Citations

ObjectiveThe objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis.MethodsThe Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation.ResultsWe present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response.ConclusionThis guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

AbstractEndoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is recommended for the management of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and intramucosal adenocarcinoma. Both radiofrequency (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) can induce complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM). We aimed to compare long-term durability following CRIM in patients treated with RFA vs. CBA.We conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyze patient outcomes following EET with RFA or CBA at two referral centers. We measured and compared the recurrence rate of BE, with or without dysplasia, after CRIM, using Cox proportional hazard models and propensity score-matched analyses. Our secondary aim was to identify predictors of recurrence.681 patients who achieved CRIM were included (RFA 610; CBA 71), with median follow-up of 4.1 years and 4.4 years following RFA and CBA, respectively. A multivariable model revealed a higher risk of any recurrence with RFA (hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95%CI 1.18–4.06; P = 0.01), but not dysplastic recurrence (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.39–1.97; P = 0.75). However, a comparable risk of “any recurrence” was observed after excluding intestinal metaplasia of the gastroesophageal junction (HR 1.18, 95%CI 0.61–2.30; P = 0.62). Propensity score-matched analysis (54 cases in each group) showed that the two groups had comparable recurrence risk. Baseline maximum BE length was associated with a higher risk of any recurrence (HR 1.07; P<0.001) and dysplastic recurrence (HR 1.11; P = 0.001).The rates of any BE recurrence and dysplastic recurrence were comparable with the two modalities in this nonrandomized study.

Context: There is need for an up-to-date comprehensive review of baseball interval throwing programs in the literature. Objective: To (1) understand the origin and basis of interval throwing programs; (2) evaluate the content of programs in the peer-reviewed literature including target audience, initiation criteria, throwing specifics, arm care, and performance evaluation metrics; (3) classify these variables as well defined, ambiguous, or missing; and (4) analyze variability in key aspects including starting criteria, length, progression, and completion criteria. Data Sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus Study Selection: The full text of studies, in English, had to be available. Included studies had to contain a complete interval throwing program designed for baseball players. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Initial screening was conducted based on article title and abstract. Full text of the remaining articles was evaluated for fulfillment of inclusion criteria. Results: Nine studies initially met inclusion criteria. The programs’ comprehensiveness was poor, with a mean Interval Throwing Program Checklist score of 20 (range 14-23) on a scale of 0 to 30. There were a variety of components, including progressive long toss, weighted ball, and throwing mechanics exercises. The programs identified had significant heterogeneity in duration, intensity, progression, and focus. Overall, there was a significant lack of attempts at validation or formal study of efficacy for published throwing programs. Conclusion: Current published interval throwing programs are mostly variations of an original program published many years ago and were based on principles of progressive loading with pain as sign of injury that should be monitored carefully. However, these programs have minimal clinical validation and objective measures to quantify their effectiveness. This work identifies several limitations in the current literature and can serve as a foundation for future development of evidence-based interval throwing programs.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus (BE) increases with advancing degrees of dysplasia. There is a critical need to improve the diagnosis of BE dysplasia, given substantial interobserver variability and overcalls of dysplasia during manual community pathologist reads. We aimed to externally validate a previously cross-validated BE dysplasia diagnosis deep learning model (BEDDLM) that predicts dysplasia grade on whole slide images (WSIs). METHODS: We digitized nondysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade (LGD), and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) histology slides from 3 external academic centers. A consensus read by 2 expert study pathologists was used as the criterion standard. Slide stain characteristics were normalized using cycle-generative adversarial networks. WSIs were assessed by BEDDLM using an ensemble approach, combining a “You Only Look Once” model followed by a ResNet101 classifier model. RESULTS: We included 489 WSIs. Consensus histopathology revealed 232 NDBE, 117 LGD, and 140 HGD WSIs. The mean age (SD) was 66.9 (11.4) years; 413 (84.7%) were men. Using the BEDDLM ensemble model, sensitivity and specificity for NDBE were 73.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.09%–78.85%) and 93.4% (95% CI: 89.62%–96.10%); for LGD, 84.6% (95% CI: 76.78%–90.62%) and 80.6% (95% CI: 76.26%–84.54%); and for HGD, 80.7% (95% CI: 73.19%–86.89%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 91.97%–96.91%), respectively. The F1 score was 0.81, 0 0.69, and 0.83 for NDBE, LGD, and HGD, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our externally validated deep learning model demonstrates substantial accuracy for the diagnosis of BE dysplasia grade on WSIs.

Study Design Systematic Review. Objective To assess the current literature regarding the accuracy of different imaging modalities and criteria used to assess lumbar fusion, and their correlation with surgical direct observation as the current Gold Standard. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, studies were included if they focused on patients with a prior history of lumbar interbody fusion and at least 1 year of radiographic follow-up. The review assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of different imaging techniques, and their correlation with surgical findings. Results Thirteen studies (1989-2019) were reviewed, including 715 patients, common imaging modalities included plain radiographs (53.8%), Computed Tomography (CT) (69.2%), and dynamic radiographs (30.7%). CT appeared as the most utilized modality post-2006. There was substantial variability in diagnostic accuracy, with CT showing high variability in sensitivity and specificity. Descriptive criteria for fusion were widely used, but interobserver agreement was generally low. Conclusion The review highlights a lack of standardized criteria for assessing lumbar fusion. Despite advancements in imaging techniques, the variability in diagnostic parameters suggests a need for consensus and multicentric studies to stablish reliable, universal criteria for evaluating fusion success.

Abstract Introduction: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is a complex procedure historically requiring inpatient stay. There is increased emphasis for these to be performed on an outpatient basis by insurance companies. The purpose of this study was to investigate the proportion of various surgical listing classifications (outpatient, outpatient-overnight, inpatient), the incidence of subsequent denial/request for additional documentation for approval of inpatient stay, and to characterize the average length of stay (LOS) following PAO. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify all PAOs, performed by four participating surgeons, at a single academic institution over a two-year period. The initial listing status as an outpatient-overnight or inpatient procedure was identified. Whether a preoperative peer review was required for approval of inpatient listings as well as if additional documentation was necessary to convert outpatient-overnight listings to inpatient stays were also recorded. Results: A total of 140 PAOs amongst 117 patients were performed with 25 (17.9%) initially listed as an inpatient stay and 115 (82.1%) listed as outpatient-overnight. Of the 25 PAOs listed as inpatient, 2 (8.0%) required a preoperative peer review process to justify or clarify listing status. The average LOS was 1.9 ± 1.4 days with 55.7% (78/140) of PAOs staying two or more nights in the hospital. Only 6 PAOs (4.3%) went home the same day as surgery. Of the 115 PAOs listed as an outpatient-overnight, 53 (46.1%) converted to an inpatient stay. Conclusion: Over half of PAOs performed required inpatient stay beyond outpatient-overnight status. Preoperative peer-to-peer review for inpatient stay approval was modestly frequent (8% of inpatient listings), and all conversions to inpatient required additional service documentation to support status conversion. Understanding trends in postoperative hospitalizations and LOS might allow for better informed partnerships between surgeons and insurance companies creating more efficient pre-authorizations, billing practices, and expected patterns of patient care and discharge.

Abstract Background: Osteochondral allograft and autograft transplantation for femoral head defects have emerged as promising treatments for concomitant cartilage and subchondral bone injuries in young patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent osteochondral allograft or autograft transplantation for femoral head defects and access any risk factors that may lead to conversion to THA. Methods: All patients who underwent osteochondral allograft or autograft transplantation for femoral head defects were analyzed. All patients had symptomatic femoral head osteochondral defects identifiable on advanced imaging such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical outcomes were assessed at final follow-up with the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score – Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score – Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12). Additionally, patients were assessed radiographically preoperatively and at a final postoperative visit using anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs for osteoarthritis using Tönnis grading. Results: A total of 27 patients were included in this study (19 osteochondral allograft transplantation, 8 osteochondral autograft transplantation). The overall mean follow-up was 4.7 years. The average mHHS, HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12 for the allograft cohort were 86.7, 92.8, 81.4, and 79.0, respectively, while for the autograft cohort it was 87.6, 92.7, 83.1, and 82.0, respectively. For the allograft cohort, there were a total of 5 reoperations (26.3%) consisting of 4 THA at a mean of 1.9 years and 1 trochanteric osteotomy nonunion at 0.7 year. For the remaining allograft patients who did not undergo treatment failure, only one (6.7%) had radiographic osteoarthritis progression. None of the patients in the autograft cohort underwent THA. Overall, conversion to THA was 14.8%. Conclusion: Osteochondral allograft and autograft transplantation for femoral head defects demonstrated overall favorable clinical outcomes and conversion to THA at mean 5-year follow-up and should be considered for patients with focal femoral head defects.

Objective The objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Methods The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.