Butterfield, Richard J

Abstract Objective Breast implant augmentation is the most common cosmetic surgical procedure performed in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with breast augmentation surgery are aware of the effect of breast implants on the mammographic detection of cancer. Methods An institutional review board exempt patient awareness survey was distributed at a single breast imaging facility to women undergoing screening mammography. Comparative statistical analyses were performed between patients with and without breast implants. Results The respondents were divided into three groups: no prior breast surgery (74%; 524/711), breast surgery with implants (21%; 152/711), and breast surgery without implants (5%; 35/711). Patients with breast implants were more aware that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (75%; 105/141) and that implants result in the need for more mammogram views (70%; 103/147), as compared with patients with no surgery (46%; 221/484 and 31%; 147/478, respectively) (P < 0.001). More women with breast implants reported learning from breast imaging staff rather than from their surgeon that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (46%; 49/106 vs. 38%; 40/106). Of 137 respondents, 35% (n = 48) reported that the effect of implants on their mammogram was discussed preoperatively. Of those who did not recall a preoperative discussion, 42% (16/38) indicated this knowledge would have factored into their decision to get breast implants. Conclusion This study highlights an opportunity for providers to engage in more education and shared decision-making with patients considering breast augmentation surgery to ensure preoperative counseling includes discussion of the effect of implants on mammography.

Objectives (1) To perform a systematic literature review to evaluate associations between post‐dural puncture headache (PDPH) and opening pressure (OP), closing pressure (CP), and volume of cerebrospinal fluid (V) removed. (2) To perform a case‐control study to evaluate pressure‐volume index (PVI) as a novel risk factor for PDPH. Background According to the International Classification of Headache Diagnoses, 3rd Edition (ICHD‐3), the diagnosis of PDPH requires documentation of intracranial hypotension. However, this remains an unproven concept. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted, searching Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid EMBASE, OVID MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. Study inclusion required a comparison of headache incidence following a LP as a function of OP, CP, and/or V. A retrospective, case‐control study with 1:1 matching was conducted utilizing ICHD‐3 criteria. Patients with factors that could influence CSF pressure were excluded. Results In our case‐control study, we did not identify a paired difference in either median (95% CI) elastance (0.05 [−0.09, 0.11], P = .503) or PVI (4.53 [−7.98, 19.97], P = .678). We identified 22 references, evaluating V (n = 14), OP (n = 11), and/or CP (n = 4). There was no convincing evidence for an association of PDPH with either OP or CP. A minority of studies documenting an association with V included patients with high‐volume CSF removal, and/or stratified patients by the timing of the headache onset. Conclusions The overall risk of PDPH does not appear to be influenced by OP, CP, V or PVI. PDPH may be related to V in instances of high‐volume removal, and depend on the timing of outcome assessment. Future revision of criteria should consider the existence of immediate and delayed PDPH subtypes, and not presume intracranial hypotension as a mandatory feature.

Abstract Background Guidelines to provide recommendations about driving restrictions for patients with brain metastases are lacking. We aim to determine whether clinical neurologic examination is sufficient to predict suitability to drive in these patients by comparison with an occupational therapy driving assessment (OTDA). Methods We prospectively evaluated the concordance between neurology assessment of suitability to drive (pass/fail) and OTDA in 41 individuals with brain metastases. Neuro-oncology evaluation included an interview and neurological examination. Participants subsequently underwent OTDA during which a battery of objective measures of visual, cognitive, and motor skills related to driving was administered. Results The mean age of patients who failed OTDA was age 68.9 years vs 59.3 years in the group members who passed (P = .0046). The sensitivity of the neurology assessment to predict driving fitness compared with OTDA was 16.1% and the specificity 90%. The 31 patients who failed OTDA were more likely to fail Vision Coach, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Trail Making B tests. Conclusions There was poor association between the assessment of suitability to drive by neurologists and the outcome of the OTDA in patients with brain metastases. Subtle deficits that may impair the ability to drive safely may not be evident on neurologic examination. The positive predictive value was high to predict OTDA failure. Age could be a factor affecting OTDA performance. The results raise questions about the choice of assessments in making recommendations about driving fitness in people with brain metastases. OTDA should be strongly considered in patients with brain metastases who wish to continue driving.