and to rank these barriers according to their relevance.METHODS:To reach these goals, we conduct a ranking-type Delphi study with the following three stages. First, we collected possible barrier factors from a panel of 16 experts and consolidated them to a list of 11 barrier categories. Second, the panel was asked to rank them regarding their relevance. Third, to enhance the panel consensus, the ranking was revealed to the experts, who were then asked to re-rank the barriers.RESULTS:The results suggest that regulation is the most important barrier. Other relevant barriers are false or inaccurate measurements and application errors caused by the users. Additionally, insurers could lack the required technological competence to use the wearable data appropriately.CONCLUSION:A wider use of wearables and health apps could be achieved through regulatory modifications, especially regarding privacy issues. Even after assuring stricter regulations, users' privacy concerns could partly remain, if the data exchange between wearables manufacturers, health app providers, and health insurers does not become more transparent.
