Citations

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? There is great variability in the utilization of partial nephrectomy, but the causes of these variations are not well understood. The present study underscores the already observed phenomenon of surgical volume influencing surgical planning and outcomes, but it gets at why this might be so. We observe that high‐volume renal surgeons have different thresholds of ‘technical feasibility’. Objective To investigate why there continues to be wide variability in the application of partial nephrectomy ( PN ) for treating small renal masses despite guidelines in the US and E urope stating that a PN is a standard of care for a patient with a T 1 renal mass. Patients and Methods In June 2009, 764 surgeon‐members of the A merican U rologic A ssociation ( AUA ) participated in a survey evaluating the management of renal masses. Renal mass complexity was graded by nephrometry score ( NS ). Multivariable logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were constructed to evaluate how tumour, surgeon and practice‐setting characteristics influence the use of PN . Results The survey response rate was 19%. Each urological surgeon responded to eight scenarios, providing 6112 evaluable cases. Tumour NS ranged from 4 to 10, and each unit increase in NS was associated with 59% increased likelihood of a surgeon offering RN on multivariable analysis (odds ratio [ OR ] = 1.59; 95% CI : 1.52–1.64). When holding patient and tumour characteristics constant, the following surgeon and practice‐setting characteristics significantly increased the odds of offering a PN: increasing renal case volume ( OR = 1.57; 95% CI : 1.27–1.95), academic practice ( OR = 1.80; 95% CI : 1.42–2.29), increasing PN % volume ( OR = 3.7; 95% CI : 2.46–5.55) and younger surgeon age (≤40 vs >50 years) ( OR = 1.64; 95% CI : 1.35–1.96). Conclusion The characteristics of a surgeon and the setting in which he or she practices influence the utilization of PN , the adherence to professional guidelines, and the threshold of tumour complexity at which a surgeon stops offering PN .

Objective Sudden hearing loss (SHL) is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a physician. This guideline provides evidence‐based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow‐up of patients who present with SHL. The guideline primarily focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) in adult patients (aged 18 and older). Prompt recognition and management of SSNHL may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life (QOL). Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 20 per 100,000 population, with about 4000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with SHL. Purpose The purpose of this guideline is to provide clinicians with evidence‐based recommendations in evaluating patients with SHL, with particular emphasis on managing SSNHL. The panel recognized that patients enter the health care system with SHL as a nonspecific, primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of the guideline deal with efficiently distinguishing SSNHL from other causes of SHL at the time of presentation. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, the guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. Results The panel made strong recommendations that clinicians should (1) distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss in a patient presenting with SHL; (2) educate patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy; and (3) counsel patients with incomplete recovery of hearing about the possible benefits of amplification and hearing‐assistive technology and other supportive measures. The panel made recommendations that clinicians should (1) assess patients with presumptive SSNHL for bilateral SHL, recurrent episodes of SHL, or focal neurologic findings; (2) diagnose presumptive ISSNHL if audiometry confirms a 30‐dB hearing loss at 3 consecutive frequencies and an underlying condition cannot be identified by history and physical examination; (3) evaluate patients with ISSNHL for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining magnetic resonance imaging, auditory brainstem response, or audiometric follow‐up; (4) offer intratympanic steroid perfusion when patients have incomplete recovery from ISSNHL after failure of initial management; and (5) obtain follow‐up audiometric evaluation within 6 months of diagnosis for patients with ISSNHL. The panel offered as options that clinicians may offer (1) corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with ISSNHL and (2) hyperbaric oxygen therapy within 3 months of diagnosis of ISSNHL. The panel made a recommendation against clinicians routinely prescribing antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, vasoactive substances, or antioxidants to patients with ISSNHL. The panel made strong recommendations against clinicians (1) ordering computerized tomography of the head/brain in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive SSNHL and (2) obtaining routine laboratory tests in patients with ISSNHL.

OBJECTIVE To test whether diabetic polyneuropathies (DPNs), retinopathy, or nephropathy is more prevalent in subjects with impaired glycemia (IG) (abnormality of impaired fasting glucose [IFG], impaired glucose tolerance [IGT], or impaired HbA1c [IA1C]) than in healthy subjects (non-IG). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Matched IG and non-IG volunteers were randomly identified from population-based diagnostic and laboratory registries, restudied, and reclassified as non-IG (n = 150), IG (n = 174), or new diabetes (n = 218). RESULTS Frequency (%) of DPN in non-IG, IG, and new diabetes was 3 (2.0%), 3 (1.7%), and 17 (7.8%) narrowly defined (no other cause for polyneuropathy) and 19 (12.7%), 22 (12.6%), and 38 (17.4%) broadly defined. Mean and frequency distribution of composite scores of nerve conduction and quantitative sensation tests were not significantly different between IG and non-IG but were worse in new diabetes. Frequency of retinopathy and nephropathy was significantly increased only in new diabetes. In secondary analysis, small but significant increases in retinopathy and nephropathy were found in IGT, IFG, and IGT combined groups. CONCLUSIONS In population studies of Olmsted County, Minnesota, inhabitants, prevalence of typical DPN, retinopathy, and nephropathy was significantly increased only in subjects with new diabetes—not in subjects with IG as defined by American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria of abnormality of IFG, IGT, or IA1C. For atypical DPN, such an increase was not observed even in subjects with new diabetes. In medical practice, explanations other than IG should be sought for patients with atypical DPN (chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy) who have IG.